Life of Pi (2012)

4.9/5

The film adaptation of Yann Martel's Life of Pi is one of Ang Lee's best films, and probably my personal favorite. The film hews closely to the book, giving us a story wrapped within a story. We are introduced to Pi (Khan) as he prepares a meal for his guest, a young writer (Spall) who has come to hear about Pi's miraculous tale. After a younger Pi (Sharma) gets shipwrecked while traveling to America, he somehow survives on a lifeboat alone with a tiger named Richard Parker. The writer has been told that the story will make you believe in God, although he has his doubts. But the more Pi recounts, the more we are drawn into his most unbelievable and incredible story.

I found the first 30 minutes of exposition intriguing but not quite fascinating enough given its lack of plot. After the freighter sinks, however, we are completely immersed in the story. And we let the movie take over. The special effects are without equal. I honestly had no idea how any of the scenes were filmed, what was CGI and what was real. Except for two shots with noticeable letterboxing (once vertically and once horizontally), every frame was a beautiful image to enjoy. And the 3D was used to perfection. There is one scene, one brief moment, that brings to mind the joy and exhilaration at the heart of movies, ever since the first film by the Lumière brothers. Everyone in the audience jumped out of their seats.

Irfan Khan is an exquisite actor; his performance is undeniably tender and moving. The rest of the cast, however, was not as impressive. But Khan is the heart of the story, and his telling is what's most important. Since seeing this movie, I have spent many nights pondering its meaning. It encourages and invites discussion. It sticks with you. It provides an open canvas on which you can put your own feelings and beliefs. And it is the best movie of the year so far.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0454876/

New York, I Love You (2009)

2/5

Unlike its predecessor Paris, je t'aime, New York, I Love You is a terrible movie. It is a terrible, terrible movie. It is a collection of short films that reveal characters who become intertwined with other characters in New York City. Unfortunately, you wouldn't know that if you just watched it. It would appear to an innocent bystander to be a random smattering of ludicrous events that are pretentiously written, acted, and directed that give the illusion of lofty meaning and artistic flair. It is filled with empty stories based off of shallow ideas. However, amongst the 11 short films, there were two (2) good segments. The first starred Bradley Cooper and Drea De Matteo as two strangers who spent a night together that became more than a one-night stand; it is about the fears and doubts they have about what it meant for them and for the other person as they barrel through the city to meet again. It has a tremendously powerful ending. The second starred Eli Wallach and Cloris Leachman as an old married couple who head out on their 63rd anniversary to Coney Island, where they had their first date. They exchange playful banter, as unique and genuine as a real-world couple who might have lived in each other's companies longer than they have lived alone, who love and hate everything about the other person. It reminded me of No Country for Old Men in the best possible way. Still, those two gems in this giant pile of poop aren't quite valuable enough to recommend wading through it all. Ick.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0808399/

Slumdog Millionaire (2008)

5/5

Danny Boyle's Slumdog Millionaire was a completely unexpected triumph in cinema. Every aspect of this film works harmoniously with the other parts. From the inventive writing to the fast shutter speed cinematography, this movie provides an experience you are not likely to soon forget. Not only is it memorable and creative, but it's also a feel-good piece of entertainment.

Set in present-day India as Jamal Malik is about to win 20 million rupees on Who Wants To Be A Millionaire, the movie goes back in time to reveal how his life story has served as a precursor to give him all the answers he needs to win. This framework could be the downfall of a lesser film, but in this one it fits perfectly. The cinematography resembles Christopher Doyle/Wong Kar Wai on methamphetamines. It is exhilarating, breathtaking, and reinvigorating. The music keeps your blood pumping while maintaining the mood and vibrancy of the locale and time period. The editing is tight, the pacing flawless.

The story itself, the dialogue, the characters, and the acting are all spellbinding. Everything is heartfelt, enriching, and filled with empathy. Everything was purposely chosen for its effect, and chosen correctly. Nothing happened by chance, nothing was left to mediocrity. Boyle wasn't even content to let the subtitles be average; he elevated them across the screen, colored their backgrounds. This gangster drama romance is one of the best of each of its individual genres, and without a doubt the most successful at incorporating and unifying each distinct genre into a brand-new, profound, and moving experience.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1010048/

The Darjeeling Limited (2007)

4.9/5

The Darjeeling Limited, Wes Anderson's latest film, follows the antics of three brothers on a spiritual quest to rid themselves of the emotional baggage of their father's recent death and mother's disappearance. Like all of Anderson's films, there are moments of heartbreaking emotion, juxtaposed effortlessly to choke up any laughter still left in your throat after the uproarious scenes that immediately preceded them. Unlike his other movies, this back and forth was not as prevalent as before. Most of the time it was subtle, but what surprised me was the dialogue-free 10 minute stretch in the middle of the film as we breathlessly witness a suffocating moment and its indelible consequences. Its impact is profound, its inclusion necessary. The symbolism and themes presented by the movie, left open to the viewer for interpretation and application in their own lives, places this film above simple comedy.

In typical Anderson style, the quirky music is exceptional, a perfect companion to the texture of the rest of the piece. The acting matches this bizarre mood, filling out the fictional characters with real humans. I was fascinated by the camerawork and Anderson's insistence--almost an obsessive need--to shoot at precise, 90 degree angles. His quick sideways tracking/panning made it impossible to see anything between the absolute cardinals, a sentiment echoed in his refusal to show transition shots during editing. He made some cinematography choices I disagreed with, however. I have an intense dislike for zooms (even when used as effectively as in Barry Lyndon), and their overabundance here dismayed me. He also overdid the slow-motion shots; if used half as often, they would have reached optimal impact. Still, these issues are relatively minor and easily overlooked. Behind The Royal Tenenbaums, this is probably Anderson's finest film to date.

IMDb link: http://imdb.com/title/tt0838221/

The Namesake (2006)

3/5

The Namesake is the sprawling tale of Ashoke and Ashima Ganguli as they move to America and raise a family. The movie was advertised as the story of their son Gogol and the pushes and pulls of both his American upbringing and Indian culture and tradition. He is in fact not the focus; rather it is about their entire family and the compromises that they must make living in two worlds. Sameer seems to have gotten more out of the movie than I did, likely because the story strikes a personal chord with him. Still, if one must be an Indian living in America to like this movie, then its audience pool is severely limited. I think it is a failing of the movie that I did not appreciate it more, as I know such a story can be more universal. Take My Big Fat Greek Wedding as an example; though it was drenched in Greek culture, most non-Westerners could relate to the kind of customs it depicted. Instead, this movie shows numerous Indian traditions without any attempt at explanation for non-Indians to understand or relate to. Oh well, at least there wasn't any song and dance in it.

The editing was a bit of a mixed bag for me. Most of the time I was disappointed by it, as it seemed to pick and choose random events in the lives of the Ganguli family. I never had a solid idea of where or when I was in the story. It would often shift abruptly to a different country or point in time, sometimes ten years in the future. What I did like about the editing was how the flashbacks were shown again in extended versions. It felt like a rite of passage; once we learned more about the family's growth in America, we got to witness more about their past. I liked the acting for the most part--Irfan Khan and Tabu stole the show as the parents Ashoke and Ashima. Kal Penn was decent, but neither complex nor subtle. I wasn't impressed with the writing, cinematography, or directing. I did like the music though. It's not a bad movie, but neither is it a good one ... unless perhaps you're an Indian living in America.

IMDb link: http://imdb.com/title/tt0433416/