The Life of Pi (film)

[Edonidd]

Kid friendly?

Everything that is kid unfriendly is implied or heard but not seen on screen. But despite that I wouldn't call it kid friendly.

[Underdog]

Everything that is kid unfriendly is implied or heard but not seen on screen.

There's a few pretty graphic on screen moments with the hyena on the lifeboat that I would think would be pretty upsetting to most younger kids.

[Edonidd]

Yeah, I was more talking about the tiger and the goat at the begining. And then especially the conversation at the end, which I won't discuss because it might spoil the movie for those that did want to see it. My 9 year old was sitting there trying to put the pieces together on that one, which I didn't particularly want. It went way over the heads of my other two though.

She said after it was over and before she started asking questions to try to make sense of the ending that she didn't think it should have been rated PG. I agree. It is at least a PG 13 movie that they definitely bribed somebody to get it PG, and IMO it was closer to an R rating than a PG.

[LGM]

Okay, two-ish questions:

1. Does it have a happy or sad ending?

2. Is it veiled religiousity like LOTR, or like Chronicles of Narnia? I have no problem with either of those groups mind you, assuming they follow my personal beliefs. I have a harder time enjoying (or watching) a movie with new age mumbo jumbo.

[Gmaniac]

2. Is it veiled religiousity like LOTR, or like Chronicles of Narnia? I have no problem with either of those groups mind you, assuming they follow my personal beliefs. I have a harder time enjoying (or watching) a movie with new age mumbo jumbo.

I haven't seen the movie... but if it stays true to the book: No, it is not veiled. The use of religion is very heavy-handed and smug. (IMO)

---------

I'll try and put it like this: it's as if the author set out at the beginning with the goal of making a story that shows religion and faith/belief in a very upbeat, positive, mystical yet knowing way... and also try to transcend the divides of particular religions and get at some core essence "we all share".

A laudable vision, perhaps. The problem, though, is that there is no real meat/heft/ballast/whatever behind these goals. Nothing feels authentic... but it's worse than that. In lieu of really coming to grips with faith/belief... (the good and the bad, the wrestle with the unknown, anything "deep" at all)... there is a candy-coated shell that is ultimately hollow.

And, to top it all off, Life of Pi gets kinda preachy and self-important... convinced that it is clever hot sh!t.

Like I said... JMO.

[Edonidd]

Okay, two-ish questions:

1. Does it have a happy or sad ending?

2. Is it veiled religiousity like LOTR, or like Chronicles of Narnia? I have no problem with either of those groups mind you, assuming they follow my personal beliefs. I have a harder time enjoying (or watching) a movie with new age mumbo jumbo.

It has an ending. It is told as one long flashback, so you know going in that by the classical definitions of a comedy or tragedy, it is a comedy, the main character lives. I wouldn't call it an upbeat ending by any means, but if I had to say happy or sad, it leans more towards happy.

I don't actually know that I could compare it to LOTR or Narnia. Basicly what they do is say "I'm gonna tell you a story that will make you believe in God." Then they tell a story, and despite what you may have or may not have gotten out of it, at the end they say "See, I told you it would make you believe in God." It's that smug superiority that bugged me.

[TheCardiak]

Maybe this movie went over your head.


**SPOILER ALERT DO NOT READ THIS IF YOU HAVEN'T SEEN THE MOVIE**
**SPOILER ALERT DO NOT READ THIS IF YOU HAVEN'T SEEN THE MOVIE**
**SPOILER ALERT DO NOT READ THIS IF YOU HAVEN'T SEEN THE MOVIE**



The Movie was not preaching or trying to prove God exists or dogma any religion. Pi was a Christian, Hindu and a Muslim liking separate parts of each religion. In the beginning of the story is where they gave the first major hint/spoiler when he named the tiger "Richard Parker" which is the name of the sailor from the famous 1884 Mignonette yacht that sank leaving 4 survivors in stranded in a lifeboat out in sea. Eventually the 3 men turned on 1 killing and then eating Richard Parker and drinking his blood to survive.

At the end of his story telling which was filled with unrealistic glowing objects, places and animals (fantasy) it's interrupted by the Japanese investigators telling him that not only is his story crazy with places like carnivorous floating islands filled with meerkats but the parts that they can actually compare and comprehend don't add up like when the Orangutan floats towards the raft on the bushels of bananas when bananas don't float.

He then tells the second story where the zebra is the sailor with the broken leg, the orangutan is his mother and the cook is the hyena that kills them both and he is the tiger that comes out of hiding and kills the hyena (cook). He then lives off of their flesh which is being cooked in the sun on his floating carnivorous boat.

Richard Parker, aka PI the Tiger is his animalistic godless side. That's why he says that he would not of been able to survive without Richard Parker who eventually got the courage to come out and kill the Hyena (the cook) and cannibalize the dead. This is why he spends most of his time in the self made raft instead of the boat where the dead humans are because he is afraid/disgusted of that savage part of him..

After initially being terrified by his Richard Parker side he eventually learns how to tame and control him after being out there so long. This is why when he finally reaches mexico Richard Parker leaves to the forest without even so much as looking back. He no longer needs him now that he is back with civilization.

After this story he is asked which one is true to which he replies asking which story they would rather believe? The one with the tiger of course and so his response is "religion is the same way". In that if you were given a choice, would you rather believe that in a world where you die and are gone forever (likely reality) or one where when you die you go to heaven (the animal sugar coating ect..) our supposed to realize that the second story is the real though, but that believing in the first story is OK. How this relates to religion is that it doesn't matter what you believe in (religious or not) because either way your gonna be dead by the time you find out which is true and it won't matter. Similarly, whatever story you believe, his ship sunk and his family is dead. So believe and remember the first story if it makes you feel better, even though you know the second story is what really happened.

To me the book isn't literally supposed to make you believe in religion like some critics going to the movie seem to believe. Its just supposed to make you realize that believing in the likely fake awesome story of religion can help you cope and can make life seem better. Just like how him making up this story with animals makes his experience seem better both to us and for him.

I actually enjoyed this movie which is pretty rare since I'm a harsh critic who is almost always let down at the movies. I didn't read the book so the ending caught me by surprise and instantly made the movie 10x better. I enjoy having a movie encourage my brain to think a little deeper to find the meaning or answers to the story.





**SPOILER ALERT DO NOT READ THIS IF YOU HAVEN'T SEEN THE MOVIE**
**SPOILER ALERT DO NOT READ THIS IF YOU HAVEN'T SEEN THE MOVIE**
**SPOILER ALERT DO NOT READ THIS IF YOU HAVEN'T SEEN THE MOVIE**