This is the best use of 3-D I've ever seen," I say to Ang Lee. And I mean it. His "Life of Pi," based on Yann Martel's novel about a shipwrecked boy, is an astonishment, not least because it never uses 3-D for its effect, but instead as a framing device for the story as a whole

I assume that

Life of Pi made $22M in the US weekend. No bad for an "art house" type of movie. Currently has a score 0f 8.4 in the IMDB with 6392 votes.

Have anyone seen in 3D? Does the 3D adds to the entertainment experience?

Cheers

Please check the topic: "last movie you watched". Your questions might be answered in the last posts.

Ang Lee's "Life of Pi" is a miraculous achievement of storytelling and a landmark of visual mastery.

Even if I believed this statement, which I don't, and in fact I don't believe that Ebert himself believes it. But even if it were true, and this movie really were a visionary feat, I wouldn't even care. I'm so tired of people trying to fight their jadedness by looking for the new Citizen Kane every other week. Personally, I'm not looking for Life of Pi to be good. I think it's been a very good year for movies already, and am in no mood to have another "visionary feat" shoved down my throat.

I want real innovation, not something that's innovative because you tell me it's innovative or because Ebert tells me it's innovative. I also don't want a belligerant troll mocking me, and you're the only one on this forum who still does. But you know, I don't care to get into a debate about this. Life of Pi is a great movie, Ebert is a wonderful man, and the emperor's clothes look great.

I'm not responding to the troll accusation. You said that Ebert doesn't believe what he wrote and that everyone who loves Life of Pi is just trying to fight their jadedness. You childishly try to tell people what they're really thinking, and in doing so completely eliminate the possibility for non-trollish discussion. I'm not trolling, I just genuinely don't believe you're not just actively trying to create arguments and belittle people. And I hated Life of Pi, so it's not about that. I just want to see you attempt to have a real discussion. I didn't -- and have never -- tried to "tell" you what your opinions are or should be. You're the only one who does that around here.

So who's actually seen Life of Pi? Or are we only fighting over Ebert's review?

But when someone describes a film as a landmark of something, how can anyone have a genuine reaction to that? How many people have seen enough movies, and often enough, to authoritatively state that a film is a true landmark of visual mastery? I would argue, no one. Skyfall exhibits visual mastery, but it's no landmark. There have been other great Bond movies in the past. Why do there have to be landmarks? Why can't something simply be good for what it is? I've heard people use the phrase "good for what it is" in the negative sense, but in my opinion that's the only way that any movie can be good. Some very strong films of the past few months have made nice steps back in that direction. Ebert's review pissed me off because it seemed to me a step back in the direction of insanity. But I can see where others would feel differently, and I don't mean to dictate how others should feel about it.

The usually opinionated and salty cinematographer Christopher Doyle recently sat down with Blouin and made his feelings quite clear on "Life Of Pi" and the work behind it. "Okay. I’m trying to work out how to say this most politely, and no offense to – I don’t know him personally – but what a total fucking piece of shit," he declared about Claudio Miranda's win for Best Cinematography. "Let me be blunt. Ah, fuck. I don’t care, I’m sure he’s a wonderful guy and I’m sure he cares so much, but since 97 per cent of the film is not under his control, what the fuck are you talking about cinematography, sorry. I’m sorry. I have to be blunt and I don’t care, you can write it. I think it’s a fucking insult to cinematography."

But his anger seems more to be at the voting body ("Do you know the average age of the people who vote? Sixty-five. Check it out.") and the idea of anyone outside the cinematographer working on the look of the movie. “Of course they have no fucking idea what cinematography is.The lunatics have taken over the asylum, but you know we have other asylums in other parts of the world and I live in one of them, and I intend to continue to be a lunatic," he (kind of) explained. "...The award is given to the technicians, to the producers, it’s not to the cinematographer. I think he should’ve actually, if it were me, I would’ve said fuck off. But of course it’s his career. Sorry. Personally, as you probably realised, I will say fuck off. If somebody manipulated my image that much, I wouldn’t even turn up. Because sorry, cinematography? Really?”

So, from his perspective, was it weird for "Life Of Pi" to win Best Cinematography? “No it’s not a strange choice if you understand how fucked up people are and how lost they are. You bail out your bankers, support your rich people, you say Spielberg and Tarantino are the gods of cinema. Hey, good luck.” Um, okay.