Finally a stereoscopic film actually worth watching in 3D!

Rating: 10/10 (5 January 2013)

To tell the truth: I really hate stereoscopic 3D. Well that of course is very irrational. After all it is just another tool in the filmmaker's toolbox. So the reason why I do not like it has more to do with the fact that a lot of studio bosses and distributors try to tell me that in the future all films will be 3D and in seminars some Stereoscopic Supervisors never become tired to tell people, that now films are so much better just because they are in 3D now. So ever since Avatar I had to watch one 3D film after another and come out of the cinema with the impression that at best the stereoscopic effect did not harm the movie - although sometimes it did. But I hardly ever felt that the 3rd dimension supported the story telling in any way. So besides the fact that the distributor can charge extra on a ticket for a 3D movie and thus will get more money out of it why use it?
And why watch it in 3D, you might ask. Today going to the cinema is like ordering a sandwich at Subway. You can choose between 2D and 3D, with intermission (if the film is longer) or without, original language with or without subtitles or the dubbed version, IMAX or non- IMAX and now Peter Jackson added another sauce to the menu: HFR or 24 frames per second. Call me old fashioned but when I was young filmmakers actually made decisions when choosing the right format for their story and did not leave the choice to the audience that naturally does not have a clue what's best for the film. So I always try to see the version that comes closest to the directions vision. But this is hard to decide especially when you see that films like the new "Star Trek" or "Man of Steel" are suddenly announced as a 3D feature but were originally shot on film in 35mm and IMAX format. Who has made the decision here? Did the director even know that his is going to be a 3D feature? And how I am supposed to know?
So this time having been so disappointed by watching the 3D Hobbit just a week before I tried to be clever and picked the cheaper 2D version of Ang Lee's "Life of Pi" and I immediately realized that this might have been a mistake. Even by staring at the 2D images of this great movie I could imagine that here is the film I have been waiting for ever since the whole 3D hype broke loose. So I went to see the film again the next day, this time in 3D and I got to say words that I never thought would come out of my moth: "You really have to see this movie in 3D!"
Here finally is a director for whom stereoscopic filmmaking is not just another technical gag to make more money or to hide a 3rd rate screenplay behind it - excuse me, mister Cameron - but a filmmaker who really uses this technique to support the story and to make it an integral inseparable part of his movie like sound or color. Ang Lee constantly plays with the stereoscopic effect for example when he dives into a comic book illustration of the universe in the mouth of the goddess Shiva and thus illustrates the transcendental experience the protagonist has by reading this comic book. You really feel it. In another scene he morphs form 3d to 2d. The flying fish sequence is actually one of the most stunning 3D scenes I have ever seen. You actually start to worry about having a fish on your lap. But Ang Lee never uses 3D in these scenes just as an effect. It always supports the story and it does not only enhance the emotions but it really becomes an important part of the development of the protagonist's character. A reason why this works so well in "Life of Pi" is that in this film more than in most other films the story, the emotions and the inner struggle of the protagonist is reflected in the scenery and the setting.
In interesting point is also that if you watch closely or check out the technical date here in IMDb, you will see that Ang Lee constantly changes the aspect ratio of the film depending on the scene. This shows how much aware he is of the importance of the format he uses.
Of all the stereoscopic films that came out recently for me there are probably 3 modern films that are really worth watching in 3D, there is "Hugo", "Pina" and now on the top of the list Ang Lee's "Life of Pi". So what can we learn from this: Cinema of the future will be 3D after all if we only follow Ang Lee's lead? Definitely not! But if a filmmaker chooses a format for his film, he has got to make sure that it is the right one and that he really means it. A movie is not a Subway- sandwich after all.