Visually captivating but somewhat underwhelming.

Rating: 8/10 (23 November 2012)

First and foremost, I'd like to set the record straight. If you're one of those people who think "Life of Pi" is pretty much just a movie about a dude in a boat with a tiger, well, I have news for you...
...you're right.
Ang Lee's latest feature, an adaptation of the book by Yann Martel which, after numerous attempts by other directors including M. Night Shyamalan, Alfonso Curon and Jean-Pierre Jeunet, was deemed "unfilmable," is indeed the story of a shipwrecked boy who survives for weeks on a lifeboat he shares with a Bengali tiger. As told to a reporter (Rafe Spall) by an adult Pi (Irrfan Khan) from his Montreal home (Canada REPRESENT!), the story starts off with Pi's childhood and religious awakening before spending much time at sea...on a boat...with a big cat.
Religion is the overpowering theme of the film, there is no doubt, but not in a preachy sort of way. Rather than being some sort of moralistic tale, the point I believe the narrative is trying to make is that personal spirituality is important, no matter what you may believe, and we should all just respect each other's points of view. And although I am a non-believer, that is something I cannot fault. If only, right? When a young Pi finds an interest in Christianity after having been raised Hindu and discovering the Muslim religion, his father brilliantly exclaims "I'd rather you believe in something I do not agree with than accept all religions blindly." Excuse me if I am paraphrasing slightly there, but the line was very powerful and one I can respect a great deal.
However, despite the lovely religious equilibrium and the cute ferocious animal, "Life of Pi" never quite managed to enrapture me. The filming style, with its cuts and edits, came across almost amateurish and TV_movie-like while I found the script slightly underwhelming and the performances merely acceptable. Nothing more.
But who am I kidding...I did not see the movie for the story. What intrigued me about the film was the talk of the visual effects. THAT is what I went for. Having been heralded as the most visually captivating film since "Avatar," I was full of anticipation for this film for that reason and that reason only.
And it is indeed a beautiful movie to watch on the largest screen possible. Definitely in 3D. The scenes are so incredibly drawn and meticulously brought to 3D life, you will almost forget what is going on in the film at times because you're busy staring too long at the CGI tiger going "wow, how did they do that?" Don't worry, it's not like you'll miss an important plot point. And you will find yourself asking that exact question many times during this film. However, it is no "Avatar," which remains the most visually magnificent film I have ever had the pleasure of viewing (although I am sure many of you will see elements which have been borrowed from it at certain moments). To be honest, I didn't even find it as visually captivating as "Cloud Atlas," as the beauty of the images hinder rather than help the audience personally connect with a story which seems a tad bit far-fetched as it is.
No doubt Lee, a two-time Oscar nominee for "Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon" and "Brokeback Mountain," for which he won, will undoubtedly get an invitation back to the ceremonies this year for his visual epic, but it's best chances at gold will be strictly technical, as the film itself leaves one a little underwhelmed. That time you spent the night with someone astonishingly beautiful but not terribly interesting? Yeah, kinda like that.