Stumbles on it's newborn feet

Rating: Null/10 (1 December 2003)

Watching Pi, I was instantly reminded of every earnest, horror/sci-fi film I'd seen in film school. That's meant as a criticism, and I found myself wondering how Pi was received by a "mass" audience rather than as excellent student-film for Aranofsky's reel.
Let's start with acting, since the most immediate part of any film about people is the people in the film. The only character with dimension, intrigue, and screen charisma (not interpersonal charisma, but watch-a-bility) was the character performed by Ben Schenkman. He was also one of the most minor characters.
I was always aware of why somebody was cast or a character written in. I feel, a lot of times, that a student film is trying to be longer than it deserves to be. That there are moments where no narrative progression occurs, no exposition, just stuff to look at.
Remember the scene on Coney Island when Max needlessly washes his face in the ocean water, it's in slow-motion. Why? I feel because the director or the cinematographer really wanted to do some slow-motion work, to see if it would work. This shows a lack of pre-production on their part.
I also recall the pointless love-interest character, the Indian neighbor, and how every motivation on her face seemed to be suggestive of imprecise direction, not a genuine character trait.
Pi is not a film without its merit, but I fealt it was overhyped. I can never hold a director accountable for the success of his film despite itself, and I honestly believe Aranofsky is a talented film maker, but Pi is not a great film. It is an eloquent film at times, but mostly, it is a clumsy student exercise.