Greetings,
I saw
Life of Pi a few weeks ago and enjoyed it very much. I read the book when it was first published, and I can't say whether I prefer the book or the film; in this case they complement each other very well. It takes a good film to measure up to a book like this one does.
I read both as a parable about storytelling. When you first see the cover image of a boy on a boat with a tiger, you're likely to assume it will be a cuddly cute fantasy-type story, but in fact it's visceral and told with brutal realism. In the end, it seems that the author could convince you of anything, since the power of the storytelling makes this highly unlikely scenario compelling and believable.
The film tells the story with great dramatic and visual flair, maintaining high tension even when there is ostensibly not much happening. It also contains some of the most striking and artistically valid uses of 3D that I've seen.
Iceee said:
That is because books are ALWAYS better than movies!! It's a well-known fact.
This is usually true, but there are a few examples that go the other way if you ask me. The most glaring example is
The Lord of the Rings trilogy. The book is quite gripping, but it takes far too long to get going and would benefit from being cut significantly by a good editor. It also includes the annoying Tom Bombadil character wisely left out of the films by Peter Jackson.
The Godfather was originally written by Mario Puzo to a deadline, and he has since said he wishes he could go back and rewrite it with more time. Despite its bestseller status, the narrative and dialogue in the book could definitely be improved. The film by Francis Ford Coppola on the other hand is almost certainly the best gangster movie ever made. The only competition it faces is from its sequel.
Peace
