Slumdog Millionaire (5 Stars)

I'm continuing my random selection of films from my top 100 film list with "Slumdog Millionaire". As far as the Academy Awards are concerned, it's the most successful film in my list. It was nominated for ten Oscars, of which it won eight. Yet it's only in 54th place in my list? That's because I was never invited to vote for the Academy Awards. If I'd been on the committee I would have made sure that all the films in the list would win Oscars.

The film tells the story of India's growth from poverty to riches, alongside the rise of a young boy from the slums to becoming a millionaire. But more than anything else, it's a love story. Jamal Malik only wants to become a millionaire so he can get together with Latika, the woman he's loved since they were children. It's destiny. His life has prepared him for the questions he would be asked on the quiz show "Who wants to be a Millionaire".

Success Rate:  + 22.8

	Order from Amazon.com
	Order from Amazon.co.uk
	Order from Amazon.de

The Life of Pi (5 Stars)

Dancer's Top Films #20

Where do you find God? Is She the lotus hiding in the forest?

Is God in the dance?

Or does God only exist in the memories of another time in another world?

"The Life of Pi" is a story to make you believe in God. Maybe you'll believe in a God who's close to you. Maybe you'll believe in a God who's dead. Maybe you'll believe in a God who's deserted you to hide in the forest. The choice is yours.

Success Rate:  + 3.1

	Order from Amazon.com
	Order from Amazon.co.uk
	Order from Amazon.de

Slumdog Millionaire (5 Stars)

Dancer's Top Films #62

Danny Boyle is a director who never ceases to amaze me. His films are so different to one another, but they're all so good. "Slumdog Millionaire" is almost a Bollywood film, even though the big dance scene doesn't take place until the final credits. How could an Englishman have such a feeling for India?

The film has a similar structure to "Forrest Gump", which I only noticed after watching the two films soon after one another. Both films tell the history of a country through the eyes of a naive person. Forrest Gump travels through America from 1950 to 1980, naively unaware because of his lack of intelligence. Jamal Malik travels through India from 1990 to 2006, naively unaware of India's growth because all he's interested in his finding his long lost love Latika. His older brother Salim points out the developments in India from the top of a skyscraper, but Jamal isn't listening.

"Slumdog Millionaire" is so well constructed that the complexity is hardly noticeable. Three timelines are interwoven in the narrative:

1. The present, in which Jamal is being interrogated in a police station.

2. The recent past, in which Jamal appeared on a television quiz show.

3. The distant past, in which Jamal grew from a child to a man.

Added to this, there are frequent flashbacks and flashforwards. You'll only be able to appreciate the flashforwards the second time you watch the film.

Needless to say, this is a brilliant film. I can't imagine anyone not enjoying it.

Success Rate:  + 22.8

	Order from Amazon.com
	Order from Amazon.co.uk
	Order from Amazon.de

The Warrior (2001) (4 Stars)

This is the fifth film that I've watched to remember Irrfan Khan, who died five days ago. I discovered earlier today that Netflix (Germany) contains 11 of his films. Yes, eleven! It's unusual for Netflix to be so good, especially outside of America. I've made a note of them, but for now I'll stick to the five films that I have in my personal film collection. I deliberately left "The Warrior" till last, because it's the only film I own in which he plays the lead role. It's a British film that was made in Hindi. It won the Bafta award for Best British Film in 2003.

Irrfan Khan plays an unnamed warrior who lives somewhere in northern India. It's difficult to say exactly when it takes place. Based on the primitive society and the lack of modern weapons I would say that it takes place before British rule of India, anywhere between the 12th and the 18th Century. The Warrior lives in a small house with his teenage son Katiba.

The story begins when representatives of the surrounding villages come to pay taxes to the Ruler (also unnamed). An old man from the village of Tanga gives only a handful of grain because there was a poor harvest. The Warrior is ordered to behead the man as a punishment, then lead a raiding party to destroy the village. The buildings are set on fire, and everyone is executed. The Warrior is about to kill a young girl, when he sees that she's wearing his son's amulet. It's Katiba's girlfriend. The Warrior throws his sword on the ground and swears he will never use a sword again.

The Ruler orders that the Warrior and his son should be executed. Katiba is killed, but the Warrior escapes. He begins a long journey on foot to his home village, Kulla. On the way he meets a young thief and an old blind woman with prophetic vision.

This is a very intense tale of redemption. Despite similarities with Chinese war epics, it could never have been made in China. A Chinese film would have involved revenge. "The Warrior" shows a man who's so disgusted with his past that he'll never pick up a sword again, not even to defend himself. The salvation of his soul in the next world is more important than revenge in this world. The religion followed by the Warrior is probably Hinduism, but it's left vague so that viewers of any religious faith can relate to it.

Needless to say, Irrfan Khan's acting ability carries the film. The slightest movements of his eyes allow us to look deep into the soul of the Warrior. Was there ever another Indian actor with such skill?

Amazing Spider-Man (4 Stars)

This is the fourth film that I've watched to remember Irrfan Khan, who died four days ago. I regret that I've seen so few of the 98 films that he made in his career.

Unwittingly, I've watched these four films in the order of the morality of Irrfan Khan's characters.

In "The Life of Pi" he plays Pi Patel, a highly spiritual man.

In "Slumdog Millionaire" he's a policeman who is brutal in his duty, but fair to the innocent.

In "Jurassic World" he plays Simon Masrani, a billionaire who does good unless it gets in the way of making money.

In "Amazing Spider-Man" he plays Dr. Ratha, a high ranking executive who's willing to kill to achieve his ends.

This is an order of moral decline, but he plays all of his roles perfectly. He can be a saint or a sinner, and he's impressive in all his performances. As Dr. Ratha he's quiet but terrifying. It's his pressure that leads Dr. Curt Connors to inject himself and become the Lizard. I'm glad I've never worked for a boss as evil as him.

Irrfan Khan
7 January 1967 – 29 April 2020

Amusingly, he made two films in 2012 in which he had to deal with a Richard Parker.

Success Rate:  + 1.3

	Order from Amazon.com
	Order from Amazon.co.uk
	Order from Amazon.de

Jurassic World (4 Stars)

"The key to a happy life is to accept you are never actually in control".

This is the third film that I'm watching this week to remember Irrfan Khan. Interestingly, I could hardly recall his performance in this film, unlike the first two films, "The Life of Pi" and "Slumdog Millionaire". It's not because he has a smaller role. He definitely has more screentime than in either of the other films. Somehow he fades into the background as such an essential part of "Jurassic World" that he's taken for granted.

He plays Simon Masrani, the owner of the Jurassic World theme park, the eighth richest person in the world. Despite his wealth, it isn't all about money for him. He's a complex character with different conflicting goals. He has respect for the animals, even if he doesn't forget that their ultimate purpose is to make money for him. He rejects the militarisation of the dinosaurs, even if that means giving up the possibility of even more money. He has red lines that he won't cross. Added to that, he enjoys fun. He insists of flying helicopters himself, even though he's not a very good pilot. And finally, he's philosophical, as we can tell from the wisdom that he imparts to the passengers in his helicopter. Listen to his words carefully. He's not saying that we have to give up control to have a happy life. If that were the case, it would mean that until now we've spent time in control of our lives. He's saying that none of us have ever had control of our lives. In itself, that's a typical existentialist statement, but the idea of becoming happy by accepting it goes one step further than existentialism.

Unfortunately, he doesn't survive to come back in the sequel. I would have welcomed his pensive but determined driving force in "Fallen Kingdom". He's a good counterpart to Chris Pratt, who plays Owen Grady as an all-out action hero. Simon Masrani disappears in a ball of flames when his helicopter crashes.

Here's a gratuitous dinosaur photo, in case that's the reason you're reading this review.

Irrfan Khan
7 January 1967 – 29 April 2020

But it's not the reason I'm writing this review. It's about the magnificent actor who passed away unexpectedly three days ago. We can bring dinosaurs back to life by splicing DNA strands, but we can never bring back Irrfan Khan.

Success Rate:  + 9.1

	Order from Amazon.com
	Order from Amazon.co.uk
	Order from Amazon.de

Slumdog Millionaire (5 Stars)

This is the second film I'm watching this week to commemorate the death of the magnificent actor Irrfan Khan. He plays the strict but fair police officer interrogating Jamal Malik, who's been accused of cheating on "Who wants to be a millionaire?" He plays a relatively small part in the film, but he's perfect for the role.

It's the mark of a great actor that even when he's sitting silently we know what he's thinking.

Irrfan Khan
7 January 1967 – 29 April 2020

Success Rate:  + 22.8

	Order from Amazon.com
	Order from Amazon.co.uk
	Order from Amazon.de

The Life of Pi (5 Stars)

This morning I read about the death of the Indian actor Irrfan Khan. It was a shock to me, since he's a remarkable actor. He appears in two of my 30 films to watch before you die. He has a calm acting style that can express emotions subtly. We feel the emotion welling up within us without consciously paying attention to him.

I've written about "The Life of Pi" several times in this blog, so I don't need to describe it now. It's one of the best films of the last 10 years. It's a brilliant film, and Irrfan Khan's performance contributes to its greatness. When the tears trickle down his face in the final scenes, we want to cry with him. Cinema has lost a great hero.

Irrfan Khan
7 January 1967 – 29 April 2020

Success Rate:  + 3.1

	Order from Amazon.com
	Order from Amazon.co.uk
	Order from Amazon.de

Amazing Spider-Man (4 Stars)

This is a film that I have difficulty rating. When I first saw it in the cinema I gave it five stars. When I watched it on Blu-ray two years later I dropped the rating to four stars. After watching it today I felt tempted to drop the rating further, but after thinking about it for a while I decided that four stars is a fair rating. It's not a bad film. In fact, it's a very good film. Its problem is that it stands in the shadow of the Sam Raimi Spider-Man films. It's poor in comparison, so I can only judge it fairly by not comparing it. Or maybe it's the other way round; maybe comparing it with the other films is the only way to judge it fairly.

It's a repeat of Spider-Man's origin story, as told in Sam Raimi's "Spider-Man". Peter Parker is bitten by a spider and Ben Parker dies. Those are the fixed points crucial to the story. Everything else is changed. Instead of being bitten on a school trip, Peter Parker is bitten when he impersonates an intern to enter Oscorp. Instead of Ben Parker being killed in his car he's shot when he tries to stop a mugger. The school bully Flash Thompson isn't a football jock, he's the captain of the basketball team.

I could go on and on listing more details, but one thing stands out. This film has the sub-plot of Peter's relationship with his father. Richard Parker was an Oscorp employee who bred the spider that bit his son. A notebook left behind by Richard Parker contains a formula that Dr. Curt Connors uses to transform himself into a human lizard.

It's my attitude to the father-son sub-plot that makes it difficult for me to rate the film. This is a feature totally alien to the comics. Peter Parker's father is irrelevant in the comics. He's dead. That's all. Telling a story about Peter's father isn't just a minor change in details in the origin story, it twists the premise of Spider-Man beyond recognition. If I accept Richard Parker and his scientific background I can just about give the film four stars. If I rejected the story I'd have to give the film three stars at most. It's a dilemma.

Let's just talk about something positive in the film. Stan Lee has a delightful cameo as a school librarian. In the 11-second scene he scans a book while listening to music over headphones, oblivious to the fact that Spider-Man and the Lizard are fighting behind him.

Success Rate:  + 1.3

	Order from Amazon.com
	Order from Amazon.co.uk
	Order from Amazon.de

The Life of Pi (5 Stars)

This evening I watched "The Life of Pi" with my son Benjamin. His reaction at the end of the film was "So the story wasn't true". That's a natural reaction for someone to have to the film. In fact, that was my first impression when I saw the film in the cinema, although I changed my mind after sitting and thinking about it. If we bog ourselves down with questions about what's true and what's false we lose track of what's important. It's a story to make us believe in God.

Is it possible for a story to make someone believe in God? Let me take an example. There's a story in the Bible about Moses leading the Jews out of Egypt to Israel. Some people think the story is true, some don't. Those who believe the story is true believe in God, those who think it's a legend don't believe in God. So what comes first? Do people who believe in God automatically accept the story, or do people who believe the story believe in God as a result?

There's no proof whether Pi's story is true or not. It's all a matter of faith. The Japanese investigators believed him. The unnamed interviewer (who represents the author Yann Martel) has initial doubts, but then believes him. Do I believe the story? Sitting in my chair at home and treating the film as a work of fiction it's a purely intellectual exercise, but if I were sitting in Yann Martel's chair in the film I would have believed Pi's story. I would have gone home and thought about God.

"I wanted to use water because the film is talking about faith, and it contains fish, life and every emotion for Pi. And air is God, heaven and something spiritual and death. That's how I see it. I believe the thing we call faith or God is our emotional attachment to the unknown. I'm Chinese; I believe in the Taoist Buddha. We don't talk about a deity, which is very much like this book; we're not talking about religion but God in the abstract sense, something to overpower you". (Ang Lee, November 2012).

	Order from Amazon.com
	Order from Amazon.co.uk
	Order from Amazon.de

Slumdog Millionaire (5 Stars)

Yesterday my son Benjamin told me that he'd never seen "Slumdog Millionaire". Even worse, he'd never heard of it. I had to put that right.

The lead actors, Dev Patel and Freida Pinto, are so perfect for their roles that the casting is almost miraculous. It was the first film for both of them. It takes a special kind of skill to recognise the skill of a new actor. Director Danny Boyle selected them both himself. It's common for top directors to select the lead roles themselves and only let the casting directors pick the actors for the smaller parts.

There's a lot that happens in the film, but at its core it's a love story. After watching the film we sat talking, and I impressed upon Benjamin that nothing in life is as important as love. Am I the right person to be telling him that? He's single. I'm single. It's like the blind are leading the blind.

	Order from Amazon.com
	Order from Amazon.co.uk
	Order from Amazon.de

Jurassic World (4 Stars)

I have mixed feelings about this film. I gave it a low rating in my last review, which I've only slightly improved this time, but there is something about it that appeals to me. The action is thrilling, and the special effects are the best of the four films so far. My main problem is the characters. I could warm up to Chris Pratt as the animal trainer Owen Grady and the failed love pair Vivian and Lowery in the control room, but none of the other characters interest me. The worst of all is the arrogant park leader, Claire Dearing. Every time a dinosaur came anywhere near her I hoped that it would bite her head off. I felt the same way about the two children, her nephews Zach and Gray. In the first film I sympathised with the children, but these two boys are just silly little brats who should have become dino food in the first half hour.

I'll give it another chance some time next year. When I have time I'll watch all four films back to back so I can judge it in context.

	Order from Amazon.com
	Order from Amazon.co.uk
	Order from Amazon.de

The Life of Pi (5 Stars)

30 films to watch before you die, #30

After a month of watching and (almost) reviewing the 30 films I consider to be essential for everyone who is seriously interested in films, I've finally come to the 30th film, "The Life of Pi". It's last in the list only because I've ordered the films chronologically. This is a film that deals with the largest of themes in the smallest of places. Just as we can see all of the universe in Krishna's mouth, we see the struggle between man and God in a tiny lifeboat. I use the word "struggle" deliberately. When God and man meet it's not instant agreement. There's a battle to get the upper hand, at least if the man is honest. A dishonest man agrees to everything that God tells him to do, then walks away and does whatever he wants. An honest man listens to everything God says, weighing the words carefully, then replies, "But God, are you sure?"

In my review of "King Kong" two days ago I wrote that it's important to pay attention to books shown in a film, especially if a main character is reading them. "The Life of Pi" shows Pi Patel reading three books and a comic. This amount of overkill tells us that Ang Lee had something important on his mind. The four items emphasise the film's themes of religion, rationality and isolation.

In the comic we see both the closeness and the enormous size of God. Krishna is a small boy, but when his mother looks into his mouth she sees the whole universe. Only by looking at God close up can we embrace all there is.

Jules Verne's "Mysterious Island" is an interesting book to see represented in the film. In his later life Pi would be stranded on an island, but rather than remain on it for as long as possible he would take all he could from it and leave. Pi claimed to be a follower of three religions, Hinduism, Christianity and Islam, while also believing in reason. The first two religions are well developed in the film, while Islam is only mentioned in passing. Pi took what he wanted from each religion, then moved on. Both religion and reason are incomplete in themselves. They complement one another in the understanding of oneself and the universe.

Next we see Pi reading a collection of Dostoyevsky's short stories, "Notes from Underground", "White Nights" and "The Dream of a Ridiculous Man". I haven't read any of these stories, unfortunately, but I've checked brief summaries to see their relevance to the film. To differing degrees, all three stories deal with a man feeling alienated in the world, unable to cope with the mass of information presented to him, and the ways in which the man attempts to cope, either by doing good deeds or by withdrawing further into himself.

"The Stranger" by Albert Camus is probably the most famous existentialist novel ever written. While it deals with many themes, what I consider most relevant in the context of the film is that Pi is a foreigner everywhere he goes. He's an eternal outsider. He grows up in India, in an area where different cultures (French, English, Muslim, Hindu) are separated by streets in the city. Crossing the road leads you into a different world. On the boat he's surrounded by Japanese sailors. At the end of his life he's in Canada teaching Jewish mysticism at university.

Here is my complete list of my 30 films to watch before you die.

1. Earth vs Flying Saucers (1956)
2. Faster Pussycat Kill Kill (1965)
3. The Wild Bunch (1969)
4. Young Frankenstein (1974)
5. Tommy (1975)
6. The Man who would be king (1975)
7. Assault on Precinct 13 (1976)
8. Apocalypse Now (1979)
9. The Shining (1980)
10. Terminator (1984)
11. Thelma and Louise (1991)
12. Basic Instinct (1992)
13. Falling Down (1993)
14. Jurassic Park (1993)
15. Pulp Fiction (1994)
16. Leon (1994)
17. Mars Attacks (1996)
18. Scream (1996)
19. Lost Highway (1997)
20. Dark City (1998)
21. The Legend of 1900 (1998)
22. The Matrix (1999)
23. The Green Mile (1999)
24. Donnie Darko (2001)
25. Spider-Man (2002)
26. Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind (2004)
27. The World's Fastest Indian (2005)
28. King Kong (2005)
29. Slumdog Millionaire (2008)
30. Life of Pi (2012)

This isn't a list of my 30 favourite films. All 30 films in the list are films I greatly enjoy, but I've given priority to the films that I consider to be important. I'll probably compile a list of my favourite films in the near future, but I shan't watch them all in sequence until 2017 at least because there will be a lot of overlap with this list.

Now it's time for me to catch up with a few films that I bought on Blu-ray during the Black Friday week.

Slumdog Millionaire (5 Stars)

30 films to watch before you die, #29

This is a film that I was fortunate enough to watch before it was released in the cinemas. It was at he end of 2008, between Christmas and New Year. It was already being advertised on the side of buses in Birmingham, but it wasn't due to appear in the cinemas until January 9th. The ads made it look like a comedy, so I wouldn't have gone to see it. One day I was talking to a friend. He told me that there was an absolutely fantastic film I should see called "Slumdog Millionaire". I told him I wasn't interested, but he insisted and pushed a DVD into my hand. A home-made copy.

I took it home, and when it started there was a warning message. "This DVD is intended for viewing by film critics during the awards season. It is for personal viewing only. You may not show it to your friends or family". Very interesting. Someone somewhere had leaked the DVD. Fortunately, that was two years before I started writing my blog, or I would have had to explain how I got my hands on the film.

I loved the film. It truly is a masterpiece. It's fascinating to compare it with "Steve Jobs", which I watched in the cinema earlier this month. Both films are directed by Danny Boyle, but their style is so different. "Steve Jobs" is very minimalist, whereas "Slumdog Millionaire" has a luxurious big budget feeling. Both films are excellent in their own ways.

The film tells the story of the "Who wants to be a millionaire" contestant, Jamal Malik, but it also tells the story of India from 1990 to 2006. We see the religious persecution in the 1990's. We see the gangs and the political corruption. We see the housing boom when the slums are demolished to make room for skyscrapers. We see the call centres outsourced by British companies to India.

"Slumdog Millionaire" was nominated for ten Oscars in 2009, of which it won eight, including best film. That was well deserved.

Jurassic World (3½ Stars)

This film, the fourth in the Jurassic Park franchise, broke the record for the highest ever box office for the opening weekend, grossing about $520 million. At its current rate of popularity it looks set to become the most successful film of 2015. Does it deserve it? I'll try to give my opinion, while carefully avoiding spoilers for my readers who still haven't seen the film.

The film continues from "Jurassic Park: The Lost World" (1997), the second film in the series. The events of "Jurassic Park 3" (2001) aren't relevant to the film. After John Hammond's death his dream has finally been realised to have a dinosaur theme park on the island Isla Nublar. The park has been running successfully for years. While Ingen retains control in the background, the face shown to the world is a friendly family-oriented business run by theme park manager Claire Dearing. Not content with just bringing old dinosaurs back to life, Ingen is now creating new dinosaurs, by mixing the DNA of existing dinosaurs with one another and other creatures. Their newest creation is an Indominus Rex, a creature larger than a Tyrannosaurus Rex. After all, the public will only return if they see a new attraction each year.

Claire is visited by her nephews, Zach and Gray. The Indominus Rex escapes and runs havoc. The park's Velociraptor trainer, Owen Grady, is recruited to get the situation back under control.

Steven Spielberg was absent from the creative control of "Jurassic Park 3", but his absence is even more clearly marked this time round. At least "Jurassic Park 3" imitated the Spielberg style: an action scene to start the film with a bang, followed by slow scenes that introduce the main characters one by one, slowly building up the pace until the action is packed densely for the second half of the film. "Jurassic World" makes no attempts to be a Spielberg film. It starts slowly, and then the main characters are pushed upon us too quickly for the viewer to get to know them or relate to them. For instance, the children Zach and Grey are obviously an attempt to repeat the first film's pattern of having innocent young children caught up in a catastrophe. Whereas we got to know and love John Hammond's grandchildren in "Jurassic Park", Zach and Grey are just two dorky teenagers that we don't really care about. Claire Dearing is an ambitious career woman who fails to win our sympathy. Owen Grady is thrust upon us so fast that we hardly know him when he jumps into action. None of the main characters are well developed. Ironically, the only characters we can really warm to are Vivian and Lowery, two tech workers in the control room. They're irrelevant to the story, but we can relate to the sub-plot of their romantic attraction. As for Claire and Owen, who cares if they get together or not?

The action scenes in "Jurassic World" are spoilt by poor cinematography. In most scenes the camera is too close to the action, which hides what's really happening. Compare this to the other three films, in which the camera steps back and lets us take in the dinosaur attacks. The only exception is the pterodactyl attack, which is easily the best filmed scene in "Jurassic World".

This is supposedly the first film in a new Jurassic Park trilogy. I hope the next film will learn from this film's mistakes. We need more time to introduce the characters, and there should be well-defined character arcs. And bring back Vivian and Lowery.

One last thought. I've read a lot of criticism of "Jurassic World" being scientifically inaccurate, because we now know that dinosaurs had feathers. Really? Do we know anything at all? That's just the latest scientific theory, the flavour of the month, to be smugly quoted by non-scientists who want to sound smarter than the film makers. The fact is that scientists are just making speculations based on the very sparse evidence that they have at their disposal. 10 years from now, maybe sooner, scientists will have new opinions. There's nothing wrong with that. Science is a slow plodding subject, especially where the distant past is concerned. Let's step back and let the scientists do their work while the film makers do theirs. Apart from this, even if it is true that dinosaurs had feathers, it would be a mistake to show them like that in the film. The typical cinema-goer has grown up with images of the Tyrannosaurus Rex, the Stegosaurus and similar creatures. If he were presented with large feathered creatures that look like turkeys he wouldn't take them seriously when they attack.

Slumdog Millionaire (5 Stars)

When somebody asks me a question, I tell them the answer.

This film is a rarity, as far as I'm concerned. It's one of the very few films to be voted Best Film at the yearly Academy Awards that I really considered to be the best film. I just browsed the list of the winning films, and the only one I agree with is "Titanic" (1997). Sure, it was often a good film that won the award, but there was always a better film that finished second or wasn't even nominated.

The film is about an 18-year-old boy who takes part in the Indian version of the television game show "Who wants to be a millionaire?" It was originally devised in England, but due to its immense popularity clones were created all over the world. I agree that it's a fascinating show, if not watched too often. I first watched it when I was in hospital in 2000 and had little else to do. At the time it was aired five days a week, Monday to Friday. After being discharged from hospital in 2001 I still watched it, but less often. Eventually I stopped. I'd watched it so often that I had grown sick of it.

In the film Jamal Malik answers all the questions right, raising suspicions that he must have been cheating. The game is halted before the last question and he's interrogated. Jamal is no genius, as he readily admits. He tells his life story to the police detective, explaining how he learnt each answer by his life experiences.

When it was voted best film there were "experts" who claimed that it had won as a result of a black man being made American president for the first time. What? Do people actually get paid for talking rubbish like that? It won the award because it was the best film.

The Life of Pi (5 Stars)

That night Jacob got up and took his two wives, his two female servants and his eleven sons and crossed the ford of the Jabbok. After he had sent them across the stream, he sent over all his possessions. So Jacob was left alone, and a man wrestled with him till daybreak. When the man saw that he could not overpower him, he touched the socket of Jacob's hip so that his hip was wrenched as he wrestled with the man. Then the man said, "Let me go, for it is daybreak".

But Jacob replied, "I will not let you go unless you bless me".

The man asked him, "What is your name?"

"Jacob", he answered.

Then the man said, "Your name will no longer be Jacob, but Israel, because you have struggled with God and with humans and have overcome".

Jacob said, "Please tell me your name".

But he replied, "Why do you ask my name?" Then he blessed him there.

So Jacob called the place Peniel, saying, "It is because I saw God face to face, and yet my life was spared".

The sun rose above him as he passed Peniel, and he was limping because of his hip. Therefore to this day the Israelites do not eat the tendon attached to the socket of the hip, because the socket of Jacob's hip was touched near the tendon.

(Genesis 32:22-32)

The word "Israel" means "God's fighter". For this reason the Jews proudly claim that they are the ones who fight for God. However, the word is ambiguous, since it could be an objective or a subjective genitive. The passage quoted above shows the true meaning of the word. Jacob, the father of the Jews, was called Israel because he fought against God, not for him. This has been repeated in the 4000 years since this occasion. The Jews have continually fought against God, as was seen most clearly when they crucified their Messiah. And yet they are blessed. Not because they deserve it, but because God wants to bless them.

I have just watched "The Life of Pi" for the sixth time, the fifth time this year. Every time I watch it I dig deeper into the religious imagery. It's a brilliant film that can be enjoyed on so many different levels.

The Life of Pi (5 Stars)

This is the second film that I watched with Ian last night. It's another good choice. It's a film that expresses a deep spirituality that overwhelms me every time I watch it. Watching it again last night made it the fifth time I've watched it since I began my blog in 2010, and it's the fourth time I've watched it this year.

I remember that when the film first appeared in the cinemas a friend of mine said that she wouldn't go to see it because she thought it was silly that a boy should live with a tiger in a boat. She didn't get it. It's like the people who refuse to watch professional wrestling because they say that wrestling is fake. This isn't a random comparison. In both the "Life of Pi" and the WWE the story is more important than what happens. People who say that wrestling is fake are missing the point; they don't understand that it's irrelevant whether it's real sport or not. Did Piscine Molitor Patel, a.k.a. Pi, really spend 227 days in a boat with a man-eating tiger? To ask whether the story is true or not is missing the point.