Life of Pi is a remarkable film. It is a faithful adaptation of a thoughtful and even beloved book that still condenses or eliminates elements that might not work on screen.  It is also a rare non-animated, feature length film where the 3D is not only well done but essential.  Other films have been made with watchable 3D or even good 3D but essential? Certainly some terrible movies have been made barely watchable with 3D (Avatar) and there was even a documentary, Werner Herzog’s Cave of Forgotten Dreams where 3D is essential but no other feature movie springs readily to mind where the 3D truly helps make the film great.

The 3D in this film is a big part of the film being great.  It is more than the cinematography being spectacular it is how the visuals connect to the story.  You recall imagery from this film more than the dialog, than the acting.

This isn’t to denigrate the acting or the screenplay—it is just an incredibly visual film. This may be Ang Lee's best film and screenwriter, David MaGee's adaptation is remarkable. It is a film where one actor, Suraj Sharma, bears most of the load and he does it admirably, especially considering this is his first major film. There are, of course, worthy supporting roles. Most notable is Irrfan Khan as the older version of the main character. You may recall him as the police inspector in Slumdog Millionaire. His credits in Indian films are too numerous to mention.

But is the film about what we see on the surface alone? Is it just a pretty and magical 3D ride? It is not.

Life of Pi builds up a notion that stories have a life of their own. Reality never truly corresponds with stories we tell. We experience something and then we tell people about that something.  Yet the story, however accurately try to relay it, is never truly the same as the experience. This is by definition. Which is correct; the story or the actual experience?

It is a question the more literal minded will answer without a thought. But think on that a bit; the event is frozen in time while the story lives and breathes.  What we believe is as real as what actually happened.

That is the essence of the film, what we can take away from it is that our lives, our stories are what we believe them to be—what we choose. Reality is not some hard fast thing. There is magic all around us, every day, if we simply choose to bring it to life.

This film, and certainly the book it is based on, juxtaposes the “real” world, against the world we choose. But it does more than that. Both film and book call our attention to the magic and wonder in the world and force us to think about the disappointments in life and how, by simple perception, we can take one view, one narrative, of our lives and see it differently—not as a lie, not as wishful thinking or a rewriting of the past but as a different story, a different interpretation.

Django Unchained makes you wonder what is next. Inglourious Basterds rewrote the history of World War II to what many of us, no doubt, regard as a better resolution.  Burning those responsible for the Holocaust and the bloodiest war in human history alive is far more satisfying than cyanide, self-inflicted bullet wounds or boring trials.

Django Unchained does the same for the historic crime of slavery. Guess what? There is lots of blood and brutality mixed with humor. This is a film in the upper echelon of Tarantino's work--even comparing favorably to films like Pulp Fiction and Jackie Brown.

Of course, in slavery, there is no ONE person (like Hitler) that you can focus all your rage on. So? You create a loathsome, sadistic plantation owner, Calvin Candie.

Candie, not only an evil character but one with bad teeth. Both of these are novel in the career of Leonardo DiCaprio--an unattractive character both physically and morally. There is nothing to like about DiCaprio's Candie. Of course this character is writ large and broad and requires some serious scenery chewing which DiCaprio does with gusto.

To face Candie's evil we have two protagonists--Dr. King Schultz and Django. The former is a former German dentist turned bounty hunter and the later a slave being sold. Schultz needs Django to identify men he is chasing and Django needs his freedom to rescue his wife. Christoph Waltz turns in a performance every bit as memorable as his Oscar winning role as Colonel Hans Landa. Jamie Foxx turns in a performance worthy of any Western. He is John Wayne, Gary Cooper and Clint Eastwood all rolled into one.

Guess who winds up in possession of his wife? Yes! Calvin Candie! And also Django's wife speaks German and is named Broomhilda.

One really interesting choice in the film is the REAL villain--Samuel L. Jackson's Stephen, the head house "nigger" (If you have a strong aversion to the "N-word" this isn't the film for you). It is a peculiar choice for a villain. Generally, a black character isn't going to be the villain of a slavery film (after Birth of a Nation anyway) but Tarantino creates Stephen, a character somehow more evil than Candie in that he works against his own kind. Django plays at being a black slaver but Stephan is really complicit in the oppression of his own people. He is a cog in the machine of slavery. He is Judas, worse than Judas.

Django Unchained has a slew of cameos, some are hilarious and others seemingly random appearances by well known actors. Keep your eyes open for these. Many of these small roles really add to the film. Laura Cayouette as Candie's sister, Miss Laura, barely says a word but still brings something to the film (maybe even a hint of an unnatural relationship with her brother). Don Johnson, Walter Goggins, Jonah Hill and Tom Wopat all turn up in the film at various points and they are not alone.

This film may slow down a wee bit here and there but, rest assured, these lulls (and they are brief) are punctuated with unexpected violence or humor. This film flows far better than Inglourious Basterds and it combines all the best of Tarantino's past work. Tarantino nods to film history here and there. You always get the impression in his better films that every detail is in a greater context and this is certainly true in Django Unchained. These roots, this context, is emphatically not in history but in film history. In a way Tarantino 's film isn't about righting the wrongs of slavery but about righting the wrongs of how slavery has been depicted in film--from the earliest American "epic" to the happy, sassy, slaves of subsequent films.

Hopefully this isn't the final rewriting of this history. Django II anyone?

Denzel Washington always elevates his material. He takes a throwaway action flick and makes you pay attention (Safe House for instance). Washington is one of those actors that demand an audience’s attention. You could make a list of films, going back decades, where he takes something that would, without his presence, not be worth a thought and makes it worth looking at.

His latest film, Flight, is the story of a hard drinking pilot who saves most of the lives on a flight he pilots. The catch is that he is drunk and on drugs while doing it. What to do in such a case?  Is he a hero or is he a monster?

Washington makes his character more than either of those things, he makes him a man.  His Whip Whitaker isn’t a good man but rather one who is out of control, who has a side that seems to care—for his son, for people he meets but then? When push comes to shove? A bottle matters more. He isn’t evil, he isn’t a caricature but rather a flawed man lost in a nightmare of his own creation. You will literally squirm as his character makes certain decisions in the film.

The supporting cast includes Bruce Greenwood, John Goodman and Don Cheadle (as well as Kelly Reilly, Tamara Tunie and Nadine Velasquez). This is a pretty good group of supporting actors to have surrounding Washington. He doesn’t need to carry this film on his back. Cheadle is Whitaker’s attorney—as interested in pushing liability away from the airline as in saving Whitaker. Greenwood is an old friend and fellow pilot whose affection for Whitaker is balanced by his knowledge of his old friend’s demons. No scenery chewing from any of these actors. The characters they bring to life here seem quite real and have complicated motivations.  Every single character has to make decisions about Whitaker and what he means in their lives.

Flight is also notable for one of the best shot, scariest, plane crash sequences ever put on film. There have been a few that were nerve wracking (Fearless, for example) but this one may well be the best ever. How many times do frequent flyers have to take off in miserable weather? Isn’t there always a little nervousness in the back of the mind of even the least fearful passenger?  You know that your life is literally in the hands of someone else. In the case of this film the passengers are in the hands of a pilot with a brutal hangover.

Is Flight a ground breaking film? Probably not but it is a professionally done film that stays consistent within itself—and where everyone on screen is believable. It doesn’t really do a great deal that hasn’t been dealt with in other films about substance abuse. It really brings no deep insight into how lawyers, pilots and airlines behave after a crash. It is not a film that should be mentioned as one of the best of the year but not every film has to be that. It is, in a way, a film about ethics and about choices as much as it is about drug abuse and plane crashes. It puts you in a place where you have to wonder what you might do, faced with personal ruin.

Would you do the right thing? Or just the right thing for you?

Anna Karenina is an unusual film. Imagine Peter Greenaway directing the famous Tolstoy epic. The film has something akin to Greenaway’s surreal sets and transitions.  This is selling director Joe Wright and cinematographer Seamus McGarvey short since they truly create a new world for Tolstoy’s characters.  Rather than waste time describing how it looks—which is pointless—suffice it to say that it is closer to an abstract realist painting than a photo.

It seems like reality but it jumps and floats in and out of the real worth with ease and grace. It is a marvelous looking film and the costuming is breathtaking. But it isn’t just a good looking film. There are good looking films that are utterly and completely tedious with the sound on. The film is also well written. It takes Tolstoy’s massive novel and makes it digestible without removing the essential parts of the story. The screenplay makes sure we know who the main characters are, what sort of people, what sort of character they have and more. Some might say you cannot always easily discern their motivation but that is true both in the Tolstoy novel and in life itself.

If you have read the book you may get more out of this movie because the film delves much more into the society of the time, from politics to social norms for the different classes. A film can only hint at these things but writer Tom Stoppard makes the “hints” telling and creates a coherent, cohesive story from the larger story in the book.

Jude Law’s Karenina is a necessarily restrained performance. He is one of those actors who can transform himself. You barely recognize him in this character. Law can do histrionic and light. Here he has to show gravitas and, frankly, come off as sort of boring, like a high level bureaucrat of Imperial Russia. Many of the others in the ensemble are equally adept in bringing characters to life with limited screen time.

Another thing this film does is remind you how beautiful Keira Knightley is and that is an AIM here.  Part of how the audience and the other characters relate to her is through her beauty. She shows the flaws Tolstoy intended in the character too. Anna is not supposed to be perfect or just a victim of society but also a victim of herself. Perhaps the love affair that is the center of the film seems stilted and you do not get the attraction, or the depth of it. That may also be intentional. Is this some “love greater than all things” or is it just one life thrown away for another, more unconventional, but equally unsatisfying life.