ViewGuide

Created Dec 29, 2013 11:29PM PST • Edited Jan 02, 2014 01:55AM PST

1. Quality

2. Summary

   Good 3.0

   The brilliant Darren Aronofsky got his start with Pi, a low budget thriller about a math genius who holds the key to success for two secretive groups. The movie starts off wonderfully disturbing, later depicting a severe psychotic incident that’s not so wonderful, that’s very disturbing actually.

   Ultimately Pi is more ridiculous than disturbing however, damn near Eraserhead on the Upper West Side. It focuses on a man who anticipated high-frequency trading by at least a decade, intersecting that with a Jewish Da Vinci Code of sorts.

   I found Pi worthwhile viewing mostly as a window into the great Aronofsky, who has gone on to create several terrific movies. I’m in the minority in not considering Pi one of them. So be it. Challenging movies from early in an idiosyncratic filmmaker’s career are bound to be controversial.

4. Acting

   Good 3.0

   Sean Gullette’s hollow-eyed look and irritable demeanor make him devoid of charisma. More harmful to his performance, he didn’t come across as convincingly brilliant, a problem when playing a math genius. Interestingly, he looked much better bald in the latter parts of the movie.

   • Mark Margolis as a retired math professor with a penchant for playing Go. Margolis has one of the more interesting heads and voices in movies today.
   • Ben Shenkman as a smoking Hassid with various ulterior motives. Shenkman is a very interesting actor who should work more.
   • Stephen Pearlman as a Hassidic Rabbi with a deep belief in numerology
   • Samia Shoaib as Gullette’s gorgeous next door neighbor, sort of a Big Bang Theory ideal woman. Why didn’t Shoaib become a big star? I’d pay to see her.

5. Male Stars OK 2.5

6. Female Stars Good 3.0

7. Female Costars Great 4.0

   Samia Shoaib

8. Male Costars Very Good 3.5

10. Film

    Good 3.0

    Aronofsky’s debut movie was reportedly made for a mere $60,000, and looks it. However it’s got ideas to spare, even if its SciFi and stock market elements are kinda ridiculous. Aronofsky cowrote it with his star and Harvard classmate, Sean Gullette, who plays the tortured genius.

    Their film doesn’t ring true at several junctures, from the small to the large. For instance, why would a gorgeous neighbor remain so sweet on a homely genius in the face of constant vitriol? More importantly, could a numerologist unlock two highly complex systems? The film is far from convincing on this central issue. Even some tiny details ring false, e.g., mathematicians don’t say “divide into.”

11. Direction Very Good 3.5

12. Play OK 2.5

13. Music OK 2.5

14. Visuals Good 3.0
15. Content

16. Edge

    Risqué 1.6

17. Sex Innocent 1.0

18. Violence Fierce 1.7

19. Rudeness Salty 2.1

21. Reality

    Glib 1.8

    The silly computer SciFi and proto-high-frequency trading don’t ring true.

    Movie reality aside, Pi is one of the few movies to riff on Jewish Numerology and Kabbalah. The Name Game, writ cosmically large, is a truly fascinating topic.

22. Circumstantial Surreal 2.3

23. Biological Natural 1.0

24. Physical Surreal 2.1