User reviews

"Pi" is an amazing independent films. Darren Aronofsky had never made a feature film and was barely able to scrape together the $60,000 needed to make this film. Despite this pitifully small budget, he managed to make a remarkably watchable film AND it caught the eyes of the 'big boys'--and soon he was given $1,000,000 for his film! While not quite as insanely successful as "The Blair Witch Project" (which came out the following year), unlike the filmmakers of this other project, Aronofsky has gone on to greater things--including the wildly successful and critically acclaimed "Black Swan" as well as "The Wrestler".

Describing the look of the film is VERY difficult. Sure, it's cheap but Aronofsky managed to get past this by using black & white and deliberately making the print very grainy--giving it a wonderfully surreal look. I am not exactly sure how he did this but it worked well. And, because he wasn't able to use top equipment, it has a bit of a homemade look--which I was able to look past. Much of this was because the plot was so wild and surreal as well as very stylish.

Describing the plot...well that's even MORE difficult! It's a strange tale about a man who is on the edge of losing his mind. He is convinced that everything in nature and life can be quantified and explained through mathematics. And, given that you can find the correct mathematical formula, you can predict and understand EVERYTHING. So Maximillian spends nearly every second of his waking day devoted to this all-encompassing task. He avoids relationships, is very unkempt and is a miserable excuse for a human being. And, eventually it all begins to take its toll as he begins to hallucinate and experiencing excruciating pain in his body and brain. What's next for this incredibly strange man with his seemingly impossible task? See the film!

This is a very, very difficult film to rate. It gets very high marks for originality and it is entertaining. However, it's NOT a film for the mainstream. The average Joe would probably find it all just too weird and too confusing. But, if you want something different and are patient, it's well worth seeing.

Now here'a film that is "not for all tastes," as the cliché goes.

"Strange" doesn't quite cover it but it is not that bizarre that you can't figure out what's happening. Director-writer Darren Arokofsky made a name for himself with his second movie, Requiem For A Dream, and this was the young filmmakers' first effort. It was made a tight budget since he was an unknown, but that's part of the attraction. This is grainy black-and-white, and so is the gritty story and most of the characters. The unique look fits the story.

It's not a story that is going to please a lot of people - an almost-demented math wizard trying to figure out stock market codes and two groups hounding him trying to cash in on his brainpower. One is trying to use him to make big money in the market and the other is trying to decipher ancient Jewish texts and thinks our mathematician can help. Meanwhile, he wants no part of any of these people.

Our hero, the numbers freak, thinks the entire world revolves around numbers. Everything in the universe, he thinks, can be figured out through number codes. Not only is he wacked and paranoid but so is about everyone in here. They all have strange ideas. Innovative camera-work makes the story even stranger. In fact, it's that photography that makes this DVD a part of my collection

If you're looking for something different here and there, I would give this curiosity piece a quick look. (It's not a long movie.) Overall, I thought this "added up" to an intriguing film, but if you give it a try and hate it, don't blame me.

3.141592653589793238462643383279502884197169399375105820974944592307816 40628620899862803482534211706798214808651328230664709384460955058223172 53594081284811174502841027019385211055596446229489549303819644288109756 6593

the movie has some guidelines that follow the mathematical path, though strangely interpreted. It resembles the Lynch series, ("Eraserhead" actually), though Lynch uses more colour... I recommend it to all the freaks (lest they should go nuts like Max...) and to the movie freaks, that like to admire pure art. the number i've written is PI, with the precision of 216 decimals... and don't fool yourselves, it doesn't have any pattern, it just runs infinitely...

'Pi' is independent filmmaking at its best. Without the constraints of the studio/corporate system, Aronofsky and Gullette created a film that is bizarre, intelligent, and unlike anything that came out of Hollywood in the 1990's. Who would have thought to blend Wall Street, the Kabbalah, computer science, Go, number theory, and the most fascinating number in the universe in a solute of obsessive-compulsive, paranoid genius and then strain through gritty B&W cinematography and hyperkinetic editing? The mixture is definitely not for everybody, but I certainly loved it.

Plus the soundtrack (featuring Orbital, Clint Mansell, Aphex Twin. Gus Gus, Spacetime Continuum, and other techno talents) just flat-out rocks.

Pi is the kind of movie I wished I could've seen in one of those dank art-house movie theaters in New York City, as it's practically gift-wrapped for the crowds. But it's not done with every shot lingering on the characters, soaking in minimalism in its black and white photography, quite the opposite. Darren Aronofsky is a filmmaker I first got into through Requiem for a Dream, which now years after I saw it I want to revisit again upon the soon to be released the Fountain and especially after now seeing Pi. Before with 'Requiem', I did like the movie a lot, but felt a little apprehensive about deeming it that old term 'masterpiece' as the editing, while ultra fast for a purpose, almost came off as too "MTV" for me. But years later, after hundreds of more films taken in, I'm ready for a second look. In this particular case, Pi is also the kind of movie that warrants a second look at the director's other films. His themes run just as much together as does his breakneck style. And it's not just to show off; he truly does get inside a psychology through subjective camera AND editing, to a degree that might impress Hitchcock, albeit with some whiplash.

Max Cohen played by Sean Gullette is the protagonist of the story, who's main foe is none other than the universe itself, in a sense, all through one number. Or rather, a series of numbers, one which might unlock the Stock Market secret for him. He doesn't even want to play the market, mind you, but the point for him- if one can follow- might be attributed to a repeated memory he has of looking at the sun as a boy, and soon looking past the shock of actually looking long at it. This is a very small device by Aronofsky but it works well to establish- and continue- this man's downward spiral. And spirals, by the way, seem to also figure into the film, as well as a secret technology firm (with a woman who reminded me of Condaleeza Rice look-alike), and especially a near undercover Hasidim ring where they need the numbers *in* Cohen's head to unlock some big secret to God. But even with all of this pressure, Cohen can't shake what's dogging him around, in his own cramped, wire-ridden apartment, with many bugs crawling around.

The key for this movie really is atmosphere, in the acting (if it makes you uncomfortable sometimes that's the point too, and it's probably the strangest performance of a lifetime for Gullette), the production design (that apartment and the subways), the grainy, spectacular photography by Matthew Libatique, the editing to be sure- which here, unlike the breakneck 'Requiem', does take a break from the cuts so quick they almost past subliminally (which isn't bad)- and the moody music that is so slight you almost forget its there. It even works for me, and this is a big plus, as someone who's not really interested in mathematics (worst subject in school), and even better as it drew me in to his obsessions with it. I really liked one of the early scenes between Max and his the friendly Hassidic man who explains on paper different numbers and their relation to parts of the Torah. And, in the end, it all comes down to getting engrossed through what the filmmaker's bringing in with this man. There is a sort of detachment from reality- that most of us would never touch much of this with a ten foot pole- but then again it really isn't. Aronofsky also makes a point of some hallucinations/dreams adding to the ambiance, skidding almost towards the pretentious, and thus creating a world all of its own in Pi for Max, and for us as well.

A film that I shall certainly seek out again when I can, if only to see if I can understand some things a little more (or maybe not as case might be), and to see such a powerhouse performance from Gullette. Grade: A

Unsettling, creepy, tense, surreal. The film is quite similar to Eraserhead (1977), another feature debut of a director (David Lynch) whose surrealism and otherworldly visuals would become a massive trademark. It was a promising start for Aronofsky, who would go on to create many now iconic films that were incredibly unique in storytelling and visual imagery. Nice one 👍

Pi is the oddest, hippest, most chilling account of the descent into the abyss.

Following mathematical clues derived from an analysis of the stock market, Maximillian Cohen begins his descent into madness as he attempts to discover the nature of everything through the peculiar numerical entity known as Pi.

Thrilling enough, but then combine with generous amounts of Kaballistic mysticism, black and white footage and a soundtrack like an audible fractal, and you have a sensory snare which drags you along for the ride into Max's impending breakdown.

Obsession has never been so exciting.

Pi is an utterly gut-wrenching, mind expanding phenomema. If you have ever wondered about the universe, God or the nature of insanity, Pi will take you where you don't want to go.

Pi suffers from what I call the explain-it-to-the-audience syndrome,

where the filmmaker is convinced that he knows something we

don't, and feels the need to explain it to us. So whenever a

character speaks, either directly to us in a voice over, or indirectly

through a conversation with another character (though it is still

obviously directed at us), he is "teaching" us about some concept -

numbers, the golden rectangle, etc. It's not only pretentious, but

takes away any sort of realism in the characters, since they are not

allowed to carry on as any real human being would. It's hard to get

absorbed into Pi, because you can feel the director's presence

looming over every scene. It makes the movie very tedious to

watch. Unless, of course, you're in the mood to be talked down to.

This screenplay must have been turned down one hundred times before someone would finance it. I don't blame them. However, what could have been a travesty was saved by great acting, directing, cinematography, and sound. This brilliant/bizarre film turns a genius's quest to find the code for Wall Street into an adventure that engulfs all of human existence, and God. A brilliant example of how proper film making can turn straw into gold. Some viewers may be put off by the bizarre fits the main character faces, or the intrusion of complex mathematics into film, forcing the viewer to think, but if you watch this film, you will be rewarded a unique movie-going experience few other films will give you. This film gives you a look into the mind of man plagued by the genius he was given.

Writers Aronofsky and Gullette have crafted a dark, psychological thriller that centers around, of all things, math and numbers. One would think that there was no way that this could hold anyone's interest, but they managed to pull it off. "Pi" reminds us that genius is just this side of madness, and that great intelligence is a burden as well as a gift.

Gullette plays Max Cohen, the brilliant and tortured mathematician, beautifully and without overacting. His mind seethes with the possibilities that lie waiting inside number systems. However, the strain that his talent places on him results in blinding, hallucinogenic migraines. The scenes where Max falls victim to his ailment are tense, well-directed, and have just the right amount of creepiness.

The one beef that I have with this picture pertains to the other characters who are meant to be the film's antagonists. Two parties - a Wall Street firm and a Hasidic Jewish sect are after Max for his abilities. Neither of these relationships are expanded on enough to make the viewer care about them. Of the two, the sect members are the most believable. However, the stockbrokers and Max's encounters with them scream "film school". The loud-mouthed and overbearing businesswoman is more a parody of "the suits", and doesn't fit in with the rest of the film. You are left thinking that the only reason these characters appeared at all was as a plot device to get Max the parts he needed.

A minor, but nagging point - are we really to believe, in this day and age where nearly everyone has seen the inside of a PC, that Max's super-processor is a black cube with four pins? I saw this film with a bunch of other techie-type folk, and our collective reaction was "he's going to run his calculations on a bridge rectifier?"

All in all, this film is entertaining for those who enjoy offbeat cinema. Those looking for "The Matrix" aren't going to be satisfied at all. Math, science, and computer geeks won't wince too much. Hollywood SFX blockbuster this isn't, but that's not a bad thing. Overall, a good film with a few minor drawbacks.

"Pi (1998)" is, without doubt, the best no-budget movie I've ever seen. Directed by Darren Aronofsky with a ridiculous budget of $60,000 - which I first thought was a mistake in the figures, since I couldn't believe such a movie could possibly be made with that amount of money.

Most of the cast and crew later re-united to make "Requiem for a Dream (2000)" - one of the best movies made in the last few years. Like many others, it was "Requiem" that made me find "Pi". It took Aronofsky only 2 movies to become one of my favorite directors, and I can't wait to see what the future holds for this young and promising writer/director.

The movie stars Sean Gullette, which co-wrote the movie with Aronofsky and Eric Watson. You might recognize him as Arnold (Marion's old partner and shrink) in "Requiem". Gullette is perfect in his role and does an amazing job here. It's a shame we don't see his talent in more movies.

Mark Margolis (Mr. Rabinowitz in "Requiem") is excellent as Max's mentor and all the other cast is doing a great job too.

Like in "Requiem", technical aspect is top-notch: Excellent black-and-white cinematography (Matthew Libatique) and the innovative use of the Snorricam, lightning, editing (Oren Sarch), and music (Clint Mansell, frontman for Pop will Eat itself).

The director's commentary for this movie is fascinating. After hearing it you'd appreciate the effort and heart that were put into this movie a lot more.

Look for guest/cameo appearances by Samia Shoaib (the nurse in "Requiem") as Devi, Max's nextdoor neighbor; Clint Mansell (the movie's composer) as the photographer; and Abraham Aronofsky (Darren's father) as one of the men delivering the suitcase at the door.

One last word. While some aspects presented in the movie - such as the Hebrew numerology and mathematical concepts - are correct (that is, the explanations of Hebrew numerology are not made-up; That _doesn't_ mean I actually believe in any of the meanings attached to them), I suggest you to use your suspension-of-disbelief instead of trying to find logic and mistakes in them.

10/10

Pi is one insane film. I thought college algebra was tough and thank God there are crazy mathematical wizards like Max (Sean Gullette) to take care of digits and theorems that mean nothing to the common man. This is not really the point of Pi, an artistic masterwork made on a $60,000 budget, meant to put the viewer through a paranoid nightmare.

I was reminded of films made in the same vein like Welles' THE TRIAL, or Soderbergh's KAFKA, both black and white films with a frenetic pace and distorted narrative. Pi is hypnotic filmmaking not meant for all tastes (by any means) and it is a wonder how writer-director Darren Aronofsky got any kind of financial backing. His relatives probably did not see the picture until it was in the can or they may have pulled out. This is not a knock. I found the film to be a true work of genius in an avant-garde manner, something you don't see much in American cinema these days.

Here is a film that exists entirely within the main character's state of mind. He is a math freak whose passion, or should I say obsession, is killing him literally. To top it off, some sinister people from a religious cult want some answers through numbers and some Wall Street people are out for blood and money. Forget plot, forget character, forget narrative. This film is a nightmare in structure and appearance. I would not have been surprised to find the action took place in some netherworld.

Why see Pi? I guess the same reason we had to learn some of this mathematical crap in high school. There are no redeeming qualities or any revelations made. Just some grainy, often stunning black and white images and situations that knocks the wind out of you. If you see it, don't look to deep for any religious or scientific symbolism, at least on first viewing. Pi will absorb you whether you hate it or not. This is a very ambitious outing from first-time filmmakers Aronofsky and Gullette and I give them much credit for creating a work of art I've never seen the likes of before.

RATING: UNCLASSIFIABLY Good

I liked the intrigue of this film, which is the pursuit of numerical patterns in nature from spiral galaxies down to microscopic organisms, and how it relates to the work of intellectual giants of the past (Pythagoras, da Vinci, etc). Unfortunately the film doesn't go anywhere interesting with this concept, dabbling only superficially in numerology of things like Judaism and the stock market, and even less so in actual mathematics. It meanders into being a drama with various people putting pressure on the mathematician, and others providing him with a new computer chip, none of which makes a lot of sense. It probably should have stayed away from all that stuff and the guy's disturbed mental state, and concentrated more on spiral patterns in nature, the golden rule, and interesting number patterns, whether they mean something or not. It's too bad, I liked the idea of it and the grainy black and white aesthetic, but it really faltered in the final half hour, and I found my interest fading. In the end it doesn't work as having insight into math/science because it's too shallow, and it doesn't work as a drama because the story is weak.

The predecessor to Requiem for a Dream, this is arguably more stylish and engaging. This is helped largely by the simply outstanding soundtrack. Aranovsky's use of a haunting yet modern score binds the movie together perfectly, aided by some fantastic cinematic techniques that disorientate the audience in time with the music. The character narration is also a great cohesive tool, with the deadpan delivery more than matching the tone of the piece. This film is not as beautiful as Requiem, nor does it have quite the same gutwrenching effect, but nonetheless, this is still some film. If you like your movies very hollywood then this is not for you; but if you like stylised innovation, then you have to watch this.

I am generally wary of movie portrayals of scientists and people who are supposedly scientific geniuses. It seems that most movie-makers are not scientifically inclined and never manage to do a convincing job. Pi, however, is a very interesting movie and Sean Gullette does a reaonably good job of portraying a genius on the edge of insanity. My fears that this would be another typical bad science movie were quelled very quickly, never to return again. Of course, they didn't get all the details down pat, but most of it was believable (or close) and some of it was correct. Comments on science aside though, I think this was one of the more interesting, and certainly one of the most original, movies I have seen this year.There are provocative metaphors hidden (well, not very deeply) throughout the movie (esp. the bugs), and the subject is so completely novel that it is really worth seeing. In conclusion I would say that if you think a movie about number theory would be boring, in regard to this movie you would be wrong. If, like me, you think a movie about number theory would be exciting but probably done badly, then you will have to accept that this movie is not really about number theory, but about a number theorist. As far as the execution goes though, you needn't worry about it, it is a pleasant relief from the usual.

A cross between Travis Bickle, Henry Spencer (you cannot be truly hip if you don't know either), and your typical high school geek, wanders around NYC trying to find mathematical order in the universe. Along the way, he is being destroyed by his own inexplicable fits and various factions (high class businessmen, Orthodox Jews), who desire to possess the code. Upon close observation, "Pi" is not as revolutionary or original as it may seem. If anything, it recalls David Lynch's astonishing 1978 debut, also black and white. The similarities are many, there's even a "girl next door", albeit more attractive than Lynch's. But Aaronofsky is unclear on which venue to pursue, and his film walks the thin line between Avant-Garde and a contrived Thriller. That is precisely why it can't be totally cohesive or enjoyable. By the second half, the Avant-Garde visions become repetitive, and the Thriller twists all too predictable and even ludicrous. On the other hand, an intense, eeiry and captivating electronica score that captures the whole atmosphere of the movie, is of great help, and the whole premise of a genius making sense of the universe's mechanism is unique and admirable, especially in the light of today's mindless junk cinema. Flawed as it is, Pi is the only film in the past few years which makes the audience contemplate a philosophical point of view they might not be comfortable with. For that it should be praised. Those looking for a true masterpiece of surrealism should rent "Erraserhead" instead.

Jim Jarmusch famously resents having his films referred to as 'quirky' by critics. Yet, it seems to me that many independent films, including "Pi", have little else going for them. Perhaps the development of rich dramatic films by independent producers has spoiled me or corrupted me. Didn't David Lynch do all this stuff in "Eraserhead" in 1977? Black and white, crooked cameras, troubled close ups, vague and humorless dialogue. Come on. I can understand how the new generation of math obsessed computerites can relate to the hero's psychosis over formulas, but I thought it was boring and very 'done'.

********SPOILERS******* Max Cohen, Sean Gullette, is obsessed with numbers. A mathematical genius who earned a PHD at the age of 16 has a theory about the universe and wants to prove it to his own satisfaction. 1. Math is the language of the universe. 2. Everything around us can be understood by numbers. 3. If you graph a number of any system patterns emerge, therefor patterns are everything in nature.

We're told by Max at the beginning of the movie that when he was a little boy his mother warned him not to stare into the sun because it would hurt his eyes, but Max did. He stared so long into the sun that he temporarily went blind. This may be the reason in the movie "Pi" why Max keeps getting terrible headaches and why he's constantly taking medication to relive them.

In his apartment in New York's Chinatown Max built Euclid a powerful computer that he feels can prove his theory. Using the stock market as a model Max tries to prove that even that can be deciphered by his calculations and feeds stock quotes into Euclid to prove his point by predicting their rising and falling in the future.

Patterns are everywhere in nature, Max says, even in the stock market. One afternoon when Max puts Euclid to it's final test to see if his theory is correct the computer crashes. Before it did it printed out a long string of numbers that seemed to make no sense at all to Max who threw it in the garbage.

Hurt that all that he did to prove his theory went up in smoke, Max goes to see his former mathematics and psychics professor Sol Robeson, Mark Margolis, to get some support and sympathy.

When Sol hears that Euclid printed a list of numbers before it crashed he gets very excited and asks Max how many numbers, 100, 1,000 216 how many? Max told Sol that it was all meaningless to him and that he threw it away. Later sitting in a diner Max runs into Lenny Meyer, Ben Shenkman, an Hasidic Jew who's also interested in numbers in the interpretation of the Kabbala. Lenny then tries to get Max interested in the mysteries of the Kabbala. Max doesn't realize at the time but later in the movie when he's saved from a gang of Wall Street goons by Lenny and his Hasidic friends that the number of God in the Talmud is exactly 216 digits! The number that he so foolishly discarded after Euclid crashed! The same number of digits that Sol gave him about how many numbers did his computer print out before it blew. Max, before he found out just what that number meant, starts to realize that there was something in what Euclid's last communication was but that he stupidly threw it away. Going back to the garbage where he threw the paper with the numbers away Max finds that it's long gone.

Earlier in the movie "Pi" we were introduced to an executive of a Wall Street firm Marcy Dawson, Pamela Hart, who was constantly pestering Max to lend his knowledge and services to her firm. Always ignoring and trying to avoid her things changed but after the crash of Max's computer Euclid. It's when Marcy offers Max something called a Ming Mecca chip, which is classified by the US government, Max suddenly becomes interested. Max needs that chip to restart his computer and find out what that important number that he so foolishly threw away was.

With everything set Max starts up Euclid and after some hesitation the elusive 216 digit number comes up on the screen but for some reason doesn't get printed so Max writes it down on a piece of paper and programs it back into the computer. With Euclid giving out information Max then sees that he can predict stock prices ahead of time. It's now that Max realizes that Sol has been keeping this information about a 216 digit number that can interpret all the patterns of the universe from him all these years.

Going to Sol's apartment to confront him about what he found out and why Sol tried to keep him from finding it out, Max is told by a nurse who answered the door that Sol passed away the day before. In Sol's apartment Max sees papers on which Sol wrote about what the same elusive number, God's number, was and what it meant and it seemed that the stress of all that work on Sol's part cause his death.

Max finally realized, what Sol did years ago, that there is some knowledge that is better kept to itself for it's too dangerous for anyone to pursue.

Very weird and at the same time interesting film by Darren Aronofsky about math and what math has to do with the working with the universe and how someone can become so obsessed with it that it can destroy him and everyone else that he comes in contact with.

While visually stimulating and never boring, PI is essentially an empty stylistic exercise. The filmmakers were very wise to keep it to 85 minutes; if the film were longer, it would quickly become unbearable. Besides, David Lynch has already made this movie. ERASERHEAD is also an empty stylistic exercise, but it works better than this film does. PI was not a bad film, but I was disappointed. The number pi doesn't really even figure in the end - I got a bad feeling it was just a 'cool' symbol the makers thought would market their film well, like the bat symbol. It worked on me.

Pi is one of those movies that thoroughly freaked me out. I spent the next several hours wandering around in a complete daze. Every aspect of the production lends itself to this. The grainy, B+W, unsteady camera work, the sound effects (esp. the pill popping), the crispness of the narrator and Max's character in general, even more so when compared to the characters around him (which are, for the most part, utterly normal). As a mathematician this movie was utterly intriguing, bringing up facinating points about the interrelations of Math, Nature, and everything in general. But the movie's 'voice' and feel are the true gold mines here.