The Life of Pi is not the type of film I usually go ape shit over, but I recognize exceptional quality and substance when I see it. There were a lot of good films this year in genres I tend to prefer, but it’s very rare that you see a film that can legitimately be called profound. The Life of Pi is such a film. I won’t give away details, because I think everyone should see this film fresh. But I will say this: It’s a lovely statement on what it actually means to believe in God, and it makes a rather deep statement about the meaning and importance of art, even implicitly making the case that God and art are actually the same thing. What’s more, these statements are made with a grace and subtlety that are not often achieved in films that aspire to this level of thought. And almost as an added bonus, it contains (once you’ve seen the entire film) one of the most striking metaphors for how the concept of family functions psycho-emotionally for humans, in relation to the trials and tribulations of life. Clearly, we are in very special territory with this movie. It is for me the best film of 2012. My wife and I left the theater amazed, and marveled about it endlessly.

To say The Life of Pi is visually beautiful really misses what makes it so special. There are lots and lots of visually beautiful films out there that are also empty and boring. Like Beasts of the Southern Wild is visually beautiful – so what. But here the images are not only beautiful, they are all gorgeously integrated into a larger constellation of ideas, and in a way that is not the slightest bit pretentious. When do you ever see that in one of these “visually beautiful” films? Almost never, that’s when! They are integrated so masterfully that I only fully appreciated many of them after the film, when I was able to recall them within the context of the completed story.

But the film also works great on the level of a mere survival movie. It is very well-written – there’s not much dialog, but the narration is interesting, and the scene structure and narrative flow are really excellent. The long struggle to live in the boat is quite riveting even without the larger ideas it supports. Then there’s the tiger, “Richard Parker.” I can’t stand CGI crap, but that CGI tiger is so incredibly outstanding I spent most of the film in complete disbelief that he was not real. I’ve never seen anything like it in film, and ditto for the supporting animals, by the way. Hell, even if you just like cats and didn’t give a shit about anything else you still could find this movie enjoyable.

While I’m laying on the praise, let me also mention that this is the only 3-D film I’ve even seen that made me think 3-D might be a legitimate art form, distinct from traditional movies, instead of just a pasted-on effect to wow a jaded audience and charge more money for. It reminds me of that line in Hitchcock where Alfred and his wife are discussing what pap horror films were up to that time, and Hitchock remarks provocatively “But what if someone really good made one?” For Hitchcock, the answer was Psycho, and in this case it’s perennially underrated master director Ang Lee who takes the hackneyed gimmick of 3-D and uses it as a fundamental component of an expanded artistic vision of movies.

I urge you to make the effort to see The Life of Pi in 3-D while it is still in theaters. It’s one of those films that is not going to be quite the same on a TV. I’m definitely planning to see it again in the theater before it finally departs. It is a very special and remarkable film.