benjaminconvey
Joined Nov 2000
Welcome to the new profile
We're still working on updating some profile features. To see the badges, ratings breakdowns, and polls for this profile, please go to the previous version.
Reviews6
benjaminconvey's rating
This film really works because the beauty of its characters, their faces, their rituals, the water they bathe in, the food they eat, the pacing, the framing and the use of sound and silence is woven so masterfully and with such purpose that you are really drawn in on all levels.
One IMDB commenter mentioned the film's cliched moments as if they are a flaw of the film; cliches are everywhere and completely unavoidable. The story itself has many cliches in it (the wife finding evidence of her husband's infidelity by rummaging through his jacket, for example) but the portrayal of the character's lives in this film rings so true that cliche is excusable: after all, look at your own life and you'll spot hundreds of cliches every day.
Admittedly, the cliche in question (a pan to a statue of a family ancestor after a tense moment between the characters) was more a cinematographic aspect than a plot aspect, but nevertheless merely being a cliche is not reason enough to avoid using it in a film and I can't see what the point is in pointing out one solitary cliche! I did not find a problem at all with the moment in question because it served the mood of the piece.
Nor is their a lack of character development. To know a character in a film, you must observe everything: the way they talk, how they move, what they say, what they do, how they interact with other characters, not JUST listen to (or read in subtitles) their dialogue. A lack of dialogue is not the same as a lack of character development. Many of the long, largely-dialogue-free sequences were the most memorable of the film (the morning exchanges between Lien and Hai (if I have his name right) and the scene dealing Quoc's confession of infidelity to Suong) and contain some of the most extensive character development of the whole film.
In response to another commenter, I also don't understand the notion that a lack of extreme conflict results in an uninteresting story, and again the statement that there IS no conflict in the film's early stages is simply a falsity.
No matter how much discussion one engages in though, the only real judge of wether a movie is good to you is wether or not you enjoyed it, and that is why I can say The Vertical Ray of the Sun is such a great movie: I enjoyed it immensely, and walked out of the cinema in a beautiful, happy mood. The film revitalised my psyche and had a profound affect on my outlook on films in general. I highly recommend you watch it to make up your own mind and ignore all these niggling comments.
One IMDB commenter mentioned the film's cliched moments as if they are a flaw of the film; cliches are everywhere and completely unavoidable. The story itself has many cliches in it (the wife finding evidence of her husband's infidelity by rummaging through his jacket, for example) but the portrayal of the character's lives in this film rings so true that cliche is excusable: after all, look at your own life and you'll spot hundreds of cliches every day.
Admittedly, the cliche in question (a pan to a statue of a family ancestor after a tense moment between the characters) was more a cinematographic aspect than a plot aspect, but nevertheless merely being a cliche is not reason enough to avoid using it in a film and I can't see what the point is in pointing out one solitary cliche! I did not find a problem at all with the moment in question because it served the mood of the piece.
Nor is their a lack of character development. To know a character in a film, you must observe everything: the way they talk, how they move, what they say, what they do, how they interact with other characters, not JUST listen to (or read in subtitles) their dialogue. A lack of dialogue is not the same as a lack of character development. Many of the long, largely-dialogue-free sequences were the most memorable of the film (the morning exchanges between Lien and Hai (if I have his name right) and the scene dealing Quoc's confession of infidelity to Suong) and contain some of the most extensive character development of the whole film.
In response to another commenter, I also don't understand the notion that a lack of extreme conflict results in an uninteresting story, and again the statement that there IS no conflict in the film's early stages is simply a falsity.
No matter how much discussion one engages in though, the only real judge of wether a movie is good to you is wether or not you enjoyed it, and that is why I can say The Vertical Ray of the Sun is such a great movie: I enjoyed it immensely, and walked out of the cinema in a beautiful, happy mood. The film revitalised my psyche and had a profound affect on my outlook on films in general. I highly recommend you watch it to make up your own mind and ignore all these niggling comments.
This is a beautifully shot, excellently scored, wonderfully acted, gorgeously staged film that is an absolute visceral pleasure to watch. It has all the hallmarks of a classic horror film, hallmarks which mainstream US critics (who love nothing better than a straight, bold-faced movie with no human humour) on one hand celebrate in the classics, and on the other hand despise in modern day movies.
"The film is too gory and disgusting", claim most SOTL-philes. The same thing was said about "John Carpenter's The Thing" back in the early 80s when film critics were salivating over Spielberg's warm fuzzy take on Aliens on Earth (critics have such short attention spans they can only handle one ideology at a time.)
"The villain is comical and amiable", cry the naysayers. Did nobody laugh at Frankenstein's monster's humorous bumblings in Bride of Frankenstein? The characters in this story actually make us laugh! What a terrible, terrible thing! Lord knows most people in everyday life never do anything funny.
"The film is nothing like Silence of the Lambs" is also a popular complaint. I thought sequels were usually despised because they apparently clone the formulae of their predecessors? That this film is so different to SOTL is a cause for celebration, not derision!
Basically, this film is destined to become a classic. I feel sorry for the people who can't enjoy this film now because of simple, artificial, pretentious reasons. And those are the people that will be jumping on the bandwagon in years to come, appreciating Hannibal as the horror masterpiece it will be seen as in years to come.
"The film is too gory and disgusting", claim most SOTL-philes. The same thing was said about "John Carpenter's The Thing" back in the early 80s when film critics were salivating over Spielberg's warm fuzzy take on Aliens on Earth (critics have such short attention spans they can only handle one ideology at a time.)
"The villain is comical and amiable", cry the naysayers. Did nobody laugh at Frankenstein's monster's humorous bumblings in Bride of Frankenstein? The characters in this story actually make us laugh! What a terrible, terrible thing! Lord knows most people in everyday life never do anything funny.
"The film is nothing like Silence of the Lambs" is also a popular complaint. I thought sequels were usually despised because they apparently clone the formulae of their predecessors? That this film is so different to SOTL is a cause for celebration, not derision!
Basically, this film is destined to become a classic. I feel sorry for the people who can't enjoy this film now because of simple, artificial, pretentious reasons. And those are the people that will be jumping on the bandwagon in years to come, appreciating Hannibal as the horror masterpiece it will be seen as in years to come.
It isn't the worst film ever made, the actors aren't apalling and the script and director are not completely inept.
It isn't the best film ever made, the actors aren't excellent and the script and director are not completely brilliant.
It falls somewhere in the middle. A fun somewhere. An enjoyable, well constructed somewhere.
No need to say "don't take it seriously" or "so bad its good" or "it wasn't scary". None of these comments are relevant.
Cut has atmosphere. It's that atmosphere which is actually very unique, and the one really original aspect of the movie, which personally is what makes the film, for me.
It isn't the best film ever made, the actors aren't excellent and the script and director are not completely brilliant.
It falls somewhere in the middle. A fun somewhere. An enjoyable, well constructed somewhere.
No need to say "don't take it seriously" or "so bad its good" or "it wasn't scary". None of these comments are relevant.
Cut has atmosphere. It's that atmosphere which is actually very unique, and the one really original aspect of the movie, which personally is what makes the film, for me.