Vinyan (2008)

Featured Audience Ratings

• William S

  
  Think 'Don't Look Now' crossed with 'Lord of the Flies' but with characters drawn with such extreme bourgeois naivety that it's impossible to elicit the slightest sympathy for (precursors to the punchable leads of von Trier's 'Antichrist'… More
  Think 'Don't Look Now' crossed with 'Lord of the Flies' but with characters drawn with such extreme bourgeois naivety that it's impossible to elicit the slightest sympathy for (precursors to the punchable leads of von Trier's 'Antichrist' for sure). The longueurs would be fine and cinematic if we liked or empathised with these people - I would have been quite thrilled by the slightly abstract, lingering close-ups of Sewell and Béart if the overwhelming urge wasn't to slap some sense into them. However it's still a very intriguing tease that gets so under the skin that it's hard to shake off too thoroughly without shuddering. Seared with some genuinely sinister and gothic sequences - horrid dream sequences that blur the line between what's real and imagined/dreaded, a vile dirty jungle so reeking of death and decay that you wonder why anyone would think anything living could be found there - it's not till it's over that, apart from humans, you realise we haven't encountered a single living beast or insect. It's nothing less than a descent into Hell of course. And the totally over the top, completely bonkers finale suddenly makes things worth the effort. Horrific, beautiful, disgusting and disturbing all at once. I would have laughed my tits off at it's final shots if I wasn't more than a little terrified.

• Drew S

  
  I think Vinyan requires some serious empathy to get the full extent of what it's offering. I'm not entirely sold on Emmanuelle Beart and Rufus Sewell's chemistry - their solo performances are generally strong, if occasionally strained, most notably in Sewell's… More
  I think Vinyan requires some serious empathy to get the full extent of what it's offering. I'm not entirely sold on Emmanuelle Beart and Rufus Sewell's chemistry - their solo performances are generally strong, if occasionally strained, most notably in Sewell's dramatic immolation. Nothing about their relationship, however, truly convinces. Most of the time they seem to be coexisting rather than actually interacting directly at one another; I don't know if this is a directorial choice or that the actors didn't like each other enough to be intimate (according to the DVD features, they hated each other), but in a tale where the husband must be totally devoted to the wife's delusions to sustain plausibility, it just leaves you wondering why the hell he's playing along with her. Its central conceit - being lost in a jungle with your slowly crumbling significant other, looking for your long-gone son - is full of potential and basally horrifying, but it's not appropriately scaffolded. It's also somewhat thin, all told, and there are times when it seems like Fabrice Du Welz is grasping for places to take the movie, such as a long and tedious search for a trafficker near the beginning. Vinyan is also exceptionally beautiful, visually and aurally. For his definite deficiencies, Du Welz can create an aesthetic composition that sticks. A boat cutting through the fog of a Burmese jungle; the bleeding greens and blues of a cheap Asian pleasure district; a feral child smearing blood-red lipstick all over his filthy face. Many such shots are dwelt upon for prolonged periods of time in Vinyan, giving the movie an imaginative, ponderous feel, like being lost in a rainforest dream. It's navel-gazing, sure, but I think the approach works for the movie. Complementing these visuals is a very sparse soundtrack - the wall of sound sensibility is probably sort of predictable, given the movie's aforementioned visual style, but I think it makes an interesting combination with the subject matter. When you think of nature, in Herzog's terms, as pernicious and almost sexually violent, the overbearing music adds to the sense of oppression that the couple surely feels. Anyway, this is leaps and bounds better than God-awful Calvaire, but still lacking. I'm excited to see Du Welz do work with someone else's script - he's currently directing what sounds like a Hostel ripoff, and though it could be totally derivative shit I'm sure he has it in him to produce something innovative. An interesting, watchable though not truly "good" sophomore effort from a young director.

• Curtis L

  
  Ridiculous at times, but also enjoyable to watch. Emmanuelle Beart wavers between hidious and gorgeous, depending on the shot. Her character makes you want to punch her in the ovary. However, children with punji sticks cannot be ignored as awesome. Also, where else can you see 50… More
  Ridiculous at times, but also enjoyable to watch. Emmanuelle Beart wavers between hidious and gorgeous, depending on the shot. Her character makes you want to punch her in the ovary. However, children with punji sticks cannot be ignored as awesome. Also, where else can you see 50 children groping a grown woman's breast? I love the French.

• Ryan M

  
  ** out of **** "Vinyan" has been marketed as a horror film; which is no surprise, given that the director behind it is Fabrice Du Welz. If you haven't seen a little movie known as "Calvaire", then that name means nothing to you; but if you have, well then,… More
  ** out of **** "Vinyan" has been marketed as a horror film; which is no surprise, given that the director behind it is Fabrice Du Welz. If you haven't seen a little movie known as "Calvaire", then that name means nothing to you; but if you have, well then, there you go. Anyways, "Vinyan" is not so much a horror film but more-so a drama with a few disturbing, haunting, creepy, horrific moments that apparently sell it off as belonging into that genre. The marketing boys responsible for this one should be put out of the job. But that's just a pet peeve; and it merely kicks off the decently-sized list of them that I have surrounding Welz's second feature film. I think it would be best to start out by saying a few words: I respect this film, and having seen it, I still can say that I respect Welz for making it. But that's not to say that I particularly liked it. This is the kind of film where it revels in simplicity; yet it has some sort of deeper agenda on its mind that never comes full circle. In my opinion, any film remotely like that is a disappointment any day; and disappointing certainly comes to mind when I think of this film, even if it's only been a few dozen minutes after finishing it. A lot went wrong with the film. The action is set to the beautiful back-drop of Thailand and its island regions; which makes for some excellent scenery/eye-candy. I'm fine with that; but what I'm not fine with is the story. A couple is grieving after having lost their son to a tsunami that hit the said country. It left many dead; and their child's body was never found. This gives them some hope; although they've been merely hoping for some time now, and they'd like nothing more than to have their little boy back with them again. Their belief in their child's survival is given extreme support when the wife in this couple notices a young boy - in a video shown at some art convention or something that the two protagonists attend - that closely resembles their very own. Determined to find out the truth, both husband and wife travel to the islands of Thailand - which are heavily populated by criminals and underdeveloped tribes of primitive humans - where they shall attempt to find their kid. I said I have problems with the film; and I do. The most I can say about my general distaste for the plot is that in spite of the intriguing set-up - which somehow throws mysticism and horror tropes into the mix - there's still a general sense of pure boredom. I didn't care about these characters, and therefore I kept searching for alternative reasons to give a shit about this half-assed narrative; finding no positive results. By the end; I was pissed, tired, exhausted, dazed, confused, and greatly let down. I have no doubt that a few curious movie-goers will find "Vinyan" to be intriguing and thoroughly entertaining. I wish I could have felt the same about it, and given the appeal that Welz's previous feature had with me; I was expecting something a little more, I don't know, conclusive and satisfactory than this. If anything, the film is a solid approximation of what happens to most films when their maker decides to go all un-conventional and blend art-house aspirations with elements not commonly found in such films. There's plenty about "Vinyan" that is indeed artsy - fantastic cinematography, beautiful locations, and solid performances - but little that is engaging or memorable. I wouldn't tell anyone to avoid it; nor would I tell most to see it. Perhaps it depends on your tolerance for poorly-marketed, somewhat contrived pieces of cinema. But when it comes to me and this film, there is no problem; only minor nitpicks, which is enough to turn my head in the other direction. Fortunately, I'll be able to move on; and with pleasure.

• Doctor S

  
  <i>Vinyan</i> details the dreamlike - make that nightmarish - search by a couple living in Thailand for their missing son into the jungles of Burma. Their slow boat journey up remote waterways starts as <i>Apocalypse Now</i> and ends in an encampment of wild… More
  <i>Vinyan</i> details the dreamlike - make that nightmarish - search by a couple living in Thailand for their missing son into the jungles of Burma. Their slow boat journey up remote waterways starts as <i>Apocalypse Now</i> and ends in an encampment of wild children which could be called <i>Lord of the Thais.</i> As a narrative, <i>Vinyan</i> has little depth. Emmanuelle Béart is stubbornly resolute as Jeanne, convinced her son is still alive, whereas Rufus Sewell as Paul vacillates between supportive husband and grim realist. They argue. They search. They argue. They search. And that's about it, which leaves the intended shocking/surprising ending with no foundation to crumble. Lots of sights and sounds fill the screen with intent to disorient and not everything happens in reality. Unfortunately, the film doesn't work as a sustained sensory nor experimental experience either. There are a few scattered eye-opening moments, like a mysterious opening title sequence that makes sense later on, a spirit ceremony with large floating lantern balloons, and an incredible dilapidated wood & brick jungle palace. Most of the time, however, all we are doing is watching Jeanne and Paul slog through mud, rain, overgrowth, and undergrowth. This location shoot must have been very difficult for the actors, after a week's filming I would've been on the phone chewing out my agent, "What have you gotten me into?!??!" I was feeling more sorry for the actors' plight than the characters', which is a sure-fire sign that your movie is not working.

• John M

  
  If you want to spend 96 minutes boring, watching landscapes from Thailand and a mother suffering and going crazy because her song disappeared in a tsunami this is your movie. Otherwise, don´t waste you precious time in this like I did. No blood, no horror, no thriller.

Read all 6 featured audience ratings