Many reviewers denounce 2008's "Vinyan" because it's not a typical horror film, but that's precisely why it's worthwhile. It's original.An American couple in Thailand discover possible evidence that their young son who died in a tsunami six months earlier is still alive and living in the jungles of Myanmar (Burma). They pay some dubious characters a lot of money to go up river into the forbidden country. Things go from bad to worse."Vinyan" is equal parts haunting, beautiful, strange and creepy. The plot is thin but the story maintains your attention. The acting is excellent all around and you believe that these characters are real. The five main characters are Paul and Jeane Bellmer (Rufus Sewell and Emmanuelle Béart), a human trafficker named Thaksin Gao, the captain of the small boat named Sonchaï and the couple's liaison, Kim (Julie Dreyfus).Memorable parts abound -- Kim's subtle-but-clear seduction of Paul, the beautiful floating-lanterns at the beach ceremony, the awesome tree fortress, etc.The meaning of the film is ambiguous, but it provokes thought on many things: The nature of grief -- letting go or not letting go, obsession, madness, tribal instincts, going feral and more.As for the tribe of lost kids in the last act, are they vinyan -- angry, confused spirits who suffered horrible deaths -- or are they simply a pack of kids gone wild in the jungle a la "Lord of the Flies"? I say the evidence points to the latter.In any event, "Vinyan" has elements of films like "Apocalypse Now," "The Emerald Forest," "Fitzcaraldo" (or "Aguirre") and the aforementioned "Lord of the Flies".The film runs 96 minutes and was shot in Thailand.GRADE: B+

"Vinyan" is the type of movie that just doesn't sit well with everyone or has a certain appeal to just anyone in the audience. I had expectations to this movie, because from what I read on the DVD cover, then I was intrigued.And then I watched the movie, and that expectation dissipated like mist before the rising morning sun. This movie wasn't anything at all what I had expected it to be.What works well enough in "Vinyan" is the atmosphere and the building up of suspense. However, it is not really given enough room to bloom into something great, because it is weighed down by the horrible slow pace the movie trots forward in. Plus, the characters in the movie were not really characters with dimensions and personalities that you cared about; they came off a shallow and lifeless drones that were just milling about at the whim of the director.Visually, then there is a lot of great scenes, especially in the jungle, that are impressive.However, entertainment-wise, then "Vinyan" fails to fully deliver, at least for my account. I suppose I wasn't in that particular target audience that would find such a movie enjoyable.

VINYAN is a grim and gloomy film that details a couple's spiralling descent into madness as they venture into a jungle hell in search of the child they lost during the south-east Asian tsunami in 2006. Like AGUIRRE, WRATH OF GOD and APOCALYPSE NOW before it, you know with VINYAN that there's going to be no happy ending, and much of the suspense is derived from the ever-worsening situation of the lead characters: watching them gradually leave society behind only to uncover unspeakable horrors in the jungle is never less than disturbing.The film boasts not one but two strong performances: Rufus Sewell is the straight man and Emmanuelle Beart (MISSION: IMPOSSIBLE) his unstable wife, never the same since the loss of their child. Had other actors been cast in the roles I might have lost interest, but these two kept me watching. That's good, because the direction isn't that strong: Du Welz goes overboard in his attempts at style and I found his arty camera-work to be more of a hindrance than a help as the story progressed. Eventually, there's a twist at the end and the introduction of some visceral horror elements that I wasn't entirely happy about: to be honest, I didn't necessarily think that they had a place in this movie, but they're here all the same and at least they give a sense of closure to an otherwise meandering production.

Straight away I must say I agree with most comments in the "I hated this movie" category. However, I am writing this review to point out what I think might have been some redeeming features of it until they were totally spoiled by the fantasy elements and the ridiculous ending.Both my wife and myself were first attracted to it as it was classed as a drama on its TV showing (totally wrong, it should have been a fantasy/horror - there were certainly no thrills in it for us, we do sometimes quite like a good thriller - and then we wouldn't have bothered at all). We also thought the plot sounded plausible - a wealthy western couple losing their son in a tsunami, and then the seriously disturbed mother persuading dad to go with her look for him.On watching the film, we thought it went well along these lines, with the boy apparently being spotted on a video of children playing on a river bank, with one of them wearing a red shirt - possible the Manchester United shirt their son was wearing when he was washed away. This video was seen in a screening amongst wealthy patrons of charities organizing relief for the tsunami victims, also very plausible.So off they go, with some very good shots of the scenery and local means of transport, etc. Unfortunately much of it was at night-time, so we saw little of it. Why do film makers do this, or is it the reproduction on a TV screen? Anyway, that was the first put-off for us. Another put-off was the interminable length of many scenes, where nothing else happened (e.g. when the husband rescues his wife from the sea and they were splashing around in the water for far too long) and we were trying to be patient whilst waiting for the scene to change.As events unfolded, and I will not say more to avoid further possible spoilers, the only other redeeming quality for us was the chance that they might find their son, and we watched it through to the end with this hope in mind.I must add one major criticism of the use of the children in the film, on top of everything that has been said in other reviews. Were the film- makers trying to emulate "Lord of the Flies"? I can understand how boys of rich parents in an English prep school can turn into little savages, but the local children in such a disaster, having lost their parents, would not gang up in the forest like this. I think it was very degrading of the people who live in these areas to suggest they would.Googling child abandonment in Burma does not change my view of this film. This child abandonment is due entirely to the military, of which there is no mention. If there had been, and cut out the fantasy, then it would have been far more successful as a drama, albeit fictional.