Opiniones de usuarios

I agree that the film is a little disjointed - things like the very long karaoke scene (what an awful song) I found tedious and unnecessary, but rationalised to myself that the director was trying to create a lighthearted, falling-in-love-and-life-is-so-sweet kind of atmosphere - something I think was done more successfully in the scenes of the couple at the movies, in the forest, etc. This almost lulls you into a false sense of security, though the temple scene foreshadows the dramatic shift in mood that comes with the latter part of the film. The jungle scenes are powerfully spellbinding, both visually and aurally, with their long spells of darkness and almost complete absence of dialogue and they, I believe, make up for any inconsistencies in the earlier part of the film. I saw this in the afternoon, and emerged from the darkness of the cinema and the jungle feeling absolutely intoxicated. I will never forget the tiger's face in the darkness - psychedelic and haunting.

Having had a good think about the film after seeing it this afternoon, I still can't escape the feeling that there was a really excellent film in the subject matter and narrative elements, but that the director just hadn't quite found a way to get that film to the screen. Instead, he found a film that ultimately taxes most viewer's patience. There were some really lovely elements, I agree, but there is something about the editing that was just this side of over indulgent (and I happen to generally like long, loving, camera shots that are meditative!). The jungle portion of the film, IMHO, suffered from a lack of visual information in most instances (and yet this is one of the strengths of some the individual jungle scenes, like those of the tree, the tiger and ghost ox, where, just because of this unrelenting sameness, stand out marvelously). It could have been half the length and by virtue of that, twice as effective. Having said as much, I look forward to seeing more by this director, he clearly has a head on his shoulders and the courage to tackle difficult (yet rewarding) ideas.

A soldier named Keng, meets a young man named Tong in Thailand, the two begin a friendship. Keng makes constant sexual and amorous advances on Tong, who laughs them off, or makes a game out of them. He is never exactly interested, but never fully rebuffs either. The two make trips back and forth from the Jungle where Tong lives and Keng is on patrol with his military unit, to the city. We see the lush silent landscapes and the bustling city life, from dance hall karaoke to the cinema to the solitude of a quiet lake. When Keng finally makes a move in such a way, as to be beyond any doubt of a desire for intimacy (he kisses Tong's hands), Tong responds in turn by doing the same, and then walks into the darkness of the forest. Before Keng, can come to understand, the film takes a drastic turn in tone, style, and mood.

We are told by an interjected 3d person narrator the story of a shaman who is a shape-shifter known to take different animal forms, who used to roam the forest playing tricks on people. One day a cunning hunter, did not fall into a trick and shot him, mid transformation from woman into tiger. The spirit of the shaman was then stuck as half tiger half man and eternally doomed to stalk the forest; tricking and devouring all in it's path.

Keng, is then on patrol in his section of the forest, exploring rumors from villagers, about some "thing" killing cattle and causing general havoc. Alone on patrol in the woods, he becomes plagued by strange sounds, a sense of dread, and images of a naked boy, a tiger, spectral animals, and a glowing phosphorescent tree (which looks as beautiful as those in Aranofsky's "The Fountain"...I have no idea how they got that effect, on their budget, but it's miraculous...).

This second half of the film, of course calls into question our understanding of Keng and Tong's prior relationship (if Tong ever existed at all.). While part one, is reminiscent of a modern quirky love story like "Chungking Express", the second half is like Terrance Mallick shooting a remake of "Predator". All sense of time and space, is swallowed by the jungle, and implicit politics of the first half are turned inside out in the second half; it is literally cat and mouse, with the possibility that the cat may want to be eaten by the mouse, or vice versa.

The second half is also marked by the inclusion of tribal art and cave paintings, depicting the story of the shaman and the soldier, with sub-titles accompanying them. To paraphrase a description by director Weerasethakul it's like "a silent film for the first people on earth". And together with the visual effects, confident cinematography, clever use of editing, music, and sound, and disarming performances, it becomes magical. "Tropical Malady" combines the most modern and ancient notions of fear and desire, and makes something "new" out of them.

This is Thailand's "Solaris", a story of the changing shapes and forms of want and need, of being deceived and allowing yourself to be deceived by them. It's slow pace, forces reflection on questions like what form or body comprises love, is it purely physical or something more, is it perhaps deception itself, a fools errand we invent to forget the savagery of the jungle around us, is it the need to devour or be devoured? There's a Scottish legend called Tam Lin (one of my favorites), long story short, a woman falls in love with a faerie, and discovers he used to be a man, but made a deal with the faeries to serve them if they spared his life, after an accident. Tam tells the women she can restore his humanity and claim him, if when the faeries pass on Halloween night, she will wrap her arms around him and not let go no matter what happens. She does this, and the faeries transform him into all manner of creature, some hot, some cold, some thorny, others slimy, some which bite and claw, etc, but she holds on throughout all his changes, til eventually she finds herself just cradling a man. And the faeries begrudgingly let her keep him, because she held on to what she loved, despite the way it changed with time.

The film opens with these lines, "All of us are by nature wild beasts, our duty as human beings is to become like trainers, who keep their animals in check. And even teach them to perform tasks alien to their bestiality"-Tom Nakajima "Tropical Malady", is a good deal more ambiguous, I suspect more predatory and reflective as well, than Tam Lin, and comes from the opposite side of the world, but like that story manages to peculiarly harmonize emotional sensitivity and mythic scope, into a coherent whole.

I wished I would have paid more attention to Weerasethakul "Mysterious Object At Noon" the first time I had the chance, he has a talent for experimenting with narrative and style that is missing in many films endlessly praised these days. The phrase I kept hearing from other reviews or the one I liked the best was "If Brokeback Mountain, was a mountain on the island from "Lost"...it's callous, with a smidgen of truth, but this is a much better movie than that. It is very slow moving though, the first hour will give you no hint of the second half (other than a few visual ones, look at the various statues in the backgrounds, etc), but for the bold and the patient, there is lush hypnotic reward to be had.

"Greed is our downfall. I was watching Who Wants to be a Millionaire. The woman won a lot of money but wouldn't stop playing. She lost and only got 30.000 Baht."

"The tiger trails you like a shadow. His spirit is starving and lonesome. I see you are his prey and his companion."

The experimental creator of "Mysterious Object at Noon" is back with another abstract gem, "Tropical Malady." This time we have a 2-parter connected by common themes and metaphors, a la Wong Kar Wai's Chungking Express, equally casual but much slowly paced here. The first part of the film is set in everyday world. A gay soldier pursues a young country boy. The boy is most likely not gay, but he returns the attraction most of the time, probably because he is attracted to the soldier on another level (e.g. he is fascinated by the soldier's uniform). One day, while the soldier is flipping through the boy's photo album, suddenly the movie blacks out -- enter part 2, a story inspired by legends that parallels part 1, but from an alternative angle that makes it challenging to detect the patterns. Set in the dark tropical forest, the soldier relentlessly hunts a tiger ghost spirit for love, fear, or both (foreshadowed by a shooting computer game played by the boy who later appears as the tiger spirit). The tiger is fascinated by the soldier's sound device. The soldier is warned that he must either kill the tiger or be devoured by it.

Part 1 and part 2 are both about desire and pursuit, and essentially follow the same path. In both, the soldier makes great effort to pursue his passion, but it leads him nowhere. He is incompatible with the partner of his desire, so it cannot be satisfied in the case of a straight boy or a tiger. The soldier can be classified as greedy, and it will be his downfall. The 'fairytale-esque' romance in part 1 seems almost Utopian, but it's an illusion that cannot be sustained. In the end he will be consumed by his desires.

This is a powerful and challenging film with 2 segments, each providing a distinctive context to view the same patterns. With only 2 or 3 lines of dialogue in the second part of more than 65 minutes, it's a highly sensual and contemplative experience, where every drop of water, wind gently brushing the leaves, and sound of birds singing contributes to your senses. You can literally smell the mud in the fresh rainforest.

The photography is undeniably beautiful. The last shot of the film is sheer poetry that will take your breath away.

"Tropical Malady" by Thai film director Apichatpong Weerasethakul is a haunting film that at times seems impenetrable. The director has played a trick on the viewer by changing the mood and the pace right in the middle of the film. We are led to believe that the soldier and the young man that are clearly attracted to each other will go on to share a life together, but no, Mr. Weerasethakul takes us to the jungle where the soldier is trying to catch the elusive and beautiful tiger.

"Tropical Malady" has been promoted as a gay film, which in a way, it is, but basically it presents a mystery that is never solved, although we know that in this case, the soldier is so obsessed with his opponent that they end up respecting one another.

My only reservation with the film is the editing. It could have used a bit of cutting to make it more accessible. As a point of interest, films like this one tends to irritate viewers and one watches as how a theater empties out because people don't want to sit through any more. On the case of "Tropical Malady" no one walked out, which perhaps it's saying a lot for a film that can tax the viewer's patience.

The jungle scenes at night are magnificently executed and perhaps the director will have more success with his future undertakings as he shows a sure hand in his direction.

An exhilarating, confusing adventure. The first half of the film tells a love story, leaving small hints at the ways people can never really know one another. The second half uses a mythic tale and experimental style to explore that theme. It's an attempt to use film and storytelling to portray the feelings and instincts that human beings have but can't find words for. Exciting, but not for those who want everything wrapped up and defined (the film argues against the very possibility of easy definitions). I also highly recommend his two other feature-length films: "Mysterious Object at Noon" and "Blissfully Yours." Hopefully "Tropical Malady" will be released widely enough to get the attention it deserves, and hopefully one day "Blissfully Yours" will make its way to DVD.

I actually feel bad that I did not connect with this film. For all its perceived depth noted in other comments here (and in the pages of Film Comment magazine), this experimental Thai film left me unmoved and even a bit irritated. Perhaps I was not "viewing with my heart," as another commenter suggested was necessary.

The one redeeming factor for me was the opportunity for a realistic glimpse of rural Thailand, and some scenes were indeed beautifully photographed.

I am no stranger to experimental and non-narrative structures in film, but found myself fast-forwarding through much of this piece, especially the latter "folkloric" half.

Inscrutable and languidly paced do not always equal a soulful, moving film experience, and I can't help but wonder if some of the praise for this one comes from those willing to be blown away by anything impenetrably arty.

There really is not a lot to this film, not much happens per se, and it is left to the viewer to project one's own sensory or emotional illuminations onto the structure, what little there is. I was unable to make this leap, cold-hearted bastard that I am.

This film crushed me to the bone, exhausted my heart, and I was never again the same. It brought back faith in the uncompromised vision of cinema. Its images will forever stay in my memory; the stare of the tiger, the smell of the tropical rain...this is sensory cinema, where time is freezed and narrative is stripped, and what's left is for us to finally feel. It is utopian, but it is also sad, because we realize that there is never (and never will be) a utopia. People say love is utopian, yet according to Mr. Weerasethakul, it is also very consuming, which becomes possessive, and at the end, a burden. At the end, the soldier goes into the jungle to find what's been consuming him. The tiger. He is lost and completely hopeless; he has no purpose without the tiger, yet he cannot possibly live with the tiger because of its nature. They are co-dependent; co-exist. Is that what great love is all about?

"Tropical Malady" from the Thai director Apichatpong Weerasethakul, Jury Prize in the last Cannes Film Festival, is a movie that really consume the inside, like a terminal disease. Every senses of your body will be over-excited, there is a TERRIFIC use of sound effects, that will render the tropical forest a living entity, intelligent, thinking, speaking. The contrast between the horrors and anguishes of modern time and the most charming folk legends , that awaken the most genuine human side from the bottom of our hearts is something quite unique and unforgettable.

It's hard to tell about the story without spoil it. Watch it, no matter what.

Even if the first part is pretty "straight" forward the second part left me baffled - maybe that was the point?... I am almost certain that I can interpret it somehow but anything I would say might and can be wrong, that's because I am somewhat convinced it's a very Thailand "kind of thing", it being a folk story. I think it has something to do with greed, because of the little story in the first part with the two farmers and the little monk.

I am still mesmerized by Apichatpong Weerasethakul's approach to framing and camera work. I find it fascinating and boring but in a good way. It's like therapy, it's like really absorbing the nature or the setting. It's like an optical illusion sometimes, the longer you stare at a frame, the deeper you go, it's hypnotizing.

Of to the next Weerasethakul - but not right away. I will let this one settle in first.

At the beginning of the film there's a phrase written in Thai without translation, it reads something like, "This film is seen by the eye, but it has to be seen by the heart". So this is the trick to the film; if one doesn't know how to see with the heart, or if the film doesn't touch one's heart creating an explosion that obliges the heart to start "seeing" independently of whether we want to or not, then the film will appear as a mediocre whatever thing. If otherwise, one can have an insight into human nature. Especially to that beast within us, called desire or craving.

I have to confess that parts of it remain unclear. But that doesn't create any conflict whatsoever. On the contrary, it's precisely what adds passion to it. Existence is a mystery, or isn't it? On the other hand, the author delights in showing us with startling clarity those "insignificant" daily emotions that we are all familiar with, but that we might not actually understand.

This film is a masterpiece.

It's form is so effortless that it's difficult not to feel like you're not watching a movie at all -- or at least -- in it's ultimate experience is more kin to cinema at it's purest.

One does not need to understand television to view this work -- or pop culture or magazines -- it is so heartfelt, detailed and organic with the celluloid acting as a cipher for ghosts to wander, lost and found.

One can not replicate this kind of experience by discussing it's genre..and certainly script doctors would have mild heart attacks trying to replicate its beauty and substantial finality as a work of great cinema.

Please do not make the same mistake as I did when I believed the positive critics this film received. Unfortunately the film is really bad and extremely boring, even though the two main characters seem to be quite good actors (but due to the "script" they are not allowed to show their talents). To those people who try to make it to some kind of supernatural experience which combines nature, soul, mystery etc. I can only say: Stop the esoteric bullshit. If you like nature it is far more preferable to go out of your house and enjoy it than to watch this extremely boring film where nothing is really happening and the second part is just pathetically dragging on and on. Just believe me, I am quite a moviegoer and like off mainstream films a lot. But this one is just an insult to your patience.

First part was about innocent love affair. Boy meet boy and boy disappeared. It is choppy and fragment, unreliable like our memory. In flirtatious smelling and licking, the boy disappeared.

So who is the one left behind? Keng or Tong? You see Keng's body in soldiers uniform chasing Tong's soul in the jungle. You see the face of Keng, sad, fearful, shivering in facing the face of tiger. Is that his own soul he is facing to?

When a young Thai soldier falls in love with a country boy, the lad disappears. But because of the intensity of his love, when the lad vanishes, the soldier must hunt in the Thai jungle for him. Although the love is "gay," it is not so much in the sexual meaning of that word as it is joyous. There is no nudity, and hardly any touching or kissing. This is an unusual film, as the first part is treated naturally, the second, with its own credits, is a haunting fantasy. The photography in daylight is banal and cluttered, with an excellent feel for Thailand's countryside, but the night scenes are glowing. The work of several photographers were involved to create the difference. An extremely moving, honest, well-crafted film, with an interesting filmed commentary by the director and the actors.

This is a film I have somehow avoided since its release. Why ? Perhaps the heteronormative critics put me off and the habitual cry ' this is not a gay film ' I maybe wrong but in Thai culture gay is replaced by ' people like us '. And this quite definitely in my opinion is a people like us film. On Wikipedia the director is listed as a Gay Writer and an LGBT director. So please reviewers late to this film bear this in mind and do not wriggle straight toes out of this. Everyone will have an interpretation of the meaning. I would suggest it is a spiritual film and that the tiger spirit is the ultimate creature, or monster where at last the two male lovers are incorporated and eternally together. One reviewer mentioned ecstasy at the end, and yes this is their eternal ecstasy. But before we reach this overwhelmingly beautiful forest sequence which is scary to some but not to me, we have the everyday life of the lovers. The playful touching in the cinema, the vowing of love and the kissing of hands at the end of the first half. This latter scene is so full of passion, love and the GIVING of hands that it was both utterly pure and deeply erotic at the same time. And no reviewer has acknowledged the nudity, the scene of defecation and the urination scenes. Why ? Prudery ? I can only guess yes, but those scenes show how all of the body, in all its functions is given over to the spirit of love at the end. The body can be saved only in the body it has been assigned to. Meister Eckhart said this centuries ago. This film shows in its masterful way that love is always to be called by its name, in all its true forms and the forest is a state not to be feared but embraced. A masterpiece that needs and should have endless viewings.

This film certainly has a few things to offer. Beautiful images, a sense of 'darkness' and mystery, and the folk myth about a Shaman that the story apparently evolves around. However, in the end I thought this movie was pretty long-winding and far from an easy piece of visual entertainment.

The film basically consists of two distinguishable parts which both last about an hour. The first half takes place mainly in the city and the second half is mainly jungle. Now this may be a problem on my behalf, but I'm not really sure I completely understood the link between first half and the second half of the film. I see the metaphor of the traditional versus the original, and I quite like the idea, but filmwise the link betwoon both parts was messy and unclear, if there was a link at all.

The way I see it, the lack of much dialogue or other information to clear things up, and the presence of a lot of scenes of which I didn't really understand the relevance, didn't really help. Don't get me wrong, I kinda liked the slow pace of the story with some silent moments built in, and of course the beautiful imagery of the jungle. But I really think it was a little overdone here. There was a lot of dead wood on this tree, so to speak. By dead wood I mean the several scenes where things happen of which it was quite hard to understand the relevance to the central story line, and of course the several pretty long periods in the film where nothing really happens at all. Instead, some more 'structure' and some more elements to give the viewer a little more grip on the film in order to understand what the writer meant would have been more than welcome.