Vagues invisibles

Almost every review here compares this film to Last Life in the Universe. While that's certainly a great film, there's really no reason to compare the two. Despite some obvious similarities (mainly in the pacing and cinematography), this film has absolutely nothing in common with that film. So...

I found Invisible Waves to be an extremely entertaining film that, on the surface, doesn't appear to do much of anything. While a lot of people will dismiss the film as slow and pointless, I found the pace just about right for this type of film... and perhaps it was to the credit of the charisma of the star of the film but I never found it "boring". The plot is extremely simple and, indeed, not a lot happens. You can pretty much sum up the entire film in a few sentences. But that doesn't make the film bad... Actually, you kind of have to look in between the lines of this film, because there is a lot going on that the film doesn't seem to convey... it doesn't beat you over the head with its message. It doesn't need to. It's a very ambient, dreamy, quiet film, and 2 minute shots of waves crashing and the lead character sitting and staring into space probably won't win this film many fans, but I loved it.

This is mainly for fans of, yes, "Art house" cinema, people who place the importance of image over an involving storyline. So, it's probably not for most people. But a lot of these reviews are way off base and seem intent to criticize the film solely for the fans it may potentially appeal to or how "disappointing" it is compared to Last Life in the Universe. Put aside all expectations and just watch the film. You'll probably be surprised. I personally love quiet, dreamy films with sparse dialog so this was right up my alley. But I can't speak for everyone.

There's a lot to like here, though judging from the reviews there is not enough to please everyone.

The main character is unforgettable. The more see of him, the more there is to like or relate to. Each scene is a gem--tight, edgy, emotional in some way or another. And there a lot of variety to the scenes--the action moves around to very different places, always offering a lot for us to take in.

Yet even with something big going on in front of the camera, this is pretty much the antithesis of an action film. The director gives us lots to watch, but what we're most drawn to is on the inside--brooding, fear, struggling to get by, not knowing how things will work out.

To me the film succeeded both as storytelling and as a character study. It's one of those films I didn't want to have end, because the plot and the technique were both so absorbing. seeing.

Reading through the reviews on this page all I can say to myself is how they have throughly missed the point. The movie is slow, very slow, but I still sat there and watched it. It's supposed to be slow, it's supposed to have a minimal script.

Throughout the entire movie I couldn't stop thinking about it. The speed of the movie really pulled me into the mood of the main character, and it worked.

One of the other reviewers talked about shotty production values, I completely disagree. The movie is supposed to be sketchy and ugly, its not meant to be pretty. Although I think the sketchy aspect of it is the beauty of it.

The camera work is perfect for the feeling I think the director was going for.

The reason I think this film is getting less-than-favourable reviews is that this isn't what people are expecting when they go into it. When someone hears "japanese contract killer" you don't think of a slow-paced gray drama. I went into this film expecting nothing (as I do with all Film Festival movies) and came out silent, my mind racing.

Don't see it if your expecting an action movie, see it if you are in the mood for a slow-paced interesting drama of a mans life.

What do I mean by that? Two things come to mind (although I'll let, better yet encourage you to interpret it in any way or fashion you like):

1) This movie (waves) does have a slow pace ... is this bad? I don't think so, but if you're used to mainstream movies and want some big bangs every other minute you are definitely wrong here!

2) This movie is also not supposed to be as entertaining as a mainstream movie (that's why you can't ride it). It's gritty and raw (not as a documentary, of course) and the camera let's you inside. You won't get pretty pictures, but you will get shots that feed the mood of our main characters.

You will also get a man on his journey (literally and philosophical). A great ending, that some might not like (too quiet), but there could not be any other ending ... imo!

I can't help but react to the only 2 reviews posted on this site.

Surprisingly, they are both from Singapore (like me) and both hate the film with a vengeance. To correct myself, Dick hates it, Peter dislikes it. What is most interesting is a display of how a film explode an audience.

Why is there so much frustration when one cannot comprehend a work of art? I'm not saying that the inability to understand is a reflection of one's level of intelligence. i'm simply asking the big EMOTIONALLY question. why do people get so frustrated over something they have problem comprehending? Have you ever dream a dream that you do not understand? Have you ever dream of signs, symbols, incidents, characters, animals, locations that doesn't make sense at all? how do you come to terms with those unfulfilling surrealist images?

Honestly, i may not get the film myself. It wasn't one of the most engaging film i have watched. it was certainly much weaker than Last Life of the Universe. But i see it as a surrealist film. The constant hollow sound through out the film may have dropped a hint. It is simply a dream about a man who is confronted by betrayal of people close to him and maybe even himself. The faint bizarre incidents creates many space for observations with the characters and the environment.

Todate, there are only postings from Singapore audience on IMDb. This shows that we are one of the earliest privilege film buffs in the world who get a chance to preview the film. It shows a great deal of confidence from the filmmaker in Singapore audience. I do not agree that it is a bad decision to bring in such art-house film. the idea about art-house often equivalent to no formula and therefore equivalent to no traditional benchmarks. there is always a different appetite needed by a different audience. i embrace picture house effort and i hope they continue to brave obscure titles with huge risk at box office for that is the spirit of art-house.

when i walk into a theatre to watch an art film, i'm expecting to be challenge as an audience.

My purpose of this writeup is merely to provide a different viewpoint. no offense.

I'm a mortal, i get angry with many things and people around me. For example, I always get angry with my dad cos i do not understand most of his behaviours and ideas. Therefore i can understand a frustrated audience as well.