Blissfully Yours

This film is banded in Thailand I haven't seen it yet . Almost people don't know this film even it got some awards nothing in Television news May be this 2003 may some chance in cinema but R version .This film got NC-17 because of naked scenes . It about Love story that some I don't understand I think all of you should see this film if you have a chance .

Please do not feel sorry for anyone associated with trying to make something beautiful. A film does not need to have a beginning or an ending, or an elaborate story, it can simply contain moments in time, it can be a visual sensation, this art form, like all, needs not be strictly defined. If you found Blissfully Yours boring, fair game. But this magnificent film put a smile on my face for much of the second half, because I felt what it meant for me to feel, this film is 1000% feeling, so it's great for those who can feel. When we step into nature we can truly suspend time. "Roong, what time is it?", "Wait, I'm still having fun."

This second feature of Apichatpong Weerasethakul is more an experience than a story-dependent film. Something strange happens to your feeling for time while watching this two-hour long film: time seems suspended, absent. When 45 minutes into the film the opening credits suddenly appear, they come as a bit of a shock, because by then you are irresistibly drawn into the non-story.

The way this film treats time is reminiscent of several films by Taiwanese director Tsai Ming-Liang: long, drawn-out scenes, in real-time or almost, and with little or no dialogue. Also the relationship between the main characters brings to mind Tsai's films, more in particular 'Aiqing Wansui' with its triangular relationship.

'Blissfully Yours' is an impressionist rendering of a lazy afternoon in the mountainous border region between Thailand and Myanmar. Min is an illegal immigrant from Myanmar, who takes his girlfriend Roong for a pick-nick. They are joined later by Orn, an older woman employed by Roong to take care of Min.

One of the main ingredients in impressionism is the sun, and the sun plays an important though discrete role in this film also. It is present everywhere in the second part of the film, softly filtered through the canopy of the jungle, but also as a threat to Min who has a skin disease and was told to stay out of the sun.

What also filters through in the film is the political issue of Myanmarese immigrants in northern Thailand. The first half hour shows the three main characters consulting a doctor about Min's skin condition. Min, who has no papers, doesn't speak - perhaps because the doctor would refuse to treat him if she knew her patient was an illegal alien and not a Thai. And the doctor's refusal to give Min a 'fit-to-work' certificate unless he can produce official papers is typical of the administrative vicious circle so many illegal immigrants are caught in all around the world.

This makes for a stark contrast between the first and second part of the film, between grim reality and a dreamy, lazy afternoon that is bathed in light.

American audiences may feel uneasy seeing sex scenes that are neither censored, clinical, beautified or violent. Not recommended for viewers who require car chases and shoot-outs, or for those who don't like ants.

That's not a regular film but rather an unique example of art film. It's more an impression of the director then a drama or romance or anything else. The way how Weerasethakul makes movies one can love or hate.

The main character is a Burmese refugee, Min, who seems to be in love with a Thai young woman,Roong. While she's at work an older woman, Orn, takes care about Min. Once Min and Roong go for a picnic into the forest, where they meet Orn. The background of the movie is a nationwide crackdown on illegal Burmese immigrants in Thailand.

Slow shots, beautiful landscapes, strange plot construction, mysterious details, and somehow erotic and unclear relationship with two women and young man creates a great but very specific kind of cinema.It's a beautiful impression of human relationships.

The hype surrounding Apichatpong seems to me unwarranted. I am reminded of Roger Ebert's comments on Abbas Kiarostami and being utterly unconvinced of the value of his films.

First, there is no story. As soon as a story might be emerging, "Joe" (as he likes to be called these days) moves to something utterly unrelated. He has said that he conceives of nature as an opportunity for the characters to do some self-reflection. This sounds good, but there are no characters to speak of, and except for Orn, no acting whatsoever. No information is given about what they might be reflecting about, and story elements are allowed to vanish (like the distant gunshot).

The slowness itself didn't bother me, but the much-heralded Apichatpong can learn something from Tony Bui, whose first feature film "Three Seasons" is FAR better at the languid development than this. Or look at any of Ousman Sembene's films for the skillful use of dreadfully unskillful non-actors. There is just no excuse, in my mind, for such a self-important and ultimately inept use of non-actors.

User federovsky's comments are to me particularly perceptive. I give it 3; at least he is giving this some thought.