Canopy (2013) User Reviews

It might work on Acid.

[Nemesis42 · 4/10 · 17 March 2015]

The main problem with this is the slow pace and the lack of emotional dynamics from the main actor.

His facial expressions did not change much. Alternatively he might be talented but was just poorly directed here. My main problem: I could not even tell if he was clever or stupid - we are not given enough information about his personality. We need to know more, to know him, and empathize. I felt nothing much for him as a blank face is just not enough for me to invest my emotions into and then connect with a character. Had this character been a beautiful woman, then that might have helped as then I could at least have imagined loving her, and we can forgive those that we love more easily!

There are lots of meditative contemplative long slow shots in the film, in themselves beautiful paintings. But what was missing was an effective intensity of any relevant human condition to contemplate during these times; perhaps the philosophy of the struggle that the characters are having.

The first few minutes of the film were great, setting up the possibility of a great journey, which for me never gathered momentum.

The Chinese actor does a better job and the sound track is solid in the film.

Not for me

[deloudelouvain · 5/10 · 11 March 2015]

I read the reviews before watching this movie so I was already a bit prepared of what I was going to see. I read there was not much dialogs and to me for a good movie sometimes it's not even necessary. But in this movie there is almost no conversation at all. The only line the main character had to remember is his name. He said it twice and that's it. I don't say Khan Chittenden failed as an actor because his expressions of fear and anguish are good but since there are two actors I thought a little bit of conversation would have done good to the movie. So the movie will just be liked by people that like jungle scenery. Nature is the only thing that keeps the movie interesting but then I wonder if I was not better going on a walk in the forest instead of watching this movie.

I felt like this movie lasted forever

[smur-07129 · 6/10 · 29 May 2017]

I do like the fact that this movie is unusual and therefore worth a look. Loved the jungle scenery. However, I have been to Singapore and It seems like the most humid place on earth. It seemed to me the actors were not that uncomfortably hot. Their uniforms too clean and not enough sweat other than their hair was always wet.

Here is a spoiler that should be noticed but don't read this if you like surprises. Notice at the end that the family picture is on the mantle and the man seems to be the flyer returned home. It's significant and touching but goes too fast compared to the rest of the long film.

snooze fest

[m-z-de · 2/10 · 12 October 2014]

I feel the movie missed its target of giving the viewer empathy of the Main character and did not give due to credit to those that endured this fate. Very little information of the 'fight' with the environment; I would have thought a pilot in this situation would have faced more than some splashing through puddles and a few bull ants e.g.Fatigue, hunger, dysentery from only water source available. Little effort to show the language barriers as main characters made few if any attempts to communicate with each other. Obvious costume and editing errors; disappointing to an observant viewer. Very long draw out periods of repetitive views of foliage canopy.

A hack job masquerading as art

[armanddiab · 1/10 · 24 December 2014]

This movie is proof that an 80 minute film can be just as long, boring and pretentious as any 3 hour plus epic costume Hollywood picture. The movie's budget is so low that it can not afford to show us any real battle, and for a war film, that is a big minus. To compensate what it can not show us, the filmmakers over-fill the soundtrack with constant gunfire, explosions, bombings, airplanes flying over heard, etc. It was exhausting after a while.

Of course, none of those aforementioned things would matter in the least if the movie had characters we cared about at all, or a story worth giving a damn about. Every single Close Up shot in the movie feels fake, and the director holds them for way too long before cutting away, making them feel even more disingenuous. The characters have no personality, no soul to them, so we are forced to watch two wooden people for what felt like an eternity, both of do as much overacting as possible for roles that require very minimal dialogue. The movie is simply over directed; everything in it feels fake, especially the actors' expressions. There really is nothing to find here: no drama, no suspense, no tension, only your life wasting away one second at a time.

Although Canopy is far from the worst Australian film ever made, there will be few that will be as tedious

[Likes_Ninjas90 · 2/10 · 20 April 2014]

Although Canopy is far from the worst Australian film ever made, there will be few that will be as tedious. It is a World War II film made with minimal historical context, few personal details for its central character, and not enough tension. Its photography is pretty but thematically and ideologically vacuous and too keen to imitate much grander war films without understanding their meaning. First time director Aaron Wilson can't decide if he is making an art house project that belongs in a gallery or a gritty war story. By attempting to be a little of each he comes up short on both fronts. Although seventy-nine minutes sounds like a slender running time for a feature film, you would be surprised how slowly time moves when the story is impersonal and lacking a clear purpose. I found it extremely hard to care or be engaged by Canopy.

The film is set in 1942, when Singapore has been invaded by the Japanese. An Australia soldier named Jim (Khan Chittenden) is shot down over the jungle and parachutes into the trees. He aimlessly crawls through the mud and the vegetation of the jungle, hoping to survive. His only ally is when he meets Seng (MO Tzu-Yi), a Chinese soldier. While they barely say a word to each other, they team up to hide from the Japanese forces that are searching for both of them. Not only do they have to contend with the density of the environment but also a nasty wound that injures Seng.

Paring a film down to cinematic images can enhance the realism by hiding the schematics of the script, so long as the director can justify the film's length. It worked in All is Lost (2013) because the main character had practical tasks that fulfilled the action and time. There was also ongoing physical and mental tension from the ocean, storms and the frailty of its elderly protagonist. By contrast, Canopy is a premise without a story. It is too thin, dull and padded, even for a miniscule running time. As Wilson has only made short films before, the scope gets the better of him. He says the film is about the birth of trauma but it rests too heavily on atmosphere, the scenery and cheesy sound effects rather than characterisation to address an enormous theme. It doesn't help that he also hampers the realism by making Jim and Seng the only two friendly soldiers in the area and forgetting that stomach wounds can't just be sown up. They bleed quickly. Silence instead of dialogue also proves fatal and unintentionally comic when the actors are only allowed to use hand signals and point, not even improvise, when they are not in danger.

Wilson is aware of the thinness of the script and tries masking it by being arty. The film's pacing isn't slow, it's deathly. Far too much time is spent dedicated to examining the foliage. It is simply filler. Low angle shots of trees might be a speciality of Terrence Malick films like The Thin Red Line (1998) but he is a master filmmaker who supports images with philosophy. Many long, unbroken camera shots in Canopy are meaningless and showy, like a long shot of a grassy area covered in tiny Japanese flags or tight close-ups of the characters lips and mouths. In the opening credits a technique is copied from Zero Dark Thirty (2012), where the screen is black for an age and we hear screams and bombings. It worked in Kathryn Bigelow's film because it was a reflection of the lack of information surrounding September 11. Without the context the same technique looks like a poor imitation. At the end of the film a point of view shot from a Japanese truck is juxtaposed with the back of a Ute in the outback. I thought this was a flashback but the film's production notes suggest otherwise. Who would know?

Although Canopy is terribly dreary and unsatisfying, I am still optimistic that the director will learn from this film and write a much more complete script. He is already preparing for his next film, which is said to be about men returning from war. It could be a lot more promising. Ultimately though, it is time that Australian films stopped posturing and imitating and started carving a new identity for themselves through improved scripts. Even a small film can become a great one if the writing outlines and sustains the intentions of the director.

Death With Beautiful Backdrop

[samkan · 7/10 · 8 November 2014]

The scenery and photography in CANOPY is breathtakingly gorgeous. I especially liked allowing the cameras to dwell on shots of; e.g., muddy streams, for thirty seconds or more. Such may not be for everyone but for me it created the intensity of our protagonist's fear, as he dwells on the the dangers before him, pausing to see if anything moves. Also done to excellent effect are the shots of the actors taken from great distances. These have the effect of showing how the teeming jungle plays with perspective as its impossible to guess whether you are looking from 50 feet away or 500 feet away until you see the actors themselves. Alas, more and/or better drama could have been achieved plot-wise while still avoiding Hollywood cliché. But CANOPY is indeed a treat for the eyes and I recommend a watch.

Canopy: not a good film.

[niutta-enrico · 2/10 · 25 December 2014]

This is a boring and depressing film that you could spare to yourself. There is no action, no adventure, not even a recognizable plot. There is this endless display of green tropical plants that perhaps, being you a fervent botanist, could catch your attention.

If you, just like me, feel that once started a movie you must finish it, you'll probably end like me, hoping that the two characters get soon killed or whatever, just to put an end to your and their suffering.

I'm not joking: you won't forget, not even for a while, that what you are watching is just a movie (a bad one) and that those that you see are actors. I'm sure that many of you have done better with your holiday movies.

Canopy is a good name for this film

[jasonbarnettnz · 2 November 2014]

I read the reviews and thought id give this movie the benefit of the doubt as they say. A lot of reviews appeared to be nothing more than advertisements dressed up as reviews and others were more balanced while many didn't like it. Sadly after watching and trying really hard to feel into the film and find something deeper in the mood and atmosphere I couldn't get into this and switched it off halfway through. PARTIAL SPOILER Basically all that happens in this film is.. long and drawn out shots of jungle canopy.. jungle foliage, occasional Japanese with guns.. gun shots every now and then.. scared looks on the actors faces.. that's about it really. What could have been a nice little short film, was for some reason made into a feature length film? It didn't work for me. For some this could be an interesting nature walk into jungle environments, but for someone who has been in such places its just like a walk in the jungle.. in fact my own experiences in such conditions felt more exciting and interesting, and there were no Japs to worry about, there is so many dangers that can happen in these conditions and the director has barely scratched the surface of what its like to be in such conditions. There's some lovely bush scenery, and well that's just not enough to make a movie sorry.

Great cinematography and intriguing plot set up but lacking in substance

[grantss · 6/10 · 5 December 2019]

Singapore, February 1942. An Australian fighter pilot is shot down over the jungle and must find his way back to Allied lines, through Japanese-held territory.

The basic plot is what made me watch this: the survival theme set in war time is intriguing. Initial set up is good too.

Moreover, from the beginning the striking feature of the movie is the scenery and cinematography. Is very well done, with lush junglescapes and the stillness and peacefulness of nature contrasting with the violent war and life-or-death struggle the airman is engaged in. It reminded me a lot of the cinematography in Terrence Malick's 'The Thin Red Line'.

However, after the intriguing set up there is really very little in the way of plot development or substance. A human/relationship drama is introduced but it is not developed to much of an extent. The middle 60% or so of the movie involves far more style than substance, with the scenery largely replacing plot development.

Conclusion is fairly good and has an emotional element, but even that is underplayed.

Ultimately, okay, but could have been much better. Fairly disappointing.

Sorry, but this is completely awful

[Leofwine_draca · 1/10 · 7 September 2015]

When I read about CANOPY I thought it sounded decent: Australian pilot, shot down in the fetid jungles of Singapore and trying to avoid Japanese squads on the hunt for prey. The sweaty, claustrophobic confines of the jungle sounded very AGUIRRE-esque to me and if the film was slow, then so what? Herzog's films are slow and yet they're also exceptionally crafted and beautiful to boot which is why they're my favourites.

Sadly, CANOPY turns out to be an absolutely awful picture and one of the most boring films I've ever seen. I can forgive films for being cheesy or silly but to be dull is the cardinal sin I can't ignore. NOTHING happens in this film from beginning to end: there's no dialogue, no incident, no drama, nothing. Just characters wandering around or sitting looking at trees.

Now, the film could still have been saved had it had exceptional cinematography to bring the life the sights and sounds of the jungle. It doesn't. It looks like this was made by amateurs, shooting in a single location and pointing the camera in different directions each time in order to get a sense of the jungle expanse. What we get is a film which relies on a sound effects team to insert noises of planes, bombing, and fighting without ever showing anything. It's so cheap it's a joke.

Beautiful and intense. Turn the lights off and sound up

[paul-psr-ryder · 8/10 · 29 December 2014]

I watched this in the dark with high volume. Which I would advise everybody else to do so also, as this movie is all about it's sounds, feel and atmosphere.

I wasn't expecting much from this movie as I had not heard of it, however I was pleasantly surprised.

The movie is set with one main character who is crash landed in a foreign destination in the midst of the second world war.

The movie is eerie, the scenery is beautiful and the character is very well played. The constant build up of suspension leaves you driven to wondering what will happen next, and although nothing much appears to happen by way of extremities, there is a great awareness of the solitude and danger which could always be nearby...

Admittedly this is not the type of block buster war movie you would put against such movies of recent showing extreme heroism and patriotism, it is not the same, and for these reasons above, I think 8/10 is warranted.. Enjoy

Only Watch this movie if you like National Geographic

[astrofilms-1 · 3/10 · 31 March 2015]

I agree with other reviewers, this has to be one of the most BORING war films ever. At least 30mins into the film and no action. Just two guys lost and surviving in the jungle in WWII in Singapore. Great visual shots of the Singapore jungle and the sound effects of the jungle and atmosphere are incredible. This movie feels more like a National Geographic film than a movie in the first 15mins. The acting is flat, one dimensional with weak character development. You start out with no dialog and the plot is thin. That said I would overlook all that if there was an interesting action scene in the first 5 mins of the film. Only Rambo could save this film from boredom!

Only watch this film if you are into the sounds and cinematography of exotic jungles of National Geographic documentaries. As one reviewer here said, turn up the volume, turn off the lights and enjoy the sounds of the jungle...and for that alone I would give this film almost 10 stars!

Intensely unrelentingly 'green' and . . boring

[rayxt · 1/10 · 27 October 2016]

Award wins and nominations are the critics injoke punishing any gullible viewers who happen onto this low budget panorama of the jungle - canopy to floor.

If you have ever been into the equatorial jungle once you will never, never ever forget the experience of prickly heat, rashes, bites, itches. Sweat. That's the easy part. Even the super fit quickly get so exhausted they go 'troppo' with the heat and humidity and wander away in a daze, off the track never to be seen again.

In the Solomon Islands two American servicemen went missing in the jungle in WW2. Their bodies were found a week later - not more than 500 meters from their army base - of 500,000 men.

THAT kind of jungle 'feeling' you can never experience on a cinema screen.

The small budget is severely restrictive. Watching somebody stumbling through endless 'green' (unless you're a botanist) without a commentary by David Attenborough is crushingly boring. Interacting with the 'civilisation' he finds not on a distant par with the fabulous lunacy of Klaus Kinski in 'Fitzcarraldo' or Nick Nolte's inspired state of mind in 'Farewell to the King'

Distribution is consigned to low budget TV and cable channels. Recording and fast forward is the only suggestion.

Shows how awards mean nothing

[koen-90044 · 1/10 · 1 November 2020]

Looked decent on paper but utterly boring. No dialogue, unrealistic behavior,. Just two hours of wandering aRound a jungle adheiving nothing. These critics who nominated this have no clue about films.... but then again I have never met a " professional " critic who actually saw a film for what it is.... wast of two hours

I've just wasted over an hour of my life.

[btaylor-20660 · 1/10 · 12 October 2020]

How did anyone score this film highly enough to get 4.9 stars? It is the turgid and dull peice of cinematography as I have ever seen. Wounded pilot stumbles through the jungle for 80 minutes then is captured. The end. Awful.

Most Boring Movie Ever

[sammyt-62328 · 1/10 · 20 June 2022]

I have just created an account to warn people away from watching this. It is without doubt the most boring 80 minutes of movie ever made .. just long shot freezes of a guy looking at trees... This just drags on and on and on the same formula over and over again. Please do not make any more movies for the love of god do not.

Very Good for its Budget

[rogueklyntar · 5/10 · 18 June 2021]

This is a very good film for its story and plot, whatever others may say about a lack thereof. It is without dialogue, which allows the viewer to concentrate on the actual events of the film.

However, the film is lacking in several important aspects. First of all, it is not all that historically accurate. The events of the film are loosely based on a certain circumstantial incident that occurred in real life: two soldiers went out on some scouting mission or whatever and didn't return. They were found just over a quarter of a mile away a week later, dead. Nobody knows what happened; the film basically takes the premise and then creates a completely unrelated story out of it.

Second, although partially filmed on-site where actual military action took place, the so-called "canopy" is nothing like the real southeast-Asian forests.

Third, there is little actual action. Yes, plenty of stuff goes on, but there is little combat. This is a war film, in the jungles of Singapore, no less. There should be combat, because that's what happened.

Given the vast liberties taken with this film, the result is surprisingly good, though it feels a bit unpolished, if not rushed.

Worth the watch if you are not looking for accuracy but want a human-experience thing.

A very good movie that makes a very strong statement

[wells-barry · 8/10 · 29 December 2014]

Before I watch a movie I look at the plot summary and read a few reviews. There are a some very negative reviews of this movie here on IMDb and I am left wondering why these people watched the movie? A few seemed to think there should be more fighting and sophisticated effects. Some seemed to think there should have been a stronger story line. This is not that kind of movie folks. This is the kind of movie that requires the viewer to engage and think about the human condition. If you want banging and smashing action or a fairy tale story don't bother watching this movie. If your attention span is just long enough to manage handfuls of popcorn don't watch this movie. If you want to be engaged in a thought process then you are in for a treat. I was reminded very much of the classic war movie "Hell in the Pacific" as I watched. Here the two characters are comrades rather than adversaries but there are similarities in the lack of a common language and the reliance on strong visual images. I don't want to give away the plot or ending but without spoiling anything I can say the penultimate scene makes a very strong statement about how we remember the victims of a war. In summary people should watch movies according to their tastes. If you want big budget Hollywood action and a story don't bother with this movie, and moreover don't half watch it without concentrating and write a lambasting review. If you want something more existential and thought provoking, I recommend this movie to you.

A movie with the first 5 minutes a blank screen!

[stevebrech1 · 2/10 · 25 February 2023]

Using music, jungle sounds and the sounds of war does set the scene, dispenses with clunky dialogue, character introduction and other film necessities but completely misses the self evident need for pictures. From this point on the movie deteriorates into situations devoid of; a story, a journey, any surprise or any redeemable plot. Likely a very cheap film to make it feels like it was made to show film school undergraduates how NOT to make a movie. Two stars. One for the double meaning of the title. The second for the tear shed by the second actor towards the end. Truly a narrative free zone with a recommendation for anyone writing a screenplay to watch a movie to list it's faults, can you do better? By God, you can.

Go watch your lawn grow instead

[malcolmgsw · 1/10 · 27 March 2021]

I suggest that you take a chair into your garden and spend the next 80 minutes watching it. Then you will get as much entertainment as you would by watching this film.

The most boring film ever made?

[plan99 · 1/10 · 9 May 2019]

I was expecting an action film but this film contains no action what so ever. No encounters with the enemy, no struggling to survive just a long and tedious plod through the jungle. Only watch this if you are an insomniac as it's a sure fire cure.

amazing with few, little money and no dialog

[rkerver-1 · 8/10 · 24 December 2014]

Its amazing what can be achieved with a small crew and low budget. But with a vision of telling a compelling story and a good camera. This film has very little dialog or musical accompaniment. The audio track is astounding, as we're dropped into a rain-forest that's been overrun by the Japanese during WWII. We get the sounds of war and the jungle. I was riveted. I love the close encounters with the life of the place. Feel the bugs crawling on my skin. A unique piece of cinematic art deserving of positive critical review. I've seen lots of WWII movies over the years, but nothing like this. Another plus: none of the blood or violence or men with guns that is usual with the genre. More awards please!

Canopy: An International Australian Story

[opiesayner · 9/10 · 22 April 2014]

Canopy celebrates the art of visual storytelling and atmospheric emersion. Aaron Wilson's sensibility about his characters journey, compels the audience to really think hard, and then feel deeply what these two allied pilots endured and the bond they formed while evading the Japanese. Actors Jim (Khan Chittenden) and Seng (Tzu-yi Mo), portray the innocence in war with a human story of survival and friendship. Their performances are bound together by non-speaking roles and the unforgiving Singapore jungle, where their planes were shot down during Wartime in 1942. As non-language film, Canopy exposes it's audience to the emotional effects of isolation under duress, the jungle is both a threat and sanctuary, giving security when needed but ultimately driving you further into the unknown inevitability of war in a foreign land. The most remarkable aspect of experiencing Canopy in the cinema, is feeling the embodiment of the characters environment. The Singapore jungle is brought to life by it's sounds, emphasised by an amazing surround cinema mix...this is a sound and vision feast for character driven film lovers.

This is an excellent, unique film

[Dollyrkr · 10/10 · 17 June 2015]

I'm repulsed at the moronic commentary on here. This movie is incredible. The only way to watch this is in the dark, with the sound all the way up. This is just amazing. Without any words an entire story is told. The use of light, of focus, of time... it is masterful. I think will be a sleeper. Only those who really appreciate beauty and magic will love this. The bird sounds and ambiance oftentimes reminded me of Herzog's Fitzcarraldo. This is an absolutely beautiful movie, I hope you see my review and not the jerks saying "it's boring, nothing happens" - omg, EVERYTHING HAPPENS. I was on the edge of my seat. The usage of sound is unparalleled. I actually feel the need to stress that I am in no way associated with filmmaking, I simply really appreciate this. It is Extremely Rare that an entire story is told vividly with atmospheric sound and visuals. Just a very special film. Do not miss.