Watch Canopy For Free

Excellent, Without a doubt!!

Absolutely brilliant

Although it has its amusing moments, in eneral the plot does not convince.

Clever, believable, and super fun to watch. It totally has replay value.

Be prepared, this movie is about 95% dialogue free. What little there is, is in Chinese or Japanese. The remaining sounds are of the beautifully filmed backdrop, the jungle and all its encompassing wildlife. Oh, I almost forgot the gunfire in the distance. Even though there is minimal talking, as another reviewer mentioned, this film is best viewed at night in a dark room with the volume nice and loud. This way you really feel as though you're a part of what's taking place with the sounds of the jungle encompassing you, if you have a nice home theater set-up. Having taken place in 1942, I was expecting a "period film", but this really could have taken place anytime since then. This film was nothing like I expected but I was in no way disappointed. It was beautifully filmed, acted and leaves you thinking. I highly recommend it to anyone!

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.

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.

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.