Shutter (I) (2008) User Reviews

A Mediocre Remake

[claudio_carvalho · 4/10 · 13 September 2008]

In North America, after getting married, the photographer Benjamin Shaw (Joshua Jackson) and his wife Jane (Rachel Taylor) travel to Japan for a job opportunity with Ben's friends Bruno (David Denman) and Adam (John Hensley). While driving on a lonely road in Japan during the night, they have a car accident with Jane hitting a girl first and crashing a tree. When they awake, the police do not find any body and Ben believes that Jane imagined the situation. Later when Ben reveals his latest pictures, he finds some mysterious shadows, while the couple is systematically haunted by the ghost of the girl. Jane investigates and finds that the victim was Ben's former shy and weird girlfriend Megumi Tanaka (Megumi Okina), who worked as translator for Ben. Later Jane discloses deep and hidden secrets about the relationship of Megumi, Ben and his friends Bruno and Adam.

The American version of "Shutter" is a mediocre remake of a great Asian horror movie. Actually it is ridiculous, with the author poorly using the same storyline and transforming a creepy and dark story in another Hollywoodian standard of silliness – shallow screenplay but with beautiful actresses, handsome lead actor and wonderful locations in Japan. If the viewer has never seen the original "Shutter" (2004) (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0440803/), watch it instead. If the viewer has already seen the Thailand's movie, prefer watching it again. It will be better than wasting time watching this terrible remake. My vote is four.

Title (Brazil): "Imagens do Além" ("Images from Beyond")

Note: On 25 February 2012, I saw this film again.

It wasn't that bad

[b014422 · 6/10 · 17 July 2008]

After seeing this movie, I was shocked by the comments. The movie wasn't that bad at all.

In the beginning I wasn't sure what to think. It was rather scary, and the plot itself made my question whether I saw this movie or not already. It reminded me of similar movies like the grudge.

But let's face it, the end was surprising and not in any way predictable.

I like the movie. I'll see it again someday.

I gave it a six because it was very entertaining, surprising, but it wont go into history as a masterpiece.

See this movie if you want to enjoy yourself, be scared, be excited and you wont regret it.

Shutter takes Polaroid remnants of the original without the stunning flash.

[TheMovieDiorama · 4/10 · 15 November 2019]

This is a peculiar remake. During the towering heights of Hollywood westernising world-renowned Asian horrors, mostly from Japan and South Korea, Japanese director Ochiai opted to alter the story of Thailand's arguably most famous eponymous horror with American actors, set in Japan. Western audiences apparently wouldn't be spooked if the ghost haunting the main characters wasn't a pasty white Japanese girl with luscious black hair and masses amount of eye liner. It's a cluster of cultures, and whilst the end result isn't exactly terrible, it's far from being tolerably good. Because much like 'The Grudge', 'One Missed Call' and 'Pulse', the underlying sense of pointlessness becomes an overburden for everyone involved.

A photographer and his new bride travel to Tokyo where they accidentally smash into a girl standing in the middle of the darkened misty road (bare foot, might I add!). And so, through the ominous power of spirit photography, they become haunted. Specks of mysterious white vapours and the glistening sunlight against the camera lenses, being interpreted as ghostly entities attempting to communicate with the living. "The dead latch onto the flesh".

Without changing the essence of the overall story too much, just minor details here and there, Ochiai manages to produce various suspenseful moments through the usage of anonymity. The ethereal cries of a haunting girl, the innocent humming of an eerie song and the most intense tonguing since Toad got struck by lightning back in '00. The supernatural elements work best when nothing is showed on screen. The dark room sequence when Megumi entered the room, although initially presumed to be Jane, was executed with enough slow-paced tension to become effective. Dropping a splinter of wood into a solution that causes a tsunami into the eyes? Ineffective. Electrocuting one's self in a desperate attempt to rid the latched ghost? Well, I don't need to tell you how stupid that is.

Dawson's script is less than impressive. Masses amount of exposition and one-dimensional development that forced characters to be nothing more than tourists and amateur photographers. Seriously, Jane is the worst tourist. Shouting in the faces of locals exclaiming "excuse me, where do I go!?". Is she oblivious to native languages? Like, she failed to even attempt one word in Japanese. That's not Taylor's fault, who isn't the most talented actress in existence, but managed to bring out some surprising emotionality towards the film's conclusion. Jackson on the other hand? Ehhh. He's the kind of guy you want to slap for acquiring no personality. Just bland. His character's best friends are pointless and sadly resorted to expendable deaths that suffered from no build-up.

The central mystery that powers the narrative does captivate, even if Ochiai's direction made certain twists obvious due to extensive foreshadowing, and that's the primary element for preventing this remake from venturing into the realms that we do not speak of. I'm looking at you 'One Missed Call' and 'Pulse'!

So yes, Shutter is fine. As a film, it functions by itself with enough flash for the uninitiated. However, for those who have watched the original, you're bound to find disfigurement within the composition of this photographic remake.

Tame, lame, and not very scary.

[adamscastlevania2 · 2/10 · 2 October 2014]

(13%) A largely subtitle free remake of an Asian horror movie made almost entirely for those too lazy to read. The original was a Thai movie, but for some reason this is set in Japan, but really that's the least of its problems. Storywise this is a decent idea and I'm guessing the original perhaps worked out better, but this is largely overly tame, and for a movie not even 90 mins long it feels very plodding at times, and rather directionless. The two leads are dull characters played by dull performances, and there's a cheap TV movie feel, not to mention some very cheap jump scares and seen it all before "spooky" ghost women. Give this a miss and watch something else.

Why they still do this 'things' (some call it 'movies')

[dimensional_powerx · 22 April 2008]

The original movie is brilliant: Starts like a typical 'scary movie', and suddenly it turns to be an excellent 'love drama' with one of the best endings i have seen in an movie like this,,, But, again, the studios bought the script, adapt it, and put someone who, technically can make a good version,,, the director make a decent work portraying the Japanese society(in a very mediocre way in the end,,,not bad: mediocre... a Japanese girl jumping to the arms of a man? bad bad bad),,, Why Japan and not Tailand? Who knows (we know, but I can't be so rude), in the end is irrelevant, but at the beginning its kinda strange,,, The story starts almost the same as the original,,, and 30 seconds later changes completely,,, the original plot of a man fighting the 'ghosts' of his past, is changed by the plot of a woman fighting with the 'jelous and dead' ex-girlfriend,,, near the end of the film he screams 'he left you because he doesn't love you!!!',,, that's ridiculous,,, the end remains almost equal to the original,,, but it feels terribly empty: the original presents three people(live and dead) destined to have a shared destiny for the mistakes of one man,,, this remake shows a man receiving his lesson because he is a jerk,,, so disappointing,,, I tell you: Go, buy the original Shutter, watch it, enjoy it,,, stay away from this,,, thing,,, remake,,, whatever you call it,,, don't tell is good because you didn't see the original,,, even if you don't watch it, don't make this movie good,,,

*Yawn*

[oktobreana · 6/10 · 21 March 2008]

*SPOILER ALERT* It was not bad, had some good elements, but this whole Asian horror scenario is getting kind of old. Same look, same style, etc. I think the writers overseas are better but the production in America is better. More than frightening me, it left me a little sad. You feel sorry for the character, you don't particularly fear her. And his wife's reaction to the secret photos was pretty extreme...you would certainly be alarmed and unnerved, but somehow I don't think you'd have such a visceral reaction. They made it seem like someone had torn off her face or something.

I did like knowing why the Japanese nurse kept weighing him though...pretty clever!

Poor remake

[sandujohnny · 1/10 · 29 January 2009]

This is a remake of a good Thai horror movie that was released back in 2004. I really enjoyed the original movie and I recommend it to everyone. Why did they need to do a remake of a movie that was released only 4 years ago? Did they think they can improve it in some way? Not only did they not improve it, they made it worse than the original in many ways. The brilliant music and sounds from the original are gone, the ghost is less scary, is shown more often, and it seems less menacing (at one step the ghost is even singing!), the acting is worse, and the characters are less believable than in the original.

The producers introduced a few new elements hoping to make the movie more scary, but in fact they made it more disgusting (the flies for example). The original movie was full of clichés, but this one is even more so. The most brilliant part of the original movie was the ending. In the remake, they simply copied every scene from the last part of the movie, but with less talent and less impressive results.

So, I return to my original question: why did they need to do a remake? What was the problem with the original movie released only 4 years before this one? The fact that the main actors were Asians and that they didn't speak English? Or more likely, the fact that Hollywood, which is apparently all out of ideas, couldn't let a good story fly by them without them making money out of it?

Very scary for only being PG-13

[robertallenandersonjr · 7/10 · 9 April 2008]

Shutter was a pretty decent movie. The movie was pretty predictable. People will probably not like this movie because of the ending. The thing that people need to realize is that when they are going to see a movie like this you know what you are going to get out of it. I hate it when people keep cutting down movies like this, such as One Missed Call and The Eye. In these kind of movies the ending is pretty predictable, its pretty much going to leave you hanging. Thats why I think people need to understand you can't hate a movie because of the ending. I thought that their was so much more to the story than just spirit photography. It explains why its happening to the people that are on their honey moon. It seems like in these kind of movies the story explains a lot more near the end. They kept doing many flash backs in this movie as well. That's when they were explaining the story a lot. This was actually pretty creepy, freightning, and scary all at the same time. It had a ton of sudden pop out right at your face scenes. Im sure that when you see this you will jump many times. I thought that it could have been a little bit better. I liked the idea of having it be two newly married couples that this spirit photography is happening to. I liked how the wife was fighting the ghosts the whole movie. The acting was surprisingly really good I thought. The wife in this played by Rachael Taylor did such a great job playing all the scared parts and emotional parts. Her husband played by Joshua Jackson did a great job as well. Some of the visuals were pretty sweet. They had a lot of nice camera shots of the whole city in Tokyo. After some of the people left the theater I heard them say I want my money back. This movie was trying to prove to you that making fun of people and treating them like crap at a younger age will come back to haunt you. Overall this was a decent movie with some good scares. I would go see this at the cheap show or only pay five dollars.

Watch the original

[amanda-my-lum · 1/10 · 6 May 2008]

What really pains me is this movie does absolutely no justice to the original version. Watch the original Thai version. It is MUCH better in terms of plot, pace, suspense and horror. Instead of relying on the cheap, predictable *suspenseful music-BANG* Hollywood ploys very evident in this version, the original Thai version is very well built up, takes its time to set the mood and let the suspense and horror just seep in, and they also manage to throw in a bit of black humour as well (the public toilet visit late at night - classic). The background and development of characters in the original is MUCH better, and more plausible (with a more plausible explanation for why she turns up in photos - not this "spirit photography" crap), not to mention the acting is infinitely superior in the original.

Hollywood fails once again. Skip this stupid knock-off and just go straight to the original.

Not the best

[wolf_stoned · 6/10 · 22 March 2008]

The trailers for this movie made it look pretty good, but it turned out to be not the best movie. It delivers the scares, but there are too many 'false alarms'. A lot of the love stuff in the beginning could've been left out. The real horror starts a little too late, and basically is pretty corny. Most of the acting is pretty bad, and some of the dialogue seems to be totally improvised. This is one Japanese horror remake that shouldn't have been made at all in my opinion. It has a pretty bad plot that takes a long time to unfold and, at times, is rather boring. Warning - do not be fooled, for this is one movie that blows! If you want to see a movie, just avoid this, and see something else instead. Trust me.

Another unrelentingly boring ghost-in-the-machine remake

[movedout · 3/10 · 28 March 2008]

Take it as it is. A derivative, leaden, mind-numbingly simplified remake of a superior original. That's not to say that it's genuinely decent on its own merits if you've not already seen 2004's seminal Thai-horror "Shutter" that reignited that country's interest in producing slow burning, luxuriously made horror films. Interestingly, and perhaps even fittingly, the Hollywood machine that devours and regurgitates the recent slate of J-Horror films has turned its sights on "Shutter", which arguably finds its core roots in Japan's horror conventions in its vengeful, waifish ghost girl tormenting the living by manifesting through various electronic mediums. So what Masayuki Ochiai's adaptation essentially becomes is a carbon copy of copy.

American photographer Ben Shaw (Joshua Jackson) and his blonde schoolteacher bride Jane (Rachael Taylor) go straight from nuptials to a working honeymoon in Japan, natch, because America just isn't as scary to Americans as Asia is. Before heading off to Ben's lucrative assignment in Tokyo, the newly minted couple heads to a remote countryside inn when a brief accident derails Jane's constitution and compels her to seek out answers led by a phantasmal presence in photographs and a newly discovered knowledge of spirit photography.

Unremarkably, Luke Dawson's screenplay omits and appends details to its basic premise. The original uses the stark disassociation of city living to intensify the eeriness of isolation, and the idea that we never really see what we think we know. Dawson's script transplants the couple to a different country, ramping up the cultural alienation and exoticism of another culture. It's not dissimilar to what we've already seen in "The Grudge" remakes.

Even as Ochiai's direction is comparatively surefooted and patient with the camera choosing to hang on to a scene instead of ludicrously harping on jump-cuts and eyeball-rattling shots that bounce off the wall, the film feels unambitiously stale. "Shutter" goes through the motions of dourly checking off look-behind-you set pieces and reflections on windows. The plotting and performances are so apparent; you'd find yourself a couple of steps ahead of the film's central faux-mystery. While the bizarre symbiotic relationship audiences have with particularly mediocre remakes of Asian horror films should still live on after this, what remains most terrifying is how textbook simple and undemanding the film-making has become for films of its ilk.

Way, Way Better than I Expected

[bababear · 8/10 · 22 March 2008]

This was a surprisingly good, old fashioned ghost story.

I haven't seen the original and I'm not a fanboy, so I didn't have any axes to grind going in. The cast is very good if somewhat underutilized, the photography and musical scoring are excellent, and there's a plot twist that caught me completely by surprise.

Watching the previews you'd think this was the one millionth Asian horror with a vengeful female spirit who has long black hair and dark circles under her eyes. There's more than that going on here.

And, without giving any plot points away, the final shot of the film is going to stay with me for a long, long time.

Sure, this isn't the most original piece of work ever. It's part of a long tradition of ghost stories. But the makers had the sense to keep it to 85 minutes so it's over before you really begin to think how familiar some of the material is.

I like this movie!

[mm-39 · 7/10 · 6 April 2008]

I like this movie. The photo imaging subplot is great. One notices the grainy quality which foreshadows a oncoming storm. The lighting is always dark, which gave me a feeling of dread which adds to the script. Always signs of sexual tension with the fashion industry characters. The three elements create a perfect storm of a women scorn. All 3 males act as if they have a wild secret. When the storm hits by the vengeful spirit the story theme about what comes around does go around is revealed. I like the surprise ending when obsession never ends and a broken heart begins. Be careful what one does there is always human feelings. 7 out of 10 A good mystery. A good date night movie. My friend Dax though run of the mill, but I like the story.

go watch Ring remake for a fifth time. you will thank me...

[oozecaglar · 2/10 · 11 June 2009]

I have signed up just to say how much US shutter sucked. I haven't seen the Thai version, but considering the high recommendations for it, i thought US version would be able to carry out the level of Ring in some sense anyway. My bad... Acting, script, special FXs, score, there s nothing to defend. Casting sucks too. Ghost is actually cute. Supposedly womanizer friends of Joshua Jackson just look like 2 dorks. The accident, Jane taking a final glance on the ghost before passing out, all are beyond ridiculous. Spare the lack of general continuity, there s no suspense building up. Feel for your 1,5 hours. If you are still persistent about watching a far-east horror remake, u are about to see one of the worst.

PERFECT! for our image of American youth...

[peelscreen · 1/10 · 22 March 2008]

I think this movie shows exactly how Hollywood sees America's youth. Compelled by fashionably dressed model women, sometimes half naked, bright colors, spooky images and scenes that are only there to make you jump. Oh... and I forgot, no brains. They think you're all idiots so they give you this cliché garbage.

Skinny attractive woman who couldn't act if it were cursed on her, walks around always looking fresh and dumb in designer clothes. This movie is about as intelligent as a log. Everything seems forced and none of it is original or done in a compelling way. I have to wonder if English was the native language of the director since most of the dialog is unacceptably terrible. Many times I cringed or laughed at things that I knew weren't meant to have that kind of reaction.

Poorly paced, poorly written, poorly acted, the effects are okay. I haven't seen the original, but conceptually, this movie could have been great if it were done the right way. Unfortunately, it was not. F-

Why was this movie even made?

[cynkittie · 6/10 · 23 March 2008]

Shutter seemed like a promising horror flick. I saw The Grudge (American) when it came out and thought it had something to offer my kind of crowd, the college moviegoer. I was expecting for this film to have the same effect. Unfortunately, I think that the best thing about this movie was the trailer, and after finding out that this was a remake, I have to ask why was this movie even made? Was it only made because we can't read (subtitles) and watch at the same time?

Without seeing the original, I can only guess that it is better. The Shutter remake had all the potential to be a great scary movie. It had the creepy music, lighting, and ghosts. It also had a very interesting theme of incorporating a vengeful spirit into photographs that definitely worked better than the whole "noise" concept of the movie White Noise. (Shutter remake is definitely better than White Noise.) However, the concept was not original to this film, and therefore, they really didn't need to remake a movie so soon after the original (if at all). The effects in this movie were probably a little bit more enhanced, but it's nothing I haven't seen before. They definitely weren't on the level of The Grudge (maybe budget constraints?)

I don't think the actors and actresses stood out at all in this movie. You'll think Rachel Taylor is beautiful and Joshua Jackson plays his part well, but they're just blah. Their chemistry is blah. Their performances are blah. You could replace them with another actor and actress, and it wouldn't make a difference.

I just felt like they could have done a lot more. It didn't scare me nearly as much as I would have liked it too. It was enjoyable to a point, but my friend and I both had to ask, was that it? I thought the ending was a bit contrived, maybe because I already gathered everything I needed to know from the trailer so the "twist" was just as predictable as everything else. They needed to do a lot more with Joshua Jackson's character in my opinion to put this movie over the edge, and they failed to do that.

So basically, this film will scare the younger crowd. In fact I think that's why it's PG-13 rated to get kids in the theater and make a buck. It's not going to do anything for anyone who is wanting something more than The Grudge. It'll creep you out a little but its style and concept is predictable and nothing new.

Overall, 6/10 for me for its average horror movie appeal.

Worse than anything Uwe Boll ever made...

[lcri-1 · 1/10 · 27 April 2008]

Going into the theater to see this film, I had never seen the original. I was looking forward to this film after seeing the above-average remake of The Eye, but this was just terrible. I kept waiting for the movie to get to the scary part, or at least the INTERESTING part. It never did.

The ghost in this film is the least threatening movie ghost since Casper, I swear. Apparently she kills some people, but we're not ever shown what her involvement in the deaths is. She doesn't even look or act scary. She's just... there.

This movie also falls into the same pitfall of confusing gross with scary that the One Missed Call remake did and gives us lots of bugs and other creepy-crawlies rendered in mediocre CGI.

However, unlike One Missed Call, there isn't a single piece of genuinely chilling imagery here to save the film. We are shown a few things that are supposed to be creepy, but they're just gross or boring.

And the story is completely uninteresting. There is no sense of foreboding because the story never hints that the ghost is going to do something violent or scary. Maybe this was intended to make it scarier when she did, but that doesn't matter because it isn't at all scary in the first place.

I won't reveal the final twist, but be warned... it's only unpredictable because it's so freaking stupid and not scary that you can't believe they put it in the movie.

Overall, I can honestly say that this is the worst movie I've ever seen.

another Japanese remake !!!!!!

[Jamie_Seaton · 8 August 2009]

well well well, this movie sucks. the cast are terrible so u cant feel for them when they die. joshua jackson really does need to find another job, maybe something behind the camera. i'm not sure of the names of the other people acting in this film but there worse. i don't always blame the actors though because its the directors who tell the actors to act in a certain way. this is basically just another silly horror film thats been remade from the Japanese. don't get me wrong, there's some awesome Japanese remakes like the ring and the grudge but i think there grasping at straws now. originality is the key people !!!! somehow i managed to watch the whole of this film so instead of giving it 1 star i'll give it 2 but if u can help yourself then don't go near this 2/10 j.d seaton

A misunderstood film

[sheiladay · 7/10 · 22 July 2019]

I didn't find this movie to be rotten like some critics made it out to be. It's not a scary movie (how many scary movies are actually scary?) I see it as a tale about a wife finding that her husband and his friends are much worse than she could have imagined. (I guess that is the real horror that is being presented.) Rachel Taylor's role as the good, solid recently married wife would have been a demanding one and she played it well. Joshua Jackson's part as the husband who has dirty secrets that he doesn't feel guilty about,("it seemed like a good idea") didn't require him to do much; but he was able to convey a psychopath's detatchment in a convincing way. ( You wonder why after marrying such a gorgeous, perfect woman he doesn't seem to love her and why there isn't much chemistry between them.) I don't think that it's an especially good movie though,the ending is a bit corny; and the way that the story unfolds is too slow; I think that the film could have been better edited, all in all.

This movie was HORRIBLE

[ZiggyZane · 1/10 · 31 March 2008]

The attempt for this movie was a valiant one... but it failed none the less. They tried so hard to sum up J-Horror movies into one movie that didn't scare you, leave you in suspense, or even guessing. At one point I asked my girlfriend to wake me up when it got good. Had I actually gone to sleep and had her wake me up when it was good... she would've woken me up at the credits. The cinematography was great, but that was probably the only good thing about the movie. You see a side to Japan most movies don't show you, NOT the hustle and bustle of Tokyo, but the side parks, the small houses outside the main cities, the apartments, etc. The movie left nothing to the imagination, you knew what was happening the entire time. There was no point in the movie where I was scared... I didn't even jump. All in all this movie was terrible, don't waste your money on it, watch something else instead... like moss growing, ANYTHING but this movie.

Surprising well-made

[sq8188-162-458059 · 6/10 · 1 October 2011]

Good story and surprisingly well-made. Suspense built slowly and seemed in hand of competent director and actors. Film was in 3 takes. The introduction, the main play, and surprisingly the post episode was genuinely frightful. There was a moral ending instead of senseless chop-em-up flicks. The cast was perfect. Rachel Taylor was a good actress and very believable as the young wife of photographer Ben. The Japan outdoor scenery were breath-taking. Only complaint - the Japanese women were shown and treated as objects; and the women seemed amendable to playing that role. Maybe that's reflecting the cultural norm in Japan. Otherwise a good movie night if you want enough scares.

Shutter

[Scarecrow-88 · 2/10 · 3 November 2013]

American photographer and his sweet wife (Joshua Jackson and Rachael Taylor) find a new home in Tokyo thanks to a friend of theirs (David Denman) who sets them up in a building to both live and work, but they encounter a lingering, pestering spirit. This Onryō could very well have a reason for showing up (and ruining) Jackson's photographic sessions with models in/outdoors, as well as, constantly turning up to haunt them. It seems Jackson and Denman (and also their mutual friend, played by John Hensley) eventually recognize exactly who this spirit is and why she is hanging around to remind them of past sins. Formulaic, dull plotting (the sheen had then worn off the allure of American remakes of Asian horror so popular in the late 90s/early 2000s by 2008), and a severe lack of imagination leave this remake dying on the screen without much to grab us. An image of why Jackson feels such a weight on his shoulders seems to be one of the few scenes (I also dug the scene where Taylor visits the magazine popular for showing (and creating, especially) spirit photography, and is shown a room with authentic photographs of specters on film) that leave an impression at all, but even it has been better executed before. You can just revisit (or watch for the first time) the Thai Shutter film and experience better creeps than what are available in this uninspired remake. One of the shining examples of how remaking past films over a period of time can numb the senses of horror fans, eventually draining our desire to even watch their Asian counterparts. The finale, where Jackson goes to great lengths to remove what is haunting him, is the death knell in this rather worthless remake. Taylor tries her best to encourage our sympathies for her difficult situation (not of her making; she's a victim of circumstance, unaware of what her husband done), but her character is basically reactionary, while Jackson bores with a performance and character that aren't able to rise above the material. Encountering a dead body with flies out her mouth may be the lone scary scene in the whole film.

Good Remake, But...

[Mark-129 · 9/10 · 6 April 2008]

Before I reviewed this American remake of a highly regarded Thai horror film from 2004, I ordered a copy of the original to make a comparison.

Although the original is superior, the remake, to be fair smooths out some of the inconsistencies of the tale. This is not always a good thing as it's these little things that give the story a bit of character and individuality.

To be brief, the story involves the haunting of an American photographer and his new wife in Japan after hitting a young woman with their car on a lonely country road.

Most of the ghostly horror is more suggested than overt, with images appearing in photographs and just out of direct sight. Most of the set pieces from the original are here, but several of the most startling and effective moments of horror are missing. The unfortunate PG-13 rating keeps everything in check, so, while compelling, the horror is fairly muted. Another fault is the ghost lacks a bit of the personality the original has in spades. The final twist takes the story in a very different direction and is quite startling. But, like another reviewer wrote, leaves you feeling justice has been done.

Not a great film, but very watchable and satisfying.

Coproduction Japanese-American based on Thailand horror film

[ma-cortes · 6/10 · 27 December 2009]

The film deals about a supernatural palish spirit threatening a happy marriage. After celebrating their wedding party at USA , young couple goes to Japan for working. There the young photographer Benjamin Shaw (Joshua Jackson) and his recent wife Jane (Rachael Taylor) have a car crash on the road and hitting a rare girl who flees. Then Benjamin reveals his latest photographs and discover mysterious shadows. As they investigate the phenomenon, asking for help an expert (James Kyson Lee, Heroes) and a medium . As they find other pictures contain similar supernatural images, that Benjamin's best friends (David Denman, John Hensley) are being haunted as well, and Jane discovers that her husband has not told her everything. It soon becomes clear that you can not escape your past.Then a vengeful specter (Megumi) kills everybody go into their haunted house and Jane attempts to get the bottom of the mystery. A series of terrible and mysterious deaths occur, as one friend commits suicide dropping himself from a high apartment while the creepy spirit possesses its victims.

This frightening movie displays terror, shocks, hard-edged drama and creepy images. While the look is suitable atmospheric and eerie, the argument stretches plausibility to the breaking point. This is an acceptable Japanese adaptation of the novel and movie that took successfully Thailand. Nice and colorful cinematography filmed in Japan by the cameraman Katsumi . Suspenseful and mysterious musical score fitting perfectly to terror by Nathan Barr. The motion picture is professionally directed by Masayuki Ochiai in similar style to Hideo Nakata movies -The ring, Dark Water-. The director Masayuki(Infection, Dark tales, Hypnosis) is an expert on horror cinema and follows the wake of Japanese eerie phantoms of pale complexion and long hair as ¨The grudge¨ and several others. Rating : Acceptable and passable.

This movie was terrible

[cToTh-2 · 1/10 · 28 July 2008]

Usually I'm pretty easy-going about horror movies; I can usually watch movies for their entertainment value, despite some of the lower remarks of some people. But this ain't one of them. This movie was boring. I mistakingly bought it partly because the DVD commercial looked interesting and partly because I thought the average IMDb.com rating was 6.4/10, not 4.8/10 (as it stands today). Nowadays, I usually try to avoid movies with a rating less than 6/10 (in most cases).

In any case, this movie was boring and not even remotely scary. There were a few interesting scenes, but most of them were near the end/climax of the movie. Even the dialogue/relationship between Jane and Ben were laughable, though I cannot remember how at the moment. I'm beginning to wonder if I am beginning to block this movie from my memory (but not enough for me to watch it a 2nd time).

To help give you an idea of how bad this was, I liked White Noise and Boogeyman (2005) better than this flick.