
The day I saw Pulse -- which, it must be noted, did not screen for critics -- I spent the morning dealing with Gmail having shut down my e-mail account as an 'automated security procedure' after I'd tried downloading my mail to Outlook. Then, at the gym, I stumbled on the new TreadClimber and nearly split my head open; after that, while text messaging to get show times on my phone, I failed to notice a change in the curb and almost went face-down in the street. So a horror film about modern technology trying to kill us felt like a nice fit for the day; certainly, it had been trying to annoy me to death for the past several hours.
Based on the 2001 Japanese horror film Kairo by Kiyoshi Kurosawa, Pulse begins on a college campus: The kids there have all the gizmos and gadgets of modern life, they lived by frantically e-mailing and IM-ing each other. At one point, out for a night on the town, our heroine Mattie (Kristen Bell) gets a text message from her friend Tim (Samm Levine) -- who's sitting two chairs away. It's not funny to Mattie; she's worried about her boyfriend, Josh (Jonathan Tucker). "Our relationship has been reduced to text messaging ...", she notes to her friend Isabell (Christina Milian). "How tragic is that?"
Well, it's about to get a lot more so, as Josh has discovered a computer program -- on some server somewhere he was hacking around on -- that not only really seems to mess up his operating systems and desktop but also functions as a gateway for angry and unyielding undead forces to stalk the world in search of victims to slay; Josh is a victim of those unquiet and hungry spirits early, but he's not the last.
There's a kernel of a good idea in Pulse -- and having not seen the Japanese original, I can't say if that film works with that kernel any more effectively than Pulse does -- but director Jim Sonzero never quite manages to bring that seed of an idea to full flower. As Mattie -- aided by Dexter (Ian Somerhalder), the computer whiz who bought all of Josh's old hardware -- discovers, Josh stole an experimental broadband connectivity program that would have allowed for data transfer at insanely high speeds, and also opens up frequencies that act as a portal for static-flickering electro-shades. So the good news is, movie downloading on demand could finally work; the bad news is that you'll be too busy running from gray, angry, howling techno-zombies to watch anything.
Pulse starts as a sort of horror chamber piece -- something's stalking the campus -- and then blows out to take the whole world in its grasping, nightmare grip. (And this isn't a casual image in my mind; Pulse's credits include not one but four stunt players listed as "stunt phantom arms.") But Sonzero's film can't quite make the switch from micro to macro as smoothly as one would like; we go from crowded cafeterias to desolate, wreckage-scattered streets a little too fast for true terror to build up, even if it is a shock. Sonzero and screenwriter Wes Craven -- yes, that Wes Craven -- would have benefited from a viewing of the '78 version of Invasion of the Body Snatchers, where the scope goes from the individual to the collective with a steady, slow and unstoppable energy that makes the flesh on the back of your neck crawl long-distance, as opposed to Pulse's occasional short, sharp shocks.
The actors are okay -- Bell displays the pluck and fortitude she's parlayed to cult stardom on Veronica Mars, while Somerhalder churns out technical exposition like a pro, even if he is a graduate of the Josh Hartnett school of acting where eyebrows do all the emoting. Levine -- well-loved from Freaks and Geeks -- is a nice presence as well, even if the movie isn't entirely sure of what happens to him; it certainly doesn't convey his fate to us very clearly. Milan makes for an adequate girl-in-peril, while Rick Gonzales (last seen in Coach Carter) makes for a snappy warez dealer and movie-pirating fast-talker.
But like many other Japanese horror remakes, Pulse doesn't have the connective tissue of plotting and logic that makes a horror film unforgettable, as opposed to just scary. There's probably a great movie to be made about technological anxieties -- Stephen King's cell-phone zombie novel Cell has, unfortunately, fallen into the hands of horror hack extraordinaire Eli Roth (and it's not that great a novel to begin with), so that won't be it -- but someone's going to make it. If nothing else, Pulse will serve as a pretty good primer of mis-steps to avoid for any filmmaker who wants to really explore the connection between the toys and gee-gaws we have that work at the speed of light and the fears and terrors we have that come towards us at the speed of dark.













Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
8-13-2006 @ 9:49PM
Nathan said...
If Kristen Bell is in it i'm gunna see it.
Reply
8-13-2006 @ 10:22PM
Shigure said...
I really enjoyed your review. All in all, I wasn't too sure what the plot of this movie was to begin with but now I have at least a vague conception. I guess I won't be going to see this movie any time soon.
Reply
8-13-2006 @ 11:20PM
Joe said...
I feel your comments: "Stephen King's cell-phone zombie novel Cell has, unfortunately, fallen into the hands of horror hack extraordinaire Eli Roth (and it's not that great a novel to begin with), so that won't be it" are purely your opinion and you dont know if ir will be a good movie or not. I saw HOSTEL which Roth did, and I was pleased with the movie. Thw next time you feel like you need to criticize then you try to make a movie that will be the next big thing.
Reply
8-14-2006 @ 12:12AM
Yup said...
Agreed. The above poster hit it dead on, you can't criticize a film before it's made. Most King fans point to Cell as one of his strongest books in years, and Roth is far from a hack; you may not like his work, but I'm very curious to see what he does with King's material. King has been cursed by having material watered down for years (especially with made-for-TV stuff), Roth is almost certainly going for a hard-R. As for Pulse - Japanese remakes are never as good as the original.
Reply
8-14-2006 @ 8:20AM
Elliott said...
I haven't seen this yet, but unless there is a great plot point that isn't shown in trailer, nor mentioned in your review, I won't like it. Why exactly are dead people trying to kill the college kids?
This is what drives me crazy about horror movies more than anything else. No one knows for sure what happens when we die, but I'm gonna do my best not to come around and randomly kill people.
Please let me be wrong. Maybe the students are somehow responsible for the deaths of their poltergeists. Doubt it. And PG-13? Ugh...
Reply
8-14-2006 @ 9:29AM
Peter said...
While I wouldn't call Roth a hack, Hostel is a piece of trash and James was dead on in his bet that Cell won't be the winner. It has nothing to do with Roth's directorial ambitions, but the fact that he wants to change the story from its micro-focus on a group of people trying to figure out just what the hell is going on to a globaly visualized bloodbath.
May be fun to watch, but that yanks the heart right out of Cell's chest.
Reply
8-14-2006 @ 10:54AM
Peter Nellhaus said...
If you check out my site, you can read a review of the original Japanese film by Kurosawa. Maybe Rocchi should have me review the remake. I'm ready to contribute directly to Cinematical.
Reply
8-14-2006 @ 11:40AM
mavi161 said...
Just for the record, the Japanese version of this movie didn't really handle the transition between local and worldwide well either. I was sitting at the end and wondering what the hell happened... but it's an interesting premise and I think I'll be seeing the remake either way...
Reply
8-14-2006 @ 3:58PM
Gilbert Davis said...
I'm torn. If Scott Weinberg reviewed it and liked it I would know it wasn't going to be something I like. Not sure about James. And as usual, the commercial for this movie makes it look great. Of course, I'll seek out the Japanese original version as most original Japanese horror movies shine as compared to the American market remakes.
And Peter, I clicked on the link to your site and I know you think you're ready for your close up now (paging Mr.DeMille, Mr. Cecil B. DeMille) but dude, do something about your picture. Too pixelated, -- one word, photoshop. :-)
Reply
8-16-2006 @ 12:23AM
Dorv said...
Not for nothing, but he didn't critize the film before it was made as much as he did other things. He critized the film maker and the book.
Also, he's a film CRITIC!!!! Its his job to critize.
Reply
8-24-2006 @ 12:22AM
Jennifer said...
Dorv...as a critic it is his job to criticize the movies that he has for a fact seen, not to criticize the person in charge of doing so or even the book it is based on. It is okay to speculate what he may incorporate into the film and maybe discuss something that he may think would be wrong with something that he may end up doing with the storyline or maybe filming techniques that he will use, but to completely displace him as a film-maker isn't exactly doing his job as a film critic as you said. People thought that Oliver Stone doing a movie about the WTC would be a recipe for disaster in the film industry, but it wasn't. It was a remarkable movie and storyline. Completely remarkable that he left the story completely true and didn't add in Hollywood to it. He also didnt make it political like many people though he would do.
Also, do us a favor and learn to spell criticize.
Reply