As I’ve mentioned before, I’m a big fan of Japanese director Kiyoshi Kurosawa. As a filmmaker, he’s able to manufacture creepiness with lighting, shot composition, and sets alone. The actors (and ghosts) that populate his scenes are sometimes just icing on the horror cake: Kurosawa knows how to design his films to maximize scares better than any other director in recent memory.
Loft is no exception. The film mostly takes place in a couple of desolate buildings and every shot has Kurosawa’s prints all over it. The lighting and scene progression were particularly impressive. The plot and characters are almost secondary; the scenery and timing do almost all of the heavy lifting for scares. Kurosawa has the ability to take us through a what’s-behind-that-door scene, the kind we’ve seen in a thousand other films, and still make it dramatic and suspenseful.
Loft’s plot is a little difficult to describe. The protagonist is a writer struggling to get through a novel in time for a deadline. Having moved out to the country to concentrate, she runs into a university professor who seems to have kidnapped a 1,000 year old mummy. When the protagonist agrees to hold on to the mummy for a bit, things start to get very strange. Eventually, she and the professor must solve a series of seemingly-unrelated problems if either of them ever hope to be comfortable in the dark again.
Unlike some of Kurosawa’s other films, Loft is actually fairly straight-forward. I was not left scratching my head at the end of it, which is more than I can say for Pulse or Retribution. It’s not simple, but on the other hand he spends a lot more time explaining things in this film than in some of his others. I think the goal in this film is simpler: he’s got a particular theme in mind but there’s no grand message that he’s trying to convey. In that sense, and in the way that Kurosawa actually tells his story, I think Loft is most similar to his earlier film Seance.
One reviewer I read called the film “uneven,” which I think is an insightful description. There are a couple of extremely jarring scenes, scenes that do not fit with the rest of the film to such a degree that you have to wonder if maybe it’s a dream sequence or something. There’s extremely little dialog, so when the characters start to express any sort of emotion other than fear, it seems a little thin. But those sections of the film are thankfully few and far between, and the rest of the time is spent slowly (the pace is quite glacial) exploring ways to freak the characters (and us) out.
In fact, this film seemed quite Western compared to the rest of Kurosawa’s catalog (excepting Seance, which is based on an English short story and feels very Western). Of course, the particulars of each individual scare are very Japanese per Kurosawa norm, but the way that information is revealed and the clarity of that information seems more in line with a Western thriller than Japanese horror. Like I said, this film is the easiest of Kurosawa’s recent work to comprehend.
For me, the amazing cinematography and genuinely scary sequences were more than enough to make up for some of the films flaws. Loft isn’t a phenomenal film, but it’s extremely well made, it’s pretty scary, and if you like Kurosawa’s handiwork as much as I do, there’s a lot here to enjoy.
http://www.zbsatozofjmusic.com
I guess I couldn’t disagree with you more. My wife’s comment after watching it: “It’s like the director died 1/3 of the way through production and the actors just made up the rest on the spot.”
I agree that the visuals were the best part, but it seemed like the entire thing was filmed in the same abandoned building. The scene at the University (I think that’s what it was) where it’s obviously just a large stairwell? Wha?
In the end, I’m happy you found something to enjoy in it. Personally I wouldn’t recommend it to anyone.
Yeah, I’ve read that this is a love-it-or-hate-it film. And I understand the criticism, but I didn’t feel the same way. There are one or two horrible scenes, but I was happy enough to forget them and let the rest of the film continue. Also, this film is quite in line with Kurosawa’s style, so if you’ve watched the rest of his work it might be more enjoyable (or maybe more boring if you’re not particularly interested in his approach).
http://www.GamesThatWontSuck.com
Haven’t seen it, but I rented Cure just because of how you praised it.
I would nominate Cure as the single most boring movie I’ve ever seen.
as for Loft, I’d like to rent it, but I’m afraid it’s just going to be the same thing all over again.
> Zeroth
If Cure is the most boring movie ever made to you, my recommendation is to re-calibrate yourself with respect to my reviews. Anything I say I like, just assume you will hate. Any movie I hate, you will probably enjoy. With this calibration we can safely assume that you dislike Cure and will only like a few scenes in Loft (the ones I despised). Based on this system, we might also assume that your favorite movies of all time include Armageddon, Independence Day, Alone in the Dark, and Godzilla 2000.
http://www.GamesThatWontSuck.com
> Chris
Alright, so it was a bit unfair to judge Loft based only on my review of Cure. I would have appreciated a comparison of the two in light of how I felt about Cure instead of what you’ve given me.
What I’m saying is, if you didn’t like Cure then you probably should actively apply my opinion reversed when reading my reviews. Cure is one of my favorite films of all time, and if you didn’t like it I think it’s probably best for you to multiply all of my reviews on this site by -1 in order to closer match your tastes.
Per your question, if you thought Cure was slow then Loft will be like wading through stone for you.
http://www.GamesThatWontSuck.com
It sounded an awfully lot like you were being sarcastic, but I wasn’t really sure.
I have to wait until March before I can see cure. I just had a though about horror films and pacing. For me, the most effective horror films are those that take time about it. Horror is often about how the viewer engages with the film, and for me the most effective way to engage with a film is one which takes time to develop the characters, locations, themes and mood. Rushing things in horror towards cheap pay offs (such as gore) for me is not the way to go. I often find that it takes more stones (so to speak) to be patient and not rush the horror than it does to resort to outright shocks (a-la hills have eyes). of course this is a subjective view, but I do enjoy slow films, and any film that is willing to take its time with me, I am willing to take my time over.
Lee
(ps that said, i do still enjoy a bit of jason statham in crank when the notion takes me…)