Loft (2005) User Reviews (8)

A much maligned masterpiece

[UberNoodle · 8/10 · 15 March 2009]

I finally got around to watching Loft, after a year of owning the DVD If you find a copy, play it loud because the sound really makes the movie. The director is Kiyoshi Kurosawa and I'm a huge fan of his work. His films are just so often unable to be defined in one genre, or ANY genre for that matter. The first 2 thirds of the film are filled with so many haunting and hypnotic scenes. It is macabre and yet beautiful. I couldn't look away and just sat there glued to the TV, breathing shallowly like only Kiyoshi Kurosawa can make me do.

His films have a pace that makes drying paint seem like an adventure sport. But what that means is that every shot of the film is studying something or someone, or something that isn't even there. As with all of his films that I haveseen, in Loft I felt a kind of voyeuristic feeling, like I was there in the scene too. It is hard to describe, but this quality is clearly what alienates some people. What some viewers considere painfully boring, had me on the edge of my seat until the last frame. Watching with empathy, projecting yourself into the shoes of the characters, the film's real depth come to the fold.

And sound really does make all this live, or quite often the lack of sound. Silence is one of the scariest things you can ever hear, as paradoxical as that seems. Kurosawa perhaps knows just how unusual silence actually is in our lives and when it occurs in his films, the effect is haunting. And it also the abruptness of sound in his films. A crescendo of tension in the audio can just suddenly cut off into silence with a change of scene or angle. In many ways it is subtle sound design like this that keeps the viewer on edge and off guard.

Visually, no KK film would be complete with out decrepit buildings in which to fill with shadows, but also this film is incredibly green, being set in a forest. So much of the film isn't in the dark but that doesn't seem to make a difference. The beauty of a KK suspense piece is that it knows that noises and the dark are just cheap thrills. A horror film doesn't need to have them to get under your skin and into your mind, and Loft certainly did that for me.

Is it scary? Well if you are of very sensitive disposition. I would say that it is atmospheric, mesmerising and macabre; and ends up in a place quite different to where it starts out. It is a difficult film to classify and probably because it was made by KK. The film is full of his various trademarks, including awkward tonal shifts mid movie, and manipulation of perception and reality, but it works, though you might not think so at first.

Loft is a film that left with me with the sensation that what I had just witnessed was so much more than what I had managed to surmise from it. It had the aftertaste of something allegorical, that had me feeling that I had understood the message even though I couldn't put into words what it was. It is a film that expects a lot from the viewer, however, if you put in the effort and just let the film draw you along into its dark and twisted logic, Loft is a very rewarding film.

Kiyoshi Kurosawa once said that the ghosts in his films are very Japanese, in that they often don't do anything. Just the fact that they are in these people's lives is horrible enough.

A Strikingly Original and Well-Made Horror Film To Be Promptly Rejected By The Masses

[ebossert · 9/10 · 27 July 2008]

I find it quite pathetic that most moviegoers are unable to experience anything remotely original in terms of cinematic style or content. I'm appalled by the mere thought of feeding upon the commercialistic trash of mainstream American horror cinema – almost all of which is completely worthless, unimaginative, boring, and unintentionally hilarious. In like manner, I simply cannot understand why so many people indulge in studio controlled, mass-produced garbage on a whim, yet find it so difficult to appreciate a strikingly original, well-made horror film. "Loft" is one such film, and its current 5.5 rating is more a condemnation on IMDb voters than the film itself.

I don't like to include a long plot synopsis in my reviews, but when other reviewers insult the film for being a "mess", I am forced to explain things to persons who apparently have a prescribed limit to the number of brain cells they're willing to use while watching a movie. I certainly hope that these people aren't quite as stupid in their daily lives.

In a nutshell, Reiko pukes up black mud as a foreshadowing of her interactions with the 1000-year-old mummy's spirit, which was preserved in the same kind of mud (and possibly drank the mud during its lifetime to preserve beauty). Makoto (the anthropologist) takes the mummy to the deserted house because it causes side-effects to those around it (Hino describes his nightmares and Makoto himself drives his car off the road). The ghost girl is the spirit of the mummy as manifested through the identity of a girl who was killed a few months earlier. Makoto witnessed the murder, but the mummy's spirit possessed the girl's body, thereby forcing Makoto to kill her again in self-defense. Plagued by these images, Makoto suffers a fractured psychology and begins to believe that his act of murder was a hallucination.

Let's cut right to the coolest scene in this movie: Makoto's murder of the girl. The key to this scene is the positioning of the body before and after Makoto's tangle with the mummy's spirit. First, the editor kills the girl, leaving her body in a particular position. While the editor is briefly away, the body is possessed by the mummy's spirit and attacks Makoto. In an act of self-defense, he murders the girl a second time, but accidentally leaves the body in the same position that the editor left it. The editor returns and takes the body away, obviously ignorant of everything that recently transpired. What makes this scene so clever is that it provides a perfect metaphor for Makoto's fractured psychology. Maybe he killed her; maybe he imagined it – but the evidence can work for either scenario. Brilliant! It's no understatement to say that this particular scene is an instant classic for viewers who are actually willing to figure it out. It convincingly blurs the line of illusion and reality. If Makoto did kill her, he would certainly assume that the editor would react to the movement of her body from where he left it, but because the body is in the same position, it throws everything into uncertainly. Only a truly masterful filmmaker could pull this off with such perfection. Welcome to the world of Kiyoshi Kurosawa.

Now that the dim-witted have been enlightened, I'd like to discuss other elements of this film. As far as style is concerned, I've heard some fans of Dario Argento who claim that his set designs and lighting are practically "characters" in his films. It's interesting to note that Kiyoshi's location settings and architecture are employed in the same manner. I have no idea where he finds these places, but his films are driven forward by mesmerizing environments, decrepit buildings, natural settings, and expert use of lighting. Ironic, it seems, that someone such as I (an anti-snob to the grave) would be captivated by Kiyoshi's atmosphere as much as I am. Props to the filmmaker indeed.

While true that "Loft" panders to lovers of slow-paced atmospherics by having Reiko walk slowly through moody environments, the fact remains that I need more than a pretty painting if I'm to be entertained for two hours, and "Loft" provides much in the way of entertaining events. The aforementioned murder scene is an obvious choice, but Reiko's interaction with the mummy's spirit is good stuff. The gradual disintegration of the ghost girl on the foggy dock flies in the face of your typical Onryo, the ghoulish teleportation scene from one side of the room to the other is devilishly nice, and the creaky ceiling scene was well-executed. This is not pretentious tripe like "Akira Kurosawa's Dreams." On the contrary, this is expertly crafted, highly enjoyable cinema that is destined to be promptly insulted and trashed by those with no taste in film – of which there are many.

This is not a perfect endeavor, mind you. Some of the acting is hokey at times, but there are so many positives here that they far outweigh any negatives. Yet somehow this film has not met the ultra low standards of your typical IMDb mainstream moviegoer. This film has been trashed to the point where I have seriously questioned the sanity of the world. Have you people really devolved back into a primordial state where quality execution of originality is not only ignored, but derided and insulted? Perhaps the conflicts were not explicitly referenced and explained to the point where a person with an IQ of less than 50 could understand them. Perhaps the pacing should have been sped up and supplemented with a few dozen jump scares to keep viewers awake. Perhaps the characters were too old for teenie-boppers to identify with, and should have been revised to include a bunch of pot-smoking, sex-crazed highschoolers.

Well, whatever this film was "missing", I certainly didn't miss it.

great buildup.......and?

[wjohanb · 7/10 · 22 February 2006]

No living director anywhere can build creeping, gnawing, raw nerve anticipatory tension like Kurosawa. Aside from that? Well, it's a mixed bag. His new film, English title "Loft", twists slowly on your skin early on, digging deeper and deeper. And then it sort of just stops. The shallow breathed fear that he creates, having you flinch at every movement in delicious tension (What's that! Oh, it's a TV. Wait! What's THAT! Oh, just a shadow) is unique. His mastery of composition in the frame, of scene, setting, character movement, sound, are unparalleled. And in this he sets himself up. There would have to be one hell of a harrowing finale to bring it all to a satisfying conclusion. As it is, "Loft" creeps up on you, hypnotizing you in fear; and then it just waits a while, and creeps back away. Not to say that the (lengthy) conclusion is poor, in any other movie it would be great. He twists several cliché horror staples in unique ways, and even finds some delirious humor. But it just doesn't work well enough. You almost feel the plot stumble and come close to falling. Kurosawa's brilliance with horror is that he does not scare you with sudden movements, grotesque images and stunts. He creates dread, primal and powerful. His horror slowly leans over your shoulder until it stares you in the eye. Unfortunately, in "Loft", the audience wins the staring contest.

Painful hallucination

[semper_tenera · 14 September 2011]

This is a movie that requires a certain mood. It is dark, morbid, reluctant to show more than you need, very silent at times, very slow developing, it has enough predictability not to give you goosebumps... and that sums it up. what made me give it an average vote wasn't necessarily the movie, but the trailer. the movie was bearable, quite beautiful. about the trailer... then well, it could have been worse than that, with that pop song going through the middle made it look like a pastiche. I hate it how a bad trailer can set the mood wrong for such a serious movie. I know better when to criticize and when to shut up, but this had to be spilled.

the dialogue isn't complicated. it has a few memorable lines, but they are all contextually related, like the one that says I'll throw everything but you. it seeps with silence, hatred, regret and misunderstanding.

A Nutshell Review: Loft

[DICK STEEL · 2/10 · 26 January 2007]

If Kairo (Pulse) got my interest piqued towards Kiyoshi Kurosawa's works of horror, a genuine atmospheric piece which truly spooked me, then Loft is that perennial two steps backwards, falling into the curse I find permeating into many Asian horror movies of late, of standard clichés and eliciting guffaws from moments which translate into unwanted comedy.

Loft had the ingredients for a potential spook fest, and it was setup rightly so. You have a writer Reiko, (which seems to be the occupation of choice for spirits to haunt) experiencing weird bodily phenomenon of spewing black, gooey mud, and facing a writer's block, requests her editor to help her relocate to a nice quiet place (read: huge house in the middle of nowhere, with opportunities for things to go bump). Throw in an anthropologist whose latest project involves preserving a recently found mummy - a taciturn man living next door, and you have something interesting set up, together with side show characters for red herring purposes.

Alas, despite the usual craftsmanship of Kurosawa in setting up the mood, Loft seemed to present itself like a one trick pony. It beats about the bush, exposing a lack of control with material and suggests cluelessness, and runs out of ideas in moving the story ahead. You'd come to expect certain plot twists, and characters with their ulterior motives, and is plagued by extremely bad editing, which I do not understand how it passed even the basics of quality control. It limps towards the end, and when it finally showed signs of redemption, it shoots itself in the foot with an extremely cheesy ending, bad dialogue which is amazingly spouted by the cast with gusto, and the sudden decision to make this a cheap hokey romance.

Plagued by inconsistencies and bad effects at one point in time (someone should outlaw superimposed backgrounds in those driving shots - go on location for heaven's sake), the movie looks and develops as if it was an amateur at the helm. I suppose I could come up with something of this quality, and for it to be in the filmography of Kurosawa, it is indeed a nasty shock.

All in all, a very dismal effort from the writer-director, one which seemed to be a very rushed effort on the themes of dreams and delusions, coupled with bad one-dimensional acting (either the I'm-so-scared or I'm-so-anal look). Loft is a bad nightmare indeed. Save your money, rent it at the most.

Pretty awful mess

[matches81 · 3/10 · 17 October 2007]

Normally I like Asian horror movies. That said, "Loft" was just a complete mess. While the preposition sounds interesting (writer with blockade in a big house out in the nothing with a somewhat weird anthropologist as a neighbour whose job is to conserve a mummy), mostly everything else is either confusing or pointless.

The movie takes a whopping six minutes including credits to introduce the main role, her problems and the "solution" that is her publisher selling her a house out in the country. I was quite baffled how fast this movie went through with these things. And for me that was the main problem of the movie: It is just confusing for most of the time. Rather often I took half of a scene to understand what time this scene is taking place in, where I am and what's going on. On the other hand the movie takes surprisingly much time to show scenes that don't make any sense afterwards. What is left is a huge mess of incoherently slapped together scenes without not much more than the basic premise holding them together.

It's hard to find the words ....

[sitenoise · 2/10 · 15 June 2008]

It's not worth two hours time to deliberately make a bad movie, a bad self-parodying movie at that, to show the audience that even in the context of pointless nonsense, the director can still frame a shot well, or set a mood of dread filled (dreadful?) anticipation. I'm just not a big enough fanboy to try and make excuses for a film like this.

Is this film funny? Yes. And here's how it's funny: in one scene, after the presence of the J-Horror Goth Chick Ghost has been established, the director strings together a sequence of shots where the lovely Miki Nakatani spots said JHGCG's feet in another room and inhales with a shudder as she runs into a corner. Miki isn't doing a good job of running away. She begins to creep anxiously closer to the ghoul again and upon visual confirmation inhales with a shudder and runs into a different corner, and then creeps anxiously closer, shudder, corner, creeping, shudder, corner, creeping, shudder, a calm acceptance, CUT TO A NEW SCENE. Ha ha ha!

If you see this film think of it like taking a night class in Kurosawa technique. You'll learn something.

Patience is rewarded.

[el7 · 7/10 · 6 June 2020]

This is a movie that messes with the viewer's expectations for what is real and what is fantasy for the vast majority of the film's runtime, and the pace is quite leisurely, but there is something mesmerizing about this film. The movie sets up the question as to what is real and what is not very early by showing the protagonist vomiting mud, then going to a doctor who tells her that stress is making her imagine she's vomiting mud. She believes this doctor, and for a good two thirds of the movie she is absolutely fearless because she assumes whatever weirdness she's looking at is a hallucination that will pass. It's a neat trick of perspective, and it pays off when evidence piles up that she's actually witnessing a haunting and she becomes quite believably terrified. Then the movie messes with you again by making you wonder if the haunting is being perpetrated by a 1000 year old mummy or a recently missing college girl; and yet again when you wonder who actually killed the college girl (and once more when you wonder if the college girl is really possessed or just a jerk). This is a nesting box of weirdness, and it's not a jump scare movie, although it does have a few good ones in it. Mostly it's a mood movie, and quite a hair raising one. See if it you want something to make you feel dread, not sudden bouts of fear.