This moody Japanese movie by revered director Kiyoshi Kurosawa is a loose remake of the classic 1964 chiller "Séance on a Wet Afternoon." Either that, or it's based on the same source novel, which I haven't read. Nearly every element of the plot is tweaked and twisted, with an emphasis on the supernatural. The lead actress is no Kim Stanley, and her character's predicament is a bit different, but she does a fine job as a psychic trying to come to terms with her powers. "Séance" was apparently made for television, but it really lacks the typical styling of typical made-for-TV movies. It's better and more somber than Kurosawa's "Horror Theater" TV segment. It features crisp, clean cinematography and the scary sequences are enhanced by inventive camera-work. Unfortunately, these scenes are too few and far between. The majority of the film moves at a snail's pace. Whereas "Wet Afternoon" features bizarre yet captivating characters that keep the film from being a complete bummer, there's not much in this film to distract from the overwhelming depressing nature and tone. This makes it difficult to get through in one sitting.
18 Reviews
a great thrilling movie from Japan!
Gullevek16 October 2000
My first movie at Viennale'2000 and it is this one! I have never seen it before and therefore didn't know anything about it, but I have never expected to see something wonderful like this.
In it's 95 minutes running time I was thrilled, there wasn't a single minute when I was bored, or distracted. The main actors played really great and the whole ambiente of the movie set was excellent.
Sure he used a bit "6th sense", as you can see the breath and the dead people, but IMO it's much better than the 6th sense!
If you can watch this movie, do it! Don't wait, don't hesitate, it's absolute worth the time!
In it's 95 minutes running time I was thrilled, there wasn't a single minute when I was bored, or distracted. The main actors played really great and the whole ambiente of the movie set was excellent.
Sure he used a bit "6th sense", as you can see the breath and the dead people, but IMO it's much better than the 6th sense!
If you can watch this movie, do it! Don't wait, don't hesitate, it's absolute worth the time!
excellent Japanese horror flick
planktonrules10 January 2006
Warning: Spoilers
The DVD box said it was based on the book SEANCE ON A WET AFTERNOON. I have seen the wonderful 1964 British movie by that title and was very surprised when this Japanese film turned out to be VERY different. It was as if the writers were inspired by the other movie but changed it liberally to make it a horror film (which the original movie was not). I'm not sure which movie is truer to the book--I assume it was the first movie, but as I have not read the book I just don't know.
Here are the major differences. In the Japanese version, the couple accidentally kidnap the child (the British one was planned and very deliberate). Also, in the British version the leading lady THOUGHT she was a psychic but was in fact without any para-normal powers. The Japanese leading lady saw dead people but longed to be recognized for her abilities. Plus, while the child is later accidentally killed in both versions, in the Japanese version she haunts the couple (not just the lady) for much of the movie--much like RINGU or Ju-On ("The Ring" and "The Grudge"--2 other famous Japanese horror flicks). You could really tell that the writer was really trying to capitalize on the popularity of these flicks. However, while not being quite as scary as these 2 films, the story itself was a lot better--much more hashed out instead of ghouls just popping out in a contrived effort to give us scares.
So, why the 8 and not perhaps a higher score? Well, the movie was such an intelligent film but the ending was so abrupt and poorly done that I had to knock off at least a point.
For those who saw this film, how about this for a better alternative ending: The couple are slowly driven mad by the recurring images of this little dead girl but instead of a "pat ending", the couple eventually commits suicide. Then, in the final scene you see both the husband and wife AND the girl aimlessly wandering about the home--seemingly for eternity.
Here are the major differences. In the Japanese version, the couple accidentally kidnap the child (the British one was planned and very deliberate). Also, in the British version the leading lady THOUGHT she was a psychic but was in fact without any para-normal powers. The Japanese leading lady saw dead people but longed to be recognized for her abilities. Plus, while the child is later accidentally killed in both versions, in the Japanese version she haunts the couple (not just the lady) for much of the movie--much like RINGU or Ju-On ("The Ring" and "The Grudge"--2 other famous Japanese horror flicks). You could really tell that the writer was really trying to capitalize on the popularity of these flicks. However, while not being quite as scary as these 2 films, the story itself was a lot better--much more hashed out instead of ghouls just popping out in a contrived effort to give us scares.
So, why the 8 and not perhaps a higher score? Well, the movie was such an intelligent film but the ending was so abrupt and poorly done that I had to knock off at least a point.
For those who saw this film, how about this for a better alternative ending: The couple are slowly driven mad by the recurring images of this little dead girl but instead of a "pat ending", the couple eventually commits suicide. Then, in the final scene you see both the husband and wife AND the girl aimlessly wandering about the home--seemingly for eternity.
Retribution from above
chaos-rampant6 March 2011
Warning: Spoilers
I love this as a standalone film, but it's a remake, and it's in that function that I find in it a near-apotheosis for Kurosawa's perception, his personal idiosynchracy. In the Bryan Forbes film it's human machination that sets the kidnapping plot in motion, cunning and deception, in Kurosawa's remake it's happenstance, random cruelty.
One scene particularly stands out for me in that regard, when the couple discover the young girl inexplicably lyind dead on the floor.
Kurosawa highlights this set up with classical devices of theater, rain and lightning, the acceptable and expected portents of doom, but most importantly, with a cinema of utter, eerie, silence. It's not only that the girl's death is presented like an act of divine retribution, but also that it's quietly accepted as such. The lack of palpable explanation is not mentioned by the characters because, ostensibly, they understand the presence of the figurative devil exacting his dues, as do we.
This of course is foreshadowed earlier in the film. Unlike the original Seance, the couple in the Kurosawa version simply discover the little girl in their house. The folly of keeping with them the girl for own reasons is not a mere scheme for glory but a yearning for a life that matters, for a small moment of feeling useful.
The contrast is quietly heartwrenching, a tragedy, between a cold futile universe and the ordinary couple trying to make sense in it. The Shinto priest the husband calls on to perform an exorcism tells him that hell exists if you believe in it, it doesn't if you don't. For them, hell exists because they're open to the possibility.
Is the ghostly presence in the film a hijink then, a kind of superfluous spectacle to make palatable the more important things? Yes and no. Ghosts in Shinto folk wisdom are a transmutation of guilt, of bad kharma, but also an aesthetic object of terror. This was never more apparent than with the advent of cinema. Seance gives the ghostly kid character, her haunting makes a difference because it's the haunting of a child. When she menacingly approaches the husband, we expect a certain kind of violence. Instead she merely pounces on him with the impotent anger of a child.
Kurosawa sees himself as nothing more than a genre director. In films like Retribution, I see a director merely trying to break apart convention, for the pleasure or routine of it. Seance is a rare gem in this regard, it ventures for a look beyond the pale, the anguish and damnation of its horror echo through time. The parable matters because it talks of existence.
Still, the man gives us a brilliant genre touch: the medium who can see the dead and be haunted by them but can't speak to them. The existential reading of this can be valuable if we arrive to it by our own admission.
One scene particularly stands out for me in that regard, when the couple discover the young girl inexplicably lyind dead on the floor.
Kurosawa highlights this set up with classical devices of theater, rain and lightning, the acceptable and expected portents of doom, but most importantly, with a cinema of utter, eerie, silence. It's not only that the girl's death is presented like an act of divine retribution, but also that it's quietly accepted as such. The lack of palpable explanation is not mentioned by the characters because, ostensibly, they understand the presence of the figurative devil exacting his dues, as do we.
This of course is foreshadowed earlier in the film. Unlike the original Seance, the couple in the Kurosawa version simply discover the little girl in their house. The folly of keeping with them the girl for own reasons is not a mere scheme for glory but a yearning for a life that matters, for a small moment of feeling useful.
The contrast is quietly heartwrenching, a tragedy, between a cold futile universe and the ordinary couple trying to make sense in it. The Shinto priest the husband calls on to perform an exorcism tells him that hell exists if you believe in it, it doesn't if you don't. For them, hell exists because they're open to the possibility.
Is the ghostly presence in the film a hijink then, a kind of superfluous spectacle to make palatable the more important things? Yes and no. Ghosts in Shinto folk wisdom are a transmutation of guilt, of bad kharma, but also an aesthetic object of terror. This was never more apparent than with the advent of cinema. Seance gives the ghostly kid character, her haunting makes a difference because it's the haunting of a child. When she menacingly approaches the husband, we expect a certain kind of violence. Instead she merely pounces on him with the impotent anger of a child.
Kurosawa sees himself as nothing more than a genre director. In films like Retribution, I see a director merely trying to break apart convention, for the pleasure or routine of it. Seance is a rare gem in this regard, it ventures for a look beyond the pale, the anguish and damnation of its horror echo through time. The parable matters because it talks of existence.
Still, the man gives us a brilliant genre touch: the medium who can see the dead and be haunted by them but can't speak to them. The existential reading of this can be valuable if we arrive to it by our own admission.
Old-timey scares
kairothon24 March 2003
Something a bit strange for a Kurosawa movie, Korei is (debatably) a remake of an old American movie (of the same name, if memory serves). It seems that in some of the scenes Kurosawa is much more focused on replicating the emotions of the domestic experience than trying to scare. After all, anyone who's seen Kairo, Cure or Charisma knows he has nearly master the latter. Because of this, if find that Korei is not as frightening as his typical fair. Also, some of the household drama comes off forced for the near first-timer in this field.
But another way of thinking about it: it seems there is a pronounced old-time hollywood feel to some of the home scenes which may have been very intentional. All of the movie is presented as a sort of reference to this: the lightning behind the characters as they think evil thoughts, the simplicity of most of the shots (devoid of the overwhelming atmosphere typically present in K. Kurosawa films), even the fair simplicity of the characters. If it is seen this way (which i am increasingly convinced is how it may have been intended) then it is possible that the unlikely touches seen in this movie are not a failure at all, but an attempt at a homage. Whether that homage is a failure or not, I am in no position to say.
But another way of thinking about it: it seems there is a pronounced old-time hollywood feel to some of the home scenes which may have been very intentional. All of the movie is presented as a sort of reference to this: the lightning behind the characters as they think evil thoughts, the simplicity of most of the shots (devoid of the overwhelming atmosphere typically present in K. Kurosawa films), even the fair simplicity of the characters. If it is seen this way (which i am increasingly convinced is how it may have been intended) then it is possible that the unlikely touches seen in this movie are not a failure at all, but an attempt at a homage. Whether that homage is a failure or not, I am in no position to say.
Interesting, but...
chairvaincre11 July 2006
Overall, this movie (and Cure for that matter) is nicely done. With Seance, appropriately, a lot of negative space mise-en-scene was deftly carried out; with Cure, narrative as well as formal (eg spliced split-second frames, abrupt scene cuts etc) ellipses are done well with good editing. I liked the continuity of both the protagonist and the restaurant (albeit from a different shooting angle) through both films. My only problem with it (and Cure) is that sometimes the aesthetics feels contrived, and the understatement/'minimalism' is, ironically, overwrought & cliché. There's no greatness here (in terms of psychological horror/terror, there are much more genius auteurs in both the East and West, eg the 'other' Kurosawa's Rashomon and Polanski's earlier films, to name a few respectively), but it has thought, and is still better than 90% of the sh*t out there.
Beautiful reflection on death, and how we fill our lives waiting for it.
cecilparks2 July 2004
This movie should not be seen as a straightforward ghost movie, nor as a basic series of set-ups, struggles and resolutions. It is a gripping movie, masterfully shot, bleak in its vision yet assembled with an inspiring meticulousness.
Junco is a psychic who feels trapped by her extra-sensory powers in more than one way. For one, she cannot hold a regular job, despite her best efforts. She is also aware that her gift will never be completely understood or taken seriously by the public at large, not even by those who seek her help.
When a freak coincidence lands a missing girl in her husband Katsuhiko's hardware case - after the police, as a last resort, has asked for her advice about the case - she sees it as a possible opportunity to make a name for herself as a serious and respected psychic, while clearing her husband and her of any responsibility in the girl's disappearance. She sees a way out the couple's humdrum, boring life, and her husband wants to believe it too. Needless to say, not much goes according to plan.
**NOTE** About the doppelganger appearing in the movie, as mentionned in a comment below. The double does represent impending death for Katsuhiko. The decision to have him burn his double alive was a way to show how he is not willing to accept a fate he has not chosen.
Junco is a psychic who feels trapped by her extra-sensory powers in more than one way. For one, she cannot hold a regular job, despite her best efforts. She is also aware that her gift will never be completely understood or taken seriously by the public at large, not even by those who seek her help.
When a freak coincidence lands a missing girl in her husband Katsuhiko's hardware case - after the police, as a last resort, has asked for her advice about the case - she sees it as a possible opportunity to make a name for herself as a serious and respected psychic, while clearing her husband and her of any responsibility in the girl's disappearance. She sees a way out the couple's humdrum, boring life, and her husband wants to believe it too. Needless to say, not much goes according to plan.
**NOTE** About the doppelganger appearing in the movie, as mentionned in a comment below. The double does represent impending death for Katsuhiko. The decision to have him burn his double alive was a way to show how he is not willing to accept a fate he has not chosen.
Not your mainstream horror film... or a horror film in general for that matter
hmmdrmike17 January 2005
As far as being a horror movie goes, this movie leaves much to be desired. More of an atmospheric thriller than a horror movie per say, Korei is The Sixth Sense, minus the scary scenes. As in accordance with modern Japanese horror movies, Korei relies mostly on increasing psychological intensity rather than the Hollywoodized method of striking visual effects in order to achieve its chills. In this movie, you don't see any gore, or anything "scary" in that sense, but there is the constant pervading feeling of dread... which does keep the audience hooked. It's oftentimes reminiscent of Cure, with just as slow a plot.
The storyline is well developed and you can't help but feel sorry for the characters. Engaging and provocative, if you're into Japanese horror movies I'd suggest giving this one a try. If you're new to the genre, go watch Ringu instead. Overall, a good film... just not a good horror movie.
6/10
The storyline is well developed and you can't help but feel sorry for the characters. Engaging and provocative, if you're into Japanese horror movies I'd suggest giving this one a try. If you're new to the genre, go watch Ringu instead. Overall, a good film... just not a good horror movie.
6/10
What is far worse than seeing ghosts
Colashwood21 January 2005
There are two kinds of films in the world, my friends. Those in which it is easy to find a meaning (if possible, a moral one) and those which tell a story with such devices that you, spectator, are free to construe it. Seance is such a film. I for one do not see it as a horror or a crime movie. It has the required number of supernatural events, but what is far more frightening than that is the subtle psychological illness that affects the two hapless heroes, Junko and her husband. These two are completely hollow the husband filled with noises, the wife with ghosts indeed ; they very simply do not live on the same physical plane as other people (colleagues, patrons... and the young girl who gets trapped in the husband's case) and it takes two extremely gifted actors, Yakusho and Fubuki, to convey this hollowness, this muted remoteness, as they are conveyed here. Kurosawa does not make any redundant comment on that stupendous hollowness : he merely shows it ; that indeed is his job as a filmmaker. The result is, in my opinion, one of his best films, together with Bright Future and Doppelgaenger. For yes : the doppelgaenger variation which one or two of the other commentators find so irksome (unfairly so, in my opinion : the eager student who mentions the apparition of a doppelgaenger in someone's life as a sign of impending demise isn't right* ; in literature the thing has been plaguing many a cheerless Romantic and postromantic hero for years) is back in Kurosawa's latest full length feature, Doppelgaenger (there is a Japanese DVD with English subtitles). No important message in that wonderfully quirky, eerily violent comedy (Yakusho again plays the double part). Let us rejoice about that fact : as long as a film puzzles more than it scares, it will never be remade in Hollywood.
* And he shouldn't be believed any more than the misleading psychiatrist in Cure, should he ?
* And he shouldn't be believed any more than the misleading psychiatrist in Cure, should he ?
Left Elbow Index
eldino3320 December 2009
I am a great fan of Kurosawa's movies, yet I find this film a weak shadow of his usual work. I think this comes in large measure from his own statement that this film is a combination of a horror movie combined with a crime movie and the original 1960s story. It seems just too convoluted to succeed. On top of that, he claims that there were numerous rewritings of the 1960s story to fit it into the real world, whatever that means. The Left Elbow Index considers seven elements in film--acting, production sets, dialogue, plot, film continuity, character development, and artistry--on a scale from 10 for very good to 5 for average and to 1 for it needs some help. The acting, production sets, and dialogue are all rated average. The acting seems stilted and seems better timed to fit a soap. The production sets appear to be little more than what one sees in one's daily environs. And the dialogue seems to fit modern life, no great philosophies and no great blunders. The plot is rated weak since it appears difficult to sort out important elements of plot from trivial events in the film. The elements of plot and the emotional level of the film seem not to fit together well, even the suspense scenes appear hollow. The film continuity appears upset by the episodic TV nature of the juxtaposition of scenes, which seems to present too much clutter. I wonder why film makers tend towards putting characters in autos and driving them in and out of scenes, like Roy Rogers cowboy movies. We know how Roy got to and from where ever he was going, must he always be seen jumping on and off Trigger? There seems little character development to speak of, probably because the characters do not appear to be in a suspense, a horror story, or the real world. The artistry is rated as average, keeping in mind that average for Kurosawa is excellent for others. The close-ups are good and there are some interesting camera angles. The Left Elbow Index average is 3.3, up to a 5.0 when equated with the IMDb scale. The film is worth seeing, as any of Kurosawa's work is, but don't expect the master at his best.
she possesses great clairvoyant powers
info-251326 May 2004
The Sixth Sense and A Simple Plan by way of Martin Heidegger, this genre-bending thriller is directed by Kiyoshi Kurosawa.
Katsuhiko (Koji Yakusho) is a mild-mannered sound-technician who is married to Junco (Jun Fubuki).
While at first glance Junco seems to be an average hausfrau, she possesses great clairvoyant powers.
Though she has slowly and quietly built a reputation as a medium, she proves to be completely incapable of working in a normal service industry job; she has the unfortunately tendency of being able to see the crimes of her patrons. Katsuhiko is aware of her unusual abilities but prefers to think of her as "normal."
Young psychology graduate student Hayakawa (Teuyoshi Kusanagi) invites Junco to join his study on the paranormal. At the same time, the police are desperately searching for a young girl who was kidnapped by an ex-cop turned pervert.
At Hayakawa's behest, the cops consult with Junco as to the child's whereabouts. Ironically enough, the girl escapes her captor and takes refuge in Katsuhiko's equipment case while he records sounds in the mountains.
The next day, Junco's psychic sonar goes off and she discovers the missing child in their garage. This freak happenstance awakens a long-dormant ambition in Junco: convinced that her discovery was not a striking enough find, she hatches an ill-conceived scheme to make it seem more dramatic. While Katsuhiko tends to the unconscious girl, Junco scatters clues throughout the western suburbs of Tokyo and then informs the police of her psychic "insights."
As the film progresses, their plan goes awry and the child meets a bad end. Junco's abilities boomerang on her, and soon she and Katsuhiko are haunted by the ghost of the girl. Noted stars Yukari Ishida and Show Aikawa make cameos. This film was screened at the 2000 Toronto Film Festival.
Katsuhiko (Koji Yakusho) is a mild-mannered sound-technician who is married to Junco (Jun Fubuki).
While at first glance Junco seems to be an average hausfrau, she possesses great clairvoyant powers.
Though she has slowly and quietly built a reputation as a medium, she proves to be completely incapable of working in a normal service industry job; she has the unfortunately tendency of being able to see the crimes of her patrons. Katsuhiko is aware of her unusual abilities but prefers to think of her as "normal."
Young psychology graduate student Hayakawa (Teuyoshi Kusanagi) invites Junco to join his study on the paranormal. At the same time, the police are desperately searching for a young girl who was kidnapped by an ex-cop turned pervert.
At Hayakawa's behest, the cops consult with Junco as to the child's whereabouts. Ironically enough, the girl escapes her captor and takes refuge in Katsuhiko's equipment case while he records sounds in the mountains.
The next day, Junco's psychic sonar goes off and she discovers the missing child in their garage. This freak happenstance awakens a long-dormant ambition in Junco: convinced that her discovery was not a striking enough find, she hatches an ill-conceived scheme to make it seem more dramatic. While Katsuhiko tends to the unconscious girl, Junco scatters clues throughout the western suburbs of Tokyo and then informs the police of her psychic "insights."
As the film progresses, their plan goes awry and the child meets a bad end. Junco's abilities boomerang on her, and soon she and Katsuhiko are haunted by the ghost of the girl. Noted stars Yukari Ishida and Show Aikawa make cameos. This film was screened at the 2000 Toronto Film Festival.
The first 42 minutes are more than OK.
film-2929 September 2004
From then on, alas, this movie turns into a cheap TV horror movie one of the cheapest genres ever existed. When I saw Kôrei I've already seen the very interesting Kaïro, also by Kiyoshi Kurosawa; after that positive impression had someone told me that Mr. Kurosawa was capable of clumsiness when dealing with a fantastic story I wouldn't lend him or her ears, but unfortunately that would be true. When I'm seeing a movie or reading a story I can suspend my feeling of disbelief and believe in a ghost, I don't have problems with unreality, whereas I cannot believe when the characters in a story abruptly and against their own psychology, start to act the opposite way they would. Mr. Kurosawa needs his story to go in one direction and forces the characters and the plot to achieve his needs. That is one of the biggest mistake an author can make.
Anyway this a a TV movie nonetheless, if you liked it, see Dark Water (http://imdb.com/title/tt0308379/), The Eye (http://imdb.com/title/tt0325655/) and Kaïro (http://imdb.com/title/tt0286751/), they're better, far better than the last 54 minutes of this one. Of course, you always can stop the DVD player when the display shows you 42 minutes; you'll be sparing yourselves the disappointment of seeing how the very decent first part of this movie helplessly wrecks.
Anyway this a a TV movie nonetheless, if you liked it, see Dark Water (http://imdb.com/title/tt0308379/), The Eye (http://imdb.com/title/tt0325655/) and Kaïro (http://imdb.com/title/tt0286751/), they're better, far better than the last 54 minutes of this one. Of course, you always can stop the DVD player when the display shows you 42 minutes; you'll be sparing yourselves the disappointment of seeing how the very decent first part of this movie helplessly wrecks.
Scary Movie (Not the Hollywood spoof; this movie is really scary)
christian9416 January 2002
I cannot remember being scared by a movie like this. "The Sixth Sense" had very scary parts, but this was scary throughout. Writer/director Kiyoshi Kurosawa, who showed us what he could do when he transformed the thriller "Cure" into a chilling horror-like ending, now brings us pure horror with "Séance (Korei)". If you think the little girl in Poltergeist or the Exorcist are scary, you've never been haunted by a little girl before. Kurosawa makes this little darling so creepy that you might see her in the streets for the next few days (I'm slightly exaggerating here, but aren't movies always a bit exaggerated). Which is not exaggerated, however, is the skill Kurosawa has to entrance the viewer in a slow cumulating fear that creeps up from the bottom of your spine and spread through your shivering body. He uses hallways, shadows, rooms and corners like a magician and makes you feel right in the middle of the action, frightened, expecting and not knowing what to do.
Visually mesmerizing (unintentional reference to what we learn in "Cure"), "Seance" still has a solid story which puts characters in an interesting situation and begs the audience to think "what would you do if this happened to you?". Acting is very potent, especially from lead actor Koji Yakusho. The story has enough twists and turns to keep you captivated and some actual substance as to the role of the paranormal in today's society. What endures undoubtedly, is the atmosphere of fright.
If you want to see a scary movie, see this one.
Note: For those who think this is a "Sixth Sense" knock-off, please be advised that this movie was made in Japan and that there were ghost stories there way before Hollywood. I saw this movie at a special screening, in the presence of Kiyoshi Kurosawa, and he was telling us that he based the idea for the ghosts in his story on various credible people he knows who claim that they actually witnessed ghost apparitions. It was a recurring theme that the room seemed colder when they appeared, so he made the breath visible to indicate that. The fact that he portrayed them without a face was his own interpretation and what he wished to express to the viewer.
Visually mesmerizing (unintentional reference to what we learn in "Cure"), "Seance" still has a solid story which puts characters in an interesting situation and begs the audience to think "what would you do if this happened to you?". Acting is very potent, especially from lead actor Koji Yakusho. The story has enough twists and turns to keep you captivated and some actual substance as to the role of the paranormal in today's society. What endures undoubtedly, is the atmosphere of fright.
If you want to see a scary movie, see this one.
Note: For those who think this is a "Sixth Sense" knock-off, please be advised that this movie was made in Japan and that there were ghost stories there way before Hollywood. I saw this movie at a special screening, in the presence of Kiyoshi Kurosawa, and he was telling us that he based the idea for the ghosts in his story on various credible people he knows who claim that they actually witnessed ghost apparitions. It was a recurring theme that the room seemed colder when they appeared, so he made the breath visible to indicate that. The fact that he portrayed them without a face was his own interpretation and what he wished to express to the viewer.
Yet another wonderful film from director Kiyoshi Kurosawa
artemis03026 July 2005
Despite clearly being a TV movie, this film is yet another amazing and film from legendary director Kiyoshi Kurosawa ("Cure", "Kairo"). The main plot revolves around Junco and Saito, who are a troubled married couple. Saito works as a sound man for TV shows, while Junco stays at home. Junco has the power of foresight, so she sometimes holds séances. When a little girl is kidnapped, Junco devises a plan that will make her famous. What she doesn't know is that if she is not careful, the plan can backfire...
Since I am a huge fan of Asian horror/suspense films, I loved this. The tension is high throughout, and the scares are purely psychological. No cheap jumps here. Instead you get some pretty horrifying scenes, that will stay with you long after you see this movie. This film also has a valuable message in the end. I know it's not for everybody, but I highly recommend this. I simply loved it.
My rating: 10/10
Since I am a huge fan of Asian horror/suspense films, I loved this. The tension is high throughout, and the scares are purely psychological. No cheap jumps here. Instead you get some pretty horrifying scenes, that will stay with you long after you see this movie. This film also has a valuable message in the end. I know it's not for everybody, but I highly recommend this. I simply loved it.
My rating: 10/10
She sees dead people... but this ain't no "SixthSense."
awalter13 June 2001
A kidnapper is apprehended by the police, but the young girl he abducted is still missing. The police bring a medium onto the case to see if she can contact the girl's spirit, or at least determine whether the girl is still alive. However, the medium is going through a sort of mid-life crisis and believes that she and her husband can turn the case to their advantage. Of course, in simple minds bad ideas breed like rabbits, and soon this witless couple find themselves working against the police.
"Seance" is a fundamentally flawed film, cursed from the very start by an inept script. The film's plot rests on a mammoth coincidence, and the central characters become utterly unsympathetic as soon as they begin covering up for a crime they didn't commit. Stupidity does not attract empathy, nor do cheap scares. Granted, the ghosts in the film are fairly creepy; director Kiyoshi Kurosawa takes advantage of many shadowy halls and ominous doorways, teaching his audience to fear open spaces. Unfortunately, when neither the plot nor the characters give us a reason to care, thrills alone cannot carry a film. Cliches abound here as well, including the requisite psychology expert who--at the very beginning of the story--primes us with information about a certain type of psychic manifestation which is key to a scene late in the film.
Perhaps "The Sixth Sense" was not the most sophisticated horror film of recent years, but the quality of this knock-off is nothing less than ghastly.
"Seance" is a fundamentally flawed film, cursed from the very start by an inept script. The film's plot rests on a mammoth coincidence, and the central characters become utterly unsympathetic as soon as they begin covering up for a crime they didn't commit. Stupidity does not attract empathy, nor do cheap scares. Granted, the ghosts in the film are fairly creepy; director Kiyoshi Kurosawa takes advantage of many shadowy halls and ominous doorways, teaching his audience to fear open spaces. Unfortunately, when neither the plot nor the characters give us a reason to care, thrills alone cannot carry a film. Cliches abound here as well, including the requisite psychology expert who--at the very beginning of the story--primes us with information about a certain type of psychic manifestation which is key to a scene late in the film.
Perhaps "The Sixth Sense" was not the most sophisticated horror film of recent years, but the quality of this knock-off is nothing less than ghastly.
The two Seances and an earlier source
screaminmimi20 March 2010
Warning: Spoilers
First, I'll explain the 8. It's a plot thing. I found myself yelling at the two leads to not do something stupid, but no initial stupidity, no subsequent movie.
Second, if you haven't seen "Séance on a Wet Afternoon" or "Macbeth," don't look at Kurosawa's interview on the DVD extras until after you see this movie. There are plot spoilers in the interview.
Third, am I the only one who sees a parallel between both "Séance"s and "Macbeth"? All three are about power hungry women who work their will on their all too devoted spouses. Kurosawa saw it, beginning with a quote from Macbeth's "Tomorrow and tomorrow..." soliloquy and then check out the music that's playing when Kôji Yakusho's character, Satô, confronts his doppelgänger.
Now for the differences among the three stories. Kurosawa states that he had not seen the original "Séance on a Wet Afternoon," but that he used the same novel as the source for his screenplay. He cited a difficulty in making a story originally taking place in 1960's England fit 21st Century Japan. One thing he cited was the difficulty of portraying a crime that might have been considered commonplace in '60's England and that would be such a rarity in present-day Japan as to be unthinkable for the average Japanese audience member. Another thing he did was to alter the way his female lead expressed her fundamental craziness. Kim Stanley's character was flamboyant, charismatic, coquettish and kittenish, disconcertingly so for a middle-aged hausfrau psychic superstar wannabe. Jun Fubki's rendering of Junko Satô is no less crazy, but she's introverted, uncharismatic, mousy, and playing older than she is. Lady Macbeth has been subjected to countless interpretations, all along the spectrum between the Stanley and Fubuki continuum. But all three have in common an implacable desire for power and husbands who will do their bidding. All three of them show more and more psychopathology as they are assailed by the ghosts they help create, but none of them consciously concedes any guilt. Their husbands, in contrast, assume more than their share of the blame. I leave it to the viewer to decide how much blame Satô should bear. To say more would be a spoiler.
Another thing I love about this movie is the carpet of sound that takes the ordinary and makes it frightening without resorting to excessive distortion or trickery. The sound picture is to this movie what the lighting and cinematography were to "Séance on a Wet Afternoon." They both put me inside the story. I too found myself having to pause it because it was dragging me along for the ride to such an extent that the characters' hurts felt like my hurts too.
Second, if you haven't seen "Séance on a Wet Afternoon" or "Macbeth," don't look at Kurosawa's interview on the DVD extras until after you see this movie. There are plot spoilers in the interview.
Third, am I the only one who sees a parallel between both "Séance"s and "Macbeth"? All three are about power hungry women who work their will on their all too devoted spouses. Kurosawa saw it, beginning with a quote from Macbeth's "Tomorrow and tomorrow..." soliloquy and then check out the music that's playing when Kôji Yakusho's character, Satô, confronts his doppelgänger.
Now for the differences among the three stories. Kurosawa states that he had not seen the original "Séance on a Wet Afternoon," but that he used the same novel as the source for his screenplay. He cited a difficulty in making a story originally taking place in 1960's England fit 21st Century Japan. One thing he cited was the difficulty of portraying a crime that might have been considered commonplace in '60's England and that would be such a rarity in present-day Japan as to be unthinkable for the average Japanese audience member. Another thing he did was to alter the way his female lead expressed her fundamental craziness. Kim Stanley's character was flamboyant, charismatic, coquettish and kittenish, disconcertingly so for a middle-aged hausfrau psychic superstar wannabe. Jun Fubki's rendering of Junko Satô is no less crazy, but she's introverted, uncharismatic, mousy, and playing older than she is. Lady Macbeth has been subjected to countless interpretations, all along the spectrum between the Stanley and Fubuki continuum. But all three have in common an implacable desire for power and husbands who will do their bidding. All three of them show more and more psychopathology as they are assailed by the ghosts they help create, but none of them consciously concedes any guilt. Their husbands, in contrast, assume more than their share of the blame. I leave it to the viewer to decide how much blame Satô should bear. To say more would be a spoiler.
Another thing I love about this movie is the carpet of sound that takes the ordinary and makes it frightening without resorting to excessive distortion or trickery. The sound picture is to this movie what the lighting and cinematography were to "Séance on a Wet Afternoon." They both put me inside the story. I too found myself having to pause it because it was dragging me along for the ride to such an extent that the characters' hurts felt like my hurts too.
Not Akira Kurosawa. And ultimately poisoned by plot gaps.
patchworkworld18 July 2010
Warning: Spoilers
Kiyoshi, not Akira. Elements of the cinematography are indeed reminiscent of A. Kurosawa's great films, and the plot could be a good one, but the gaping plot holes completely spoil any possibility of its being seen as a good movie. And I can't figure out why no one else has commented on THAT here.
As mentioned in another review, a girl is kidnapped and escapes her kidnapper, then while running away through the forest jumps into an empty trunk to hide from him. The trunk belongs to a sound engineer recording some "tree creaking" as per an earlier scene. When the sound engineer packs up to leave, he locks down the lid of the trunk; we know the girl is still inside because --behind his back while he is packing the car several feet away-- it starts rocking back and forth. So far, so good. Then everything falls apart as far as plot goes, because we are supposed to believe that the sound engineer just loads the trunk into his car and goes home, unloading it leaving it there locked on the garage floor.
Oh really? So, let's get this straight...the guy habitually takes an EMPTY trunk out to wherever he is recording and is utterly incapable of feeling the difference between 2# and 60# (yeah, riiiight)...or...the guy habitually takes a trunk with equipment in it out to wherever he is recording and for no reason at all with absolutely nothing distracting him THIS TIME after using it forgets to pack up his equipment and just leaves it there (yeaaaah, riiiight). How else is he going to have a trunk big enough for an 8 year old to curl up in it lying about completely empty when he goes to record something and load it without noticing it's become substantially heavier? Right there, POOF, the entire credibility of the movie vanishes in an instant. We're never given the slightest reason why this could have happened at all. It's not stupidity on the character's part...it's impossible --not in the way of a fantasy or sci fi or horror plot needing one suspension of disbelief (eg vampires exist)but in the real world everyday way of 'ain't happening', so it comes across as filmmaker expecting audience to have an IQ of 10.
The girl's subsequent discovery and killing by the couple is another problem. After more than enough time to make it believable that she has died trapped inside the trunk, they find her, ,begin to call police, and see her crawling after them. More on that in the next paragraph. The movie has two more scenes of the live girl after they put her to bed. In both the sound engineer is trying to keep her quiet. In the first he shoves her flat on the bed with his hand (and a fold of blanket) over her mouth and straddles her to hold her down. In the second, he wraps the blanket or comforter around her and holds her in it while she kicks and struggles. Both times he then exits the bedroom to tell his wife the girl is now "asleep". Okay, let's see. So...she doesn't suffocate inside the locked trunk for an extended period of time.....and she doesn't croak when a full grown adult slams her backward and holds her down with a blanket over her face until she "falls asleep", but she dies suddenly wrapped in a blanket and kicking fit to beat the band. yeah, riiiight. This on again off again dead girl stuff is patently ridiculous. Of the three incidents, it would, frankly, have been believable only if the trunk death had come last. The one that was supposed to have killed her was the least likely to, and the man acting exactly as he had previously when we thought she was dead but she was not makes us wonder if the filmmaker had the slightest idea the girl was supposed to be dead that time or just filmed a ton of 'ooooopps, not yet scenes' and didn't check the editing to see which was in there as the final one.
BTW, the crawling girl scene is straight out of Ringu --she moves precisely the same way with precisely the same sort of tangled long hair approach etc. The scene of her crawling could have been directly lifted out of the other movie. To me that sort of exactness belongs in a parody, not in a separate serious movie. The way in which this and the next scenes are filmed are mildly confusing --the audience initially wonders why on earth the two haven't called the police before tumbling to the thought that the couple are worried about being charged with the kidnapping.
As a last comment, for those confused about why a doppleganger would appear when the guy who saw it didn't die...I believe the implication is supposed to be that the guy is going to be executed for murdering the girl. I haven't the faintest idea how Japanese law views such crimes so I can't be sure, but if that is it, of course the Japanese audiences would have a better chance of figuring it out. Besides that, the doppleganger scenes were in no way in the original story either, they are added because K. Kurosawa likes them. Unfortunately they don't do what he wants them to --there is really no reason in the film for an audience member to "get" that the sound engineer burns his doppleganger as a finger up against fate/an assertion he will choose his own fate. That idea comes out when you listen to the K Kurosawa interview!
As mentioned in another review, a girl is kidnapped and escapes her kidnapper, then while running away through the forest jumps into an empty trunk to hide from him. The trunk belongs to a sound engineer recording some "tree creaking" as per an earlier scene. When the sound engineer packs up to leave, he locks down the lid of the trunk; we know the girl is still inside because --behind his back while he is packing the car several feet away-- it starts rocking back and forth. So far, so good. Then everything falls apart as far as plot goes, because we are supposed to believe that the sound engineer just loads the trunk into his car and goes home, unloading it leaving it there locked on the garage floor.
Oh really? So, let's get this straight...the guy habitually takes an EMPTY trunk out to wherever he is recording and is utterly incapable of feeling the difference between 2# and 60# (yeah, riiiight)...or...the guy habitually takes a trunk with equipment in it out to wherever he is recording and for no reason at all with absolutely nothing distracting him THIS TIME after using it forgets to pack up his equipment and just leaves it there (yeaaaah, riiiight). How else is he going to have a trunk big enough for an 8 year old to curl up in it lying about completely empty when he goes to record something and load it without noticing it's become substantially heavier? Right there, POOF, the entire credibility of the movie vanishes in an instant. We're never given the slightest reason why this could have happened at all. It's not stupidity on the character's part...it's impossible --not in the way of a fantasy or sci fi or horror plot needing one suspension of disbelief (eg vampires exist)but in the real world everyday way of 'ain't happening', so it comes across as filmmaker expecting audience to have an IQ of 10.
The girl's subsequent discovery and killing by the couple is another problem. After more than enough time to make it believable that she has died trapped inside the trunk, they find her, ,begin to call police, and see her crawling after them. More on that in the next paragraph. The movie has two more scenes of the live girl after they put her to bed. In both the sound engineer is trying to keep her quiet. In the first he shoves her flat on the bed with his hand (and a fold of blanket) over her mouth and straddles her to hold her down. In the second, he wraps the blanket or comforter around her and holds her in it while she kicks and struggles. Both times he then exits the bedroom to tell his wife the girl is now "asleep". Okay, let's see. So...she doesn't suffocate inside the locked trunk for an extended period of time.....and she doesn't croak when a full grown adult slams her backward and holds her down with a blanket over her face until she "falls asleep", but she dies suddenly wrapped in a blanket and kicking fit to beat the band. yeah, riiiight. This on again off again dead girl stuff is patently ridiculous. Of the three incidents, it would, frankly, have been believable only if the trunk death had come last. The one that was supposed to have killed her was the least likely to, and the man acting exactly as he had previously when we thought she was dead but she was not makes us wonder if the filmmaker had the slightest idea the girl was supposed to be dead that time or just filmed a ton of 'ooooopps, not yet scenes' and didn't check the editing to see which was in there as the final one.
BTW, the crawling girl scene is straight out of Ringu --she moves precisely the same way with precisely the same sort of tangled long hair approach etc. The scene of her crawling could have been directly lifted out of the other movie. To me that sort of exactness belongs in a parody, not in a separate serious movie. The way in which this and the next scenes are filmed are mildly confusing --the audience initially wonders why on earth the two haven't called the police before tumbling to the thought that the couple are worried about being charged with the kidnapping.
As a last comment, for those confused about why a doppleganger would appear when the guy who saw it didn't die...I believe the implication is supposed to be that the guy is going to be executed for murdering the girl. I haven't the faintest idea how Japanese law views such crimes so I can't be sure, but if that is it, of course the Japanese audiences would have a better chance of figuring it out. Besides that, the doppleganger scenes were in no way in the original story either, they are added because K. Kurosawa likes them. Unfortunately they don't do what he wants them to --there is really no reason in the film for an audience member to "get" that the sound engineer burns his doppleganger as a finger up against fate/an assertion he will choose his own fate. That idea comes out when you listen to the K Kurosawa interview!
Very flawed Ringu spin-off
marushka7216 April 2004
Warning: Spoilers
This is a movie that famed director Kiyoshi Kurosawa made by demand for a TV company, after the success of Ringu. Well, there's a kind of Sadako feeling to it, the girls looks a lot like the one in Hideo Nakata's Dark water... but this is a flawed movie. Terrible script. Not scary at all (and I scare so easy! that's why I love terror movies). Forgettable.
For instance (spoiler coming) at the very beginning of it, the psychological expert tells us about how, when a person sees her or his doppelganger, double, it's an omen of death. And then, one of the main characters actually goes through this experience... and doesn't die! Why sow a seed if you ain't going to follow it to the very consequences? I really don't get what's all the fuss about this guy... I love Japanese movies, I study Japanese, so if I find a Japanese movie too boring, I just listen... but I think this guy is overrated.
For instance (spoiler coming) at the very beginning of it, the psychological expert tells us about how, when a person sees her or his doppelganger, double, it's an omen of death. And then, one of the main characters actually goes through this experience... and doesn't die! Why sow a seed if you ain't going to follow it to the very consequences? I really don't get what's all the fuss about this guy... I love Japanese movies, I study Japanese, so if I find a Japanese movie too boring, I just listen... but I think this guy is overrated.
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
