sitenoise 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.

matches81 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.

DICK STEEL 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.

wjohanb 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.