IMDb user comments for
Shutter (2008/I) More at IMDbPro »

Filter:

Best Chronological Prolific Authors Loved It Hated It Hide Spoilers:

Page 1 of 13:

[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11]

Index

121 reviews in total

---

77 out of 125 people found the following review useful:
Way, Way Better than I Expected, 22 March 2008

Author: bababear from United States

This was a surprisingly good, old fashioned ghost story.

I haven't seen the original and I'm not a fanboy, so I didn't have any axes to grind going in. The cast is very good if somewhat underutilized, the photography and musical scoring are excellent, and there's a plot twist that caught me completely by surprise.

Watching the previews you'd think this was the one millionth Asian horror with a vengeful female spirit who has long black hair and dark circles under her eyes. There's more than that going on here.

And, without giving any plot points away, the final shot of the film is going to stay with me for a long, long time.

Sure, this isn't the most original piece of work ever. It's part of a long tradition of ghost stories. But the makers had the sense to keep it to 85 minutes so it's over before you really begin to think how familiar some of the material is.

---

123 out of 226 people found the following review useful:
PERFECT! for our image of American youth..., 22 March 2008

Author: peelscreen from United States

I think this movie shows exactly how Hollywood sees America's youth. Compelled by fashionably dressed model women, sometimes half naked, bright colors, spooky images and scenes that are only there to make you jump. Oh... and I forgot, no brains. They think you're all idiots so they give you this cliché garbage.

Skinny attractive woman who couldn't act if it were cursed on her, walks around always looking fresh and dumb in designer clothes. This movie is about as intelligent as a log. Everything seems forced and none of it is original or done in a compelling way. I have to wonder if English was the native language of the director since most of the dialog is unacceptably terrible. Many times I cringed or laughed at things that I knew weren't meant to have that kind of reaction.

Poorly paced, poorly written, poorly acted, the effects are okay. I haven't seen the original, but conceptually, this movie could have been great if it were done the right way. Unfortunately, it was not. F-

---

16 out of 20 people found the following review useful:
A Mediocre Remake, 13 September 2008

Author: Claudio Carvalho from Rio de Janeiro, Brazil

In North America, after getting married, the photographer Benjamin Shaw (Joshua Jackson) and his wife Jane (Rachel Taylor) travel to Japan for a job opportunity with Ben's friends Bruno (David Denman) and Adam (John Hensley). While driving on a lonely road in Japan during the night, they have a car accident with Jane hitting a girl first and crashing a tree. When they awake, the police do not find any body and Ben believes that Jane imagined the situation. Later when Ben reveals his latest pictures, he finds some mysterious shadows, while the couple is systematically haunted by the ghost of the girl. Jane investigates and finds that the victim was Ben's former shy and weird girlfriend Megumi Tanaka (Megumi Okina), who worked as translator for Ben. Later Jane discloses deep and hidden secrets about the relationship of Megumi, Ben and his friends Bruno and Adam.

The American version of "Shutter" is a mediocre remake of a great Asian horror movie. Actually it is ridiculous, with the author poorly using the same storyline and transforming a creepy and dark story in another Hollywoodian standard of silliness – shallow screenplay but with beautiful actresses, handsome lead actor and wonderful locations in Japan. If the viewer has never seen the original "Shutter" (2004) (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0440803/), watch it instead. If the viewer has already seen the Thailand's movie, prefer watching it again. It will be better than wasting time watching this terrible remake. My vote is four.

Title (Brazil): "Imagens do Além" ("Images from Beyond")

---

32 out of 52 people found the following review useful:
Another unrelentingly boring ghost-in-the-machine remake, 28 March 2008

Author: movedout from http://thescreenbug.blogspot.com

Take it as it is. A derivative, leaden, mind-numbingly simplified remake of a superior original. That's not to say that it's genuinely decent on its own merits if you've not already seen 2004's seminal Thai-horror "Shutter" that reignited that country's interest in producing slow burning, luxuriously made horror films. Interestingly, and perhaps even fittingly, the Hollywood machine that devours and regurgitates the recent slate of J-Horror films has turned its sights on "Shutter", which arguably finds its core roots in Japan's horror conventions in its vengeful, waifish ghost girl tormenting the living by manifesting through various electronic mediums. So what Masayuki Ochiai's adaptation essentially becomes is a carbon copy of copy.

American photographer Ben Shaw (Joshua Jackson) and his blonde schoolteacher bride Jane (Rachael Taylor) go straight from nuptials to a working honeymoon in Japan, natch, because America just isn't as scary to Americans as Asia is. Before heading off to Ben's lucrative assignment in Tokyo, the newly minted couple heads to a remote countryside inn when a brief accident derails Jane's constitution and compels her to seek out answers led by a phantasmal presence in photographs and a newly discovered knowledge of spirit photography.

Unremarkably, Luke Dawson's screenplay omits and appends details to its basic premise. The original uses the stark disassociation of city living to intensify the eeriness of isolation, and the idea that we never really see what we think we know. Dawson's script transplants the couple to a different country, ramping up the cultural alienation and exoticism of another culture. It's not dissimilar to what we've already seen in "The Grudge" remakes.

Even as Ochiai's direction is comparatively surefooted and patient with the camera choosing to hang on to a scene instead of ludicrously harping on jump-cuts and eyeball-rattling shots that bounce off the wall, the film feels unambitiously stale. "Shutter" goes through the motions of dourly checking off look-behind-you set pieces and reflections on windows. The plotting and performances are so apparent; you'd find yourself a couple of steps ahead of the film's central faux-mystery. While the bizarre symbiotic relationship audiences have with particularly mediocre remakes of Asian horror films should still live on after this, what remains most terrifying is how textbook simple and undemanding the film-making has become for films of its ilk.

---

28 out of 45 people found the following review useful:
Good Remake, But..., 6 April 2008

Author: Mark-129 from Essex County, NJ USA

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

Before I reviewed this American remake of a highly regarded Thai horror film from 2004, I ordered a copy of the original to make a comparison.

Although the original is superior, the remake, to be fair smooths out some of the inconsistencies of the tale. This is not always a good thing as it's these little things that give the story a bit of character and individuality.

To be brief, the story involves the haunting of an American photographer and his new wife in Japan after hitting a young woman with their car on a lonely country road.

Most of the ghostly horror is more suggested than overt, with images appearing in photographs and just out of direct sight. Most of the set pieces from the original are here, but several of the most startling and effective moments of horror are missing. The unfortunate PG-13 rating keeps everything in check, so, while compelling, the horror is fairly muted. Another fault is the ghost lacks a bit of the personality the original has in spades. The final twist takes the story in a very different direction and is quite startling. But, like another reviewer wrote, leaves you feeling justice has been done.

Not a great film, but very watchable and satisfying.

---

15 out of 22 people found the following review useful:
*Yawn*, 21 March 2008

Author: oktobreana from United States

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

*SPOILER ALERT* It was not bad, had some good elements, but this whole Asian horror scenario is getting kind of old. Same look, same style, etc. I think the writers overseas are better but the production in America is better. More than frightening me, it left me a little sad. You feel sorry for the character, you don't particularly fear her. And his wife's reaction to the secret photos was pretty extreme...you would certainly be alarmed and unnerved, but somehow I don't think you'd have such a visceral reaction. They made it seem like someone had torn off her face or something.

I did like knowing why the Japanese nurse kept weighing him though...pretty clever!

---

19 out of 31 people found the following review useful:
A Nutshell Review: Shutter, 26 March 2008

Author: DICK STEEL from Singapore

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

Someone remind me what's the point of a remake again? A dearth of ideas? Thinking that one can do the job better? Don't laugh but one of the better Asian horror I've seen (probably amongst the first few too in recent years) was the Thai movie Shutter, which played on the plot device of spirit photography, those strange streaks of blurs that cover weird angles in a photograph, and with a vivid imagination, you can even make out faces of people you know, or know not.

There are remakes which challenge on the technical fronts - having to recreate scenes shot by shot, or those helmed by master directors in the hopes of injecting some depth into characterization and story. Some filmmakers even choose to remake their own films with a different cast (Funny Games anyone?), and the list goes on. But one thing's for sure, I seriously hope that the number of Asian horror remakes start to dwindle, given that the westernized versions pale in comparison to their Asian originals, and Shutter happens to be one of them.

OK, so perhaps half the fun was eliminated when you know just about every plot twist and turn, character motivation, and probably even what dialogue will come out of the actor's mouths (so I jest). But in all earnestness, I reckon that this remake will appeal more to those who have not seen the original. It's easy to be thoroughly bored because you know just what's about to come, and can eliminate red herrings, as well as spot the now-so-obviously subtle hints that the characters try to hide unsuccessfully.

Also, you can bet your last dollar that Hollywood will again go over the top in trying to explain everything verbatim, as well as attempting to up the ante with the finale, but in doing so, tried too hard. I do not deny that it was much needed tension too little too late toward the end, but really, it added nothing to the plot besides succeeding in making you squirm. Technically this remade version boasts nicer production values, but lacked the edginess that the original had to offer, well, because the directing duo of Banjong Pisanthanakun and Parkpoom Wongpoom were rookies then, and lacked certain horrific charm and soul (pardon the pun). In fact, there was one critical scene which the Thai version had which boasted some ingenuity in a tracking shot, but one which the remake had chickened out to do, opting instead for cheap CG and unnecessary cut-shots.

So the remade had blinked first, and didn't offer any really frightening moments to genuinely scare. Somehow I thought it was rather subtly pre-occupied with sex, given that you have a great looking cast with Joshua Jackson as Benjamin Shaw the photographer, and his newly wedded wife Jane Shaw, played by Rachael Taylor. For some reason, Japan gets automatically associated with Asian horror, and that's where this remake was set in, maybe because the director - Masayuki Ochiai - is Japanese too.

But the final straw which I found really disturbing, was the lack of acknowledgement that this is a remake. There's nothing in the opening credits to inform the audience that it is one (the original Thai directors given only producers credits), and probably tried to pass off as an original story. Recommended of course to those who have not seen the original (even then I'd suggest you only watch the Thai version). Those who have, are advised to steer clear.

---

54 out of 102 people found the following review useful:
This movie was HORRIBLE, 31 March 2008

Author: ZiggyZane from United States

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

The attempt for this movie was a valiant one... but it failed none the less. They tried so hard to sum up J-Horror movies into one movie that didn't scare you, leave you in suspense, or even guessing. At one point I asked my girlfriend to wake me up when it got good. Had I actually gone to sleep and had her wake me up when it was good... she would've woken me up at the credits. The cinematography was great, but that was probably the only good thing about the movie. You see a side to Japan most movies don't show you, NOT the hustle and bustle of Tokyo, but the side parks, the small houses outside the main cities, the apartments, etc. The movie left nothing to the imagination, you knew what was happening the entire time. There was no point in the movie where I was scared... I didn't even jump. All in all this movie was terrible, don't waste your money on it, watch something else instead... like moss growing, ANYTHING but this movie.

---

5 out of 6 people found the following review useful:
Watch the original, 6 May 2008

Author: (amanda.my.lum@gmail.com) from Australia

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

What really pains me is this movie does absolutely no justice to the original version. Watch the original Thai version. It is MUCH better in terms of plot, pace, suspense and horror. Instead of relying on the cheap, predictable *suspenseful music-BANG* Hollywood ploys very evident in this version, the original Thai version is very well built up, takes its time to set the mood and let the suspense and horror just seep in, and they also manage to throw in a bit of black humour as well (the public toilet visit late at night - classic). The background and development of characters in the original is MUCH better, and more plausible (with a more plausible explanation for why she turns up in photos - not this "spirit photography" crap), not to mention the acting is infinitely superior in the original.

Hollywood fails once again. Skip this stupid knock-off and just go straight to the original.

---

29 out of 54 people found the following review useful:
Very scary for only being PG-13, 9 April 2008

Author: robertallenandersonjr from United States

Shutter was a pretty decent movie. The movie was pretty predictable. People will probably not like this movie because of the ending. The thing that people need to realize is that when they are going to see a movie like this you know what you are going to get out of it. I hate it when people keep cutting down movies like this, such as One Missed Call and The Eye. In these kind of movies the ending is pretty predictable, its pretty much going to leave you hanging. Thats why I think people need to understand you can't hate a movie because of the ending. I thought that their was so much more to the story than just spirit photography. It explains why its happening to the people that are on their honey moon. It seems like in these kind of movies the story explains a lot more near the end. They kept doing many flash backs in this movie as well. That's when they were explaining the story a lot. This was actually pretty creepy, freightning, and scary all at the same time. It had a ton of sudden pop out right at your face scenes. Im sure that when you see this you will jump many times. I thought that it could have been a little bit better. I liked the idea of having it be two newly married couples that this spirit photography is happening to. I liked how the wife was fighting the ghosts the whole movie. The acting was surprisingly really good I thought. The wife in this played by Rachael Taylor did such a great job playing all the scared parts and emotional parts. Her husband played by Joshua Jackson did a great job as well. Some of the visuals were pretty sweet. They had a lot of nice camera shots of the whole city in Tokyo. After some of the people left the theater I heard them say I want my money back. This movie was trying to prove to you that making fun of people and treating them like crap at a younger age will come back to haunt you. Overall this was a decent movie with some good scares. I would go see this at the cheap show or only pay five dollars.

---

---

Page 1 of 13:

[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11]

Add another review

---

Related Links

Plot summary	Plot synopsis	Ratings
External reviews	Parents Guide	Official site
Plot keywords	Main details	Your user reviews
Your vote history