Broadcast Signal Intrusion
- 2021
- 1h 44min
PUNTUACIÓN EN IMDb
5,4/10
3,6 mil
TU PUNTUACIÓN
A finales de los 90, un encargado de archivar videos descubre una serie de transmisiones piratas siniestras y se obsesiona por descubrir la oscura conspiración detrás de ellas.A finales de los 90, un encargado de archivar videos descubre una serie de transmisiones piratas siniestras y se obsesiona por descubrir la oscura conspiración detrás de ellas.A finales de los 90, un encargado de archivar videos descubre una serie de transmisiones piratas siniestras y se obsesiona por descubrir la oscura conspiración detrás de ellas.
- Dirección
- Guión
- Reparto principal
- Premios
- 1 premio en total
Harry Shum Jr.
- James
- (as Harry Shum Jr)
Steven Pringle
- Dr. Lithgow
- (as Steve Pringle)
Jeff Dlugolecki
- Creepy Guy in Alley
- (sin acreditar)
Thomas Kosik
- Bar Patron
- (sin acreditar)
Reseñas destacadas
These broadcast signal intrusions are really real. Go look it up on google. The one I know about is the Max Headroom pirate video back in the 80's CREEPY --and that's what this movie feeds on. Following a man as he searches for 3 of these specific intrusion to see if it leads to a pattern that has mystified police in the past. Creepy fun but didn't get the ending. 6.3 out of 10.
'Broadcast Signal Intrusion' is a strange movie. It's based around a character who is obsessed with a conspiracy he has stumbled upon, however we don't really understand his motives or obsession, and so it can be quite hard to stay invested in it with him. Where it all ends up actually turns out to be reasonably interesting, but we don't know that's going to be the case, and so the journey can be an arduous one.
The movie does a good job of feeling like it is set in the 90s. It doesn't just feel like a movie set then, it feels like one that was made then. It also does a good job of utilising its clearly minimal budget.
The film's biggest problem is that it is lacking a hook. It isn't particularly scary, and it isn't always captivating in its narrative, so the audience may find itself drifting along purposeless at times. It's not a terrible film, but is reasonably forgettable. 6/10.
The movie does a good job of feeling like it is set in the 90s. It doesn't just feel like a movie set then, it feels like one that was made then. It also does a good job of utilising its clearly minimal budget.
The film's biggest problem is that it is lacking a hook. It isn't particularly scary, and it isn't always captivating in its narrative, so the audience may find itself drifting along purposeless at times. It's not a terrible film, but is reasonably forgettable. 6/10.
This movie is kind of nowhere and it goes nowhere. The one thing done well in this flick is the videos that start to unhinge our hero. The videos are creepy and unsettling and intriguing. It's too bad the rest of the movie tanks. A widower who is now very alone finds reason to think there is a conspiracy, or at least linked up crimes are hinted at in a series of signal hijackings.
Despite '60's supernatural soap 'Dark Shadows' making an appearance or two, and a villain that looks like 'Texas Chainsaw Massacre: The Next Generation's Leatherface, this is a very talky, turgid affair.
The film goes through all the beats of being fascinating - vaguely arthouse direction, intense performances, much grandstanding - but really, it isn't. There's nothing for the viewer to latch on to and becomes frequently incomprehensible. As a result, it seems to go on for far longer than its 102 minutes.
A couple of creepy moments exist in a vacuum but aren't enough to generate much interest. When it ends, you'll wonder why you stuck it out for so long. My score is 4 out of 10.
The film goes through all the beats of being fascinating - vaguely arthouse direction, intense performances, much grandstanding - but really, it isn't. There's nothing for the viewer to latch on to and becomes frequently incomprehensible. As a result, it seems to go on for far longer than its 102 minutes.
A couple of creepy moments exist in a vacuum but aren't enough to generate much interest. When it ends, you'll wonder why you stuck it out for so long. My score is 4 out of 10.
Don't worry about spoilers. I'm not entirely sure I know what happened.
I love obscure, ambiguous endings open to broad interpretation...up to a point. The ending here was a bit too "not sure how to wrap this one up, so...here you go." Roll credits. Or maybe it was the result of slash and burn editing. I don't know.
The lead (James) was believable and intense, and the mystery, atmosphere, and creepy imagery definitely held my attention. The music was...ugh. Distracting and, well...intrusive at times. Almost like the composer was scoring a completely different film.
I have my own theory about the ending, but this one requires a re-watch. Few horror movies warrant revisiting, but even with its flaws, this isn't one I'll forget 20min after the end credits. I'm not lazy about probing alternate interpretations, but I need something a bit more solid to work with. That being said, I will watch this one again and scour for clues. I rarely write reviews, but this one was effective as an "experience," if not as a full-fledged narrative.
If you're OK with the slow burn and can tolerate a "WTF" ending, give this one a shot. I can overlook some of the technical drawbacks if a movie is unique, memorable, and brave enough to abandon the horror formula. The cliches are here, too, of course, but this movie is miles above 90% of current horror fare.
I love obscure, ambiguous endings open to broad interpretation...up to a point. The ending here was a bit too "not sure how to wrap this one up, so...here you go." Roll credits. Or maybe it was the result of slash and burn editing. I don't know.
The lead (James) was believable and intense, and the mystery, atmosphere, and creepy imagery definitely held my attention. The music was...ugh. Distracting and, well...intrusive at times. Almost like the composer was scoring a completely different film.
I have my own theory about the ending, but this one requires a re-watch. Few horror movies warrant revisiting, but even with its flaws, this isn't one I'll forget 20min after the end credits. I'm not lazy about probing alternate interpretations, but I need something a bit more solid to work with. That being said, I will watch this one again and scour for clues. I rarely write reviews, but this one was effective as an "experience," if not as a full-fledged narrative.
If you're OK with the slow burn and can tolerate a "WTF" ending, give this one a shot. I can overlook some of the technical drawbacks if a movie is unique, memorable, and brave enough to abandon the horror formula. The cliches are here, too, of course, but this movie is miles above 90% of current horror fare.
¿Sabías que...?
- CuriosidadesThe film's SAL-E Sparx broadcasts are patterned after actual events. In Chicago, on November 22, 1987, someone wearing a Max Headrom, el hombre de la pantalla (1987) mask interrupted WGN's 9 o'clock news for 25 seconds. 2 hours later the same person interrupted WTTW's airing of Doctor Who (1963) for 90 seconds.
- PifiasThe Phreaker says he turned 15 in 1987, and the movie's set in 1999, making him 27. But the actor who plays him is over 40, and clearly looks it.
Selecciones populares
Inicia sesión para calificar y añadir a tu lista para recibir recomendaciones personalizadas
- How long is Broadcast Signal Intrusion?Con tecnología de Alexa
Detalles
- Duración
- 1h 44min(104 min)
- Color
- Relación de aspecto
- 2.39:1
Contribuir a esta página
Sugerir un cambio o añadir el contenido que falta