Broadcast Signal Intrusion
- 2021
- 1h 44m
ÉVALUATION IMDb
5,4/10
3,6 k
MA NOTE
À la fin des années 90, un archiviste vidéo déterre une série d'émissions de pirates sinistres et devient obsédé par la découverte du sombre complot qui se cache derrière elles.À la fin des années 90, un archiviste vidéo déterre une série d'émissions de pirates sinistres et devient obsédé par la découverte du sombre complot qui se cache derrière elles.À la fin des années 90, un archiviste vidéo déterre une série d'émissions de pirates sinistres et devient obsédé par la découverte du sombre complot qui se cache derrière elles.
- Prix
- 1 victoire au total
Harry Shum Jr.
- James
- (as Harry Shum Jr)
Steven Pringle
- Dr. Lithgow
- (as Steve Pringle)
Jeff Dlugolecki
- Creepy Guy in Alley
- (uncredited)
Thomas Kosik
- Bar Patron
- (uncredited)
Avis en vedette
'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.
Had high hopes for this mystery-horror. The real life BSI phenomenon has always intrigued me. The movie draws inspiration from the (still unsolved) real life 1987 Max Headroom US signal hijackings, and the 2004 'I Feel Fantastic' internet videos, featuring Tara the android. The performances of Harry Shum Jr as lead character James, and Kelley Mack as his mysterious helper, Alice, are very good. The rest of the cast are pretty solid. Jacob Gentry's direction and Scott Thiele's cinematography create a strong sense of unease. The idea of James coming to terms with a recent loss whilst at the same time tracking the source of a series of mysterious broadcasts he stumbles across whilst cataloguing archive VHS recordings is one that pulls you in. The meetings with mysterious figures offering tantalising crumbs of information along the way wouldn't be out of place in The X-Files, whilst the sense of disassociation and other-worldliness put me in mind of The Last Broadcast (1998), Banshee Chapter (2013), and Censor (2021).
But despite looking great and having an interesting hook I found it a letdown. I like slow-burn thrillers/horrors - but they need a payoff. This... kinda did, but what exactly happens and the real answer to the mystery are never explained. Some movies lead you to a place where you have to work it out. This doesn't do that; it leaves you guessing - which isn't the same thing. There are a ton of fan-theories online about what it all means, what's/who's real, what/who isn't; but they're just that - fan-theories. There's nothing that fits perfectly. And despite some strong imagery that stays with you, I was left feeling I'd wasted my time. I'm sure the director can justify every choice he made, but for me he missed the mark. Good acting, premise, and atmosphere get it a 5/10.
But despite looking great and having an interesting hook I found it a letdown. I like slow-burn thrillers/horrors - but they need a payoff. This... kinda did, but what exactly happens and the real answer to the mystery are never explained. Some movies lead you to a place where you have to work it out. This doesn't do that; it leaves you guessing - which isn't the same thing. There are a ton of fan-theories online about what it all means, what's/who's real, what/who isn't; but they're just that - fan-theories. There's nothing that fits perfectly. And despite some strong imagery that stays with you, I was left feeling I'd wasted my time. I'm sure the director can justify every choice he made, but for me he missed the mark. Good acting, premise, and atmosphere get it a 5/10.
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.
Not sure what to say, it felt like I've wasted time on a incomplete mess of a movie that tackles conspiracy theories the same way a creepypasta parodies the dangers of the dark web. I'm pretty sure that this film was inspired by the ''I feel fantastic'' robot woman video that surfaced on youtube many years ago, on paper that sounds like a great idea but in reality what we have here is a movie that has nothing to be thrilled about.
I know I'm sounding harsh and someone out there probably enjoyed this and the people behind it had great ideas, but at the end of the day, I was bored, couldn't get invested in the actors and a plot that had potential but kept stumbling, slowing the movie to a snails phase.
I know I'm sounding harsh and someone out there probably enjoyed this and the people behind it had great ideas, but at the end of the day, I was bored, couldn't get invested in the actors and a plot that had potential but kept stumbling, slowing the movie to a snails phase.
Le saviez-vous
- AnecdotesThe film's SAL-E Sparx broadcasts are patterned after actual events. In Chicago, on November 22, 1987, someone wearing a Max Headroom (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.
- GaffesThe 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.
Meilleurs choix
Connectez-vous pour évaluer et surveiller les recommandations personnalisées
- How long is Broadcast Signal Intrusion?Propulsé par Alexa
Détails
- Durée1 heure 44 minutes
- Couleur
- Rapport de forme
- 2.39:1
Contribuer à cette page
Suggérer une modification ou ajouter du contenu manquant