Broadcast Signal Intrusion
- 2021
- 1h 44min
VALUTAZIONE IMDb
5,4/10
3553
LA TUA VALUTAZIONE
Alla fine degli anni '90, un archivista di video scopre una serie di sinistre trasmissioni pirata e diventa ossessionato dallo scoprire l'oscura cospirazione dietro di loro.Alla fine degli anni '90, un archivista di video scopre una serie di sinistre trasmissioni pirata e diventa ossessionato dallo scoprire l'oscura cospirazione dietro di loro.Alla fine degli anni '90, un archivista di video scopre una serie di sinistre trasmissioni pirata e diventa ossessionato dallo scoprire l'oscura cospirazione dietro di loro.
- Premi
- 1 vittoria in totale
Harry Shum Jr.
- James
- (as Harry Shum Jr)
Steven Pringle
- Dr. Lithgow
- (as Steve Pringle)
Jeff Dlugolecki
- Creepy Guy in Alley
- (non citato nei titoli originali)
Thomas Kosik
- Bar Patron
- (non citato nei titoli originali)
Recensioni in evidenza
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.
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.
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.
'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.
Shum Jr is decent in the lead, but he's wrestling with a sloppy script and zero character development. The supporting cast is poor, all hammy hams. Every line is exposition - which I think is meant to be in the style of a 'hard-boiled detective thriller', but comes off as hokey.
It's meant to be set in the late 90s, but the soundtrack seems to think this is a noir movie, full of saxophones and quirky embellishments. But there isn't a single visual noir element, so it never works. Then we'll get some 70s-style psychadelic music for no reason. What a mess. The cinematography flits between hand-held and locked at random, so there is no flow. It all boils down to poor direction.
The story amounts to nothing - it's a simple procedural tale of a man investigating an unsolved mini-mystery with a bog-standard conclusion. For some reason, the movie is labeled as a 'horror', which is laughable. The VHS-style video 'intrusions' he is investigating are too hilarious to be creepy. And too innocuous. The 'crime' he is investigating for most of the runtime is the interruption of TV broadcasts. Why? Because the script says so, that's why.
It's also too slow to be a thriller. It's like an extended X-Files episode, but not one of the good episodes.
It's meant to be set in the late 90s, but the soundtrack seems to think this is a noir movie, full of saxophones and quirky embellishments. But there isn't a single visual noir element, so it never works. Then we'll get some 70s-style psychadelic music for no reason. What a mess. The cinematography flits between hand-held and locked at random, so there is no flow. It all boils down to poor direction.
The story amounts to nothing - it's a simple procedural tale of a man investigating an unsolved mini-mystery with a bog-standard conclusion. For some reason, the movie is labeled as a 'horror', which is laughable. The VHS-style video 'intrusions' he is investigating are too hilarious to be creepy. And too innocuous. The 'crime' he is investigating for most of the runtime is the interruption of TV broadcasts. Why? Because the script says so, that's why.
It's also too slow to be a thriller. It's like an extended X-Files episode, but not one of the good episodes.
Lo sapevi?
- QuizThe 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.
- BlooperThe 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.
I più visti
Accedi per valutare e creare un elenco di titoli salvati per ottenere consigli personalizzati
- How long is Broadcast Signal Intrusion?Powered by Alexa
Dettagli
- Data di uscita
- Paese di origine
- Sito ufficiale
- Lingua
- Celebre anche come
- Korsan Yayın
- Azienda produttrice
- Vedi altri crediti dell’azienda su IMDbPro
- Tempo di esecuzione1 ora 44 minuti
- Colore
- Proporzioni
- 2.39:1
Contribuisci a questa pagina
Suggerisci una modifica o aggiungi i contenuti mancanti