Broadcast Signal Intrusion
- 2021
- 1h 44m
IMDb RATING
5.4/10
3.6K
YOUR RATING
In the late 90s, a video archivist unearths a series of sinister pirate broadcasts and becomes obsessed with uncovering the dark conspiracy behind them.In the late 90s, a video archivist unearths a series of sinister pirate broadcasts and becomes obsessed with uncovering the dark conspiracy behind them.In the late 90s, a video archivist unearths a series of sinister pirate broadcasts and becomes obsessed with uncovering the dark conspiracy behind them.
- Awards
- 1 win 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)
- Director
- Writers
- All cast & crew
- Production, box office & more at IMDbPro
Featured reviews
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Did you know
- TriviaThe 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.
- GoofsThe 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.
- How long is Broadcast Signal Intrusion?Powered by Alexa
Details
- Release date
- Country of origin
- Official site
- Language
- Also known as
- Korsan Yayın
- Production company
- See more company credits at IMDbPro
- Runtime1 hour 44 minutes
- Color
- Aspect ratio
- 2.39:1
Contribute to this page
Suggest an edit or add missing content
Top Gap
By what name was Broadcast Signal Intrusion (2021) officially released in Canada in English?
Answer