CrawlerChunky In truth, there is barely enough story here to make a film.

Nayan Gough A great movie, one of the best of this year. There was a bit of confusion at one point in the plot, but nothing serious.

Candida It is neither dumb nor smart enough to be fun, and spends way too much time with its boring human characters.

Kayden This is a dark and sometimes deeply uncomfortable drama

Triss S This is a movie that requires a certain mood. It is dark, morbid, reluctant to show more than you need, very silent at times, very slow developing, it has enough predictability not to give you goosebumps... and that sums it up. what made me give it an average vote wasn't necessarily the movie, but the trailer. the movie was bearable, quite beautiful. about the trailer... then well, it could have been worse than that, with that pop song going through the middle made it look like a pastiche. I hate it how a bad trailer can set the mood wrong for such a serious movie. I know better when to criticize and when to shut up, but this had to be spilled.the dialogue isn't complicated. it has a few memorable lines, but they are all contextually related, like the one that says I'll throw everything but you. it seeps with silence, hatred, regret and misunderstanding.

ebossert I find it quite pathetic that most moviegoers are unable to experience anything remotely original in terms of cinematic style or content. I'm appalled by the mere thought of feeding upon the commercialistic trash of mainstream American horror cinema – almost all of which is completely worthless, unimaginative, boring, and unintentionally hilarious. In like manner, I simply cannot understand why so many people indulge in studio controlled, mass-produced garbage on a whim, yet find it so difficult to appreciate a strikingly original, well-made horror film. "Loft" is one such film, and its current 5.5 rating is more a condemnation on IMDb voters than the film itself.I don't like to include a long plot synopsis in my reviews, but when other reviewers insult the film for being a "mess", I am forced to explain things to persons who apparently have a prescribed limit to the number of brain cells they're willing to use while watching a movie. I certainly hope that these people aren't quite as stupid in their daily lives.In a nutshell, Reiko pukes up black mud as a foreshadowing of her interactions with the 1000-year-old mummy's spirit, which was preserved in the same kind of mud (and possibly drank the mud during its lifetime to preserve beauty). Makoto (the anthropologist) takes the mummy to the deserted house because it causes side-effects to those around it (Hino describes his nightmares and Makoto himself drives his car off the road). The ghost girl is the spirit of the mummy as manifested through the identity of a girl who was killed a few months earlier. Makoto witnessed the murder, but the mummy's spirit possessed the girl's body, thereby forcing Makoto to kill her again in self-defense. Plagued by these images, Makoto suffers a fractured psychology and begins to believe that his act of murder was a hallucination.Let's cut right to the coolest scene in this movie: Makoto's murder of the girl. The key to this scene is the positioning of the body before and after Makoto's tangle with the mummy's spirit. First, the editor kills the girl, leaving her body in a particular position. While the editor is briefly away, the body is possessed by the mummy's spirit and attacks Makoto. In an act of self-defense, he murders the girl a second time, but accidentally leaves the body in the same position that the editor left it. The editor returns and takes the body away, obviously ignorant of everything that recently transpired. What makes this scene so clever is that it provides a perfect metaphor for Makoto's fractured psychology. Maybe he killed her; maybe he imagined it – but the evidence can work for either scenario. Brilliant! It's no understatement to say that this particular scene is an instant classic for viewers who are actually willing to figure it out. It convincingly blurs the line of illusion and reality. If Makoto did kill her, he would certainly assume that the editor would react to the movement of her body from where he left it, but because the body is in the same position, it throws everything into uncertainly. Only a truly masterful filmmaker could pull this off with such perfection. Welcome to the world of Kiyoshi Kurosawa.Now that the dim-witted have been enlightened, I'd like to discuss other elements of this film. As far as style is concerned, I've heard some fans of Dario Argento who claim that his set designs and lighting are practically "characters" in his films. It's interesting to note that Kiyoshi's location settings and architecture are employed in the same manner. I have no idea where he finds these places, but his films are driven forward by mesmerizing environments, decrepit buildings, natural settings, and expert use of lighting. Ironic, it seems, that someone such as I (an anti-snob to the grave) would be captivated by Kiyoshi's atmosphere as much as I am. Props to the filmmaker indeed.While true that "Loft" panders to lovers of slow-paced atmospherics by having Reiko walk slowly through moody environments, the fact remains that I need more than a pretty painting if I'm to be entertained for two hours, and "Loft" provides much in the way of entertaining events. The aforementioned murder scene is an obvious choice, but Reiko's interaction with the mummy's spirit is good stuff. The gradual disintegration of the ghost girl on the foggy dock flies in the face of your typical Onryo, the ghoulish teleportation scene from one side of the room to the other is devilishly nice, and the creaky ceiling scene was well-executed. This is not pretentious tripe like "Akira Kurosawa's Dreams." On the contrary, this is expertly crafted, highly enjoyable cinema that is destined to be promptly insulted and trashed by those with no taste in film – of which there are many.This is not a perfect endeavor, mind you. Some of the acting is hokey at times, but there are so many positives here that they far outweigh any negatives. Yet somehow this film has not met the ultra low standards of your typical IMDb mainstream moviegoer. This film has been trashed to the point where I have seriously questioned the sanity of the world. Have you people really devolved back into a primordial state where quality execution of originality is not only ignored, but derided and insulted? Perhaps the conflicts were not explicitly referenced and explained to the point where a person with an IQ of less than 50 could understand them. Perhaps the pacing should have been sped up and supplemented with a few dozen jump scares to keep viewers awake. Perhaps the characters were too old for teenie-boppers to identify with, and should have been revised to include a bunch of pot-smoking, sex-crazed highschoolers.Well, whatever this film was "missing", I certainly didn't miss it.

sitenoise It's not worth two hours time to deliberately make a bad movie, a bad self-parodying movie at that, to show the audience that even in the context of pointless nonsense, the director can still frame a shot well, or set a mood of dread filled (dreadful?) anticipation. I'm just not a big enough fanboy to try and make excuses for a film like this.Is this film funny? Yes. And here's how it's funny: in one scene, after the presence of the J-Horror Goth Chick Ghost has been established, the director strings together a sequence of shots where the lovely Miki Nakatani spots said JHGCG's feet in another room and inhales with a shudder as she runs into a corner. Miki isn't doing a good job of running away. She begins to creep anxiously closer to the ghoul again and upon visual confirmation inhales with a shudder and runs into a different corner, and then creeps anxiously closer, shudder, corner, creeping, shudder, corner, creeping, shudder, a calm acceptance, CUT TO A NEW SCENE. Ha ha ha!If you see this film think of it like taking a night class in Kurosawa technique. You'll learn something.

matches81 Normally I like Asian horror movies. That said, "Loft" was just a complete mess. While the preposition sounds interesting (writer with blockade in a big house out in the nothing with a somewhat weird anthropologist as a neighbour whose job is to conserve a mummy), mostly everything else is either confusing or pointless.The movie takes a whopping six minutes including credits to introduce the main role, her problems and the "solution" that is her publisher selling her a house out in the country. I was quite baffled how fast this movie went through with these things. And for me that was the main problem of the movie: It is just confusing for most of the time. Rather often I took half of a scene to understand what time this scene is taking place in, where I am and what's going on. On the other hand the movie takes surprisingly much time to show scenes that don't make any sense afterwards. What is left is a huge mess of incoherently slapped together scenes without not much more than the basic premise holding them together.