GAMES: GameSpot | GameFAQs | SportsGamer MUSIC: Last.fm | MP3.com MOVIES: Metacritic | Movietome TV: TV.com
Home | About Metacritic | About Metascores | What's New | Wireless Versions | Discussion Forums | Advertising Inquiries | Contact Us | RSS
Metacritic.com: We Deal With Criticism
     Help
> Switch to Advanced Search  
Film Video/DVD Music Games TV

Film

Upcoming Release Calendar
Weekend Box Office
Film Awards & Top 10s By Year
All-Time High Scores
All-Time Low Scores
How Metascores Are Calculated
Discuss Film In Our Forums

 

Wide Releases

sort by name sort by score

Stars indicate the most critically-acclaimed movies.

 

Limited Releases

sort by name sort by score

Stars indicate the most critically-acclaimed movies.

 



Printer-Friendly Version Email This Page Discuss In Our Forums

Pulse
Dimension Films / The Weinstein Company

Pulse reviews
Critic Score
Metascore: 27 Metascore out of 100
User Score  
3.5 out of 10
based on 18 reviews
Read critic reviews
How did we calculate this?
based on 102 votes
Read user comments
Rate this movie

MPAA RATING: PG-13 for violent and disturbing images

Starring Kristen Bell, Ian Somerhalder, Christina Milian, Rick Gonzalez, Riki Lindhome, Jonathan Tucker, Amanda Tepe, and Samm Levine

Jim Sonzero directs this remake of Kiyoshi Kurosawa's apocalyptic horror classic.


GENRE(S): Horror  |  Mystery  |  Suspense/Thriller  
WRITTEN BY: Wes Craven
Kiyoshi Kurosawa (screenplay Kairo)
 
DIRECTED BY: Jim Sonzero  
RELEASE DATE: DVD: December 5, 2006 
Theatrical: August 11, 2006 
RUNNING TIME: 87 minutes, Color 
ORIGIN: USA 

What The Critics Said

All critic scores are converted to a 100-point scale. If a critic does not indicate a score, we assign a score based on the general impression given by the text of the review. Learn more...

63
TV Guide Ken Fox
To say Wes Craven's rewrite of Kiyoshi Kurosawa's 2001 "Pulse" isn't as bad as it could have been sounds like faint praise, but Kurosawa's "Pulse" is one of the true masterpieces of recent Asian horror, and the track record for Hollywood horror redos isn't great.
Read Full Review
60
Washington Post Stephen Hunter
American director Jim Sonzero has taken the same campus setting and plot and added some rationale by "science-fictioning" it.
Read Full Review
50
Boston Globe Wesley Morris
If Pulse is unsurprising as a horror movie (come on: chalky, soul-sucking freaks again?), as a campaign against the Internet, digital piracy, cellphones, and anything that computes anything (like laptops or brains), it's a riot.
Read Full Review
42
Entertainment Weekly Owen Gleiberman
In this American remake of the spooky, more-atmospheric-than-coherent 2005 J-horror thriller, the ghosts blink and crackle into existence with an electromagnetic sputter, but really, they're not so different from the gauzy, see-through spirits of yesteryear.
Read Full Review
42
The Onion (A.V. Club) Keith Phipps
Ultimately, the glacial pace kills Pulse. What was dreadful and trance-like in the original feels here like nothing-much-at-all sandwiched between some stock horror jolts.
Read Full Review
40
Empire James Dyer
An unrewarding experience that won't scare you, but might make you think twice before opening email attachments.
Read Full Review
40
The Hollywood Reporter Frank Scheck
A horror film dealing with the terrors lurking via our computers, cell phones and other electronic devices, Pulse isn't nearly as scary as watching your hard drive crash or having your BlackBerry conk out in the middle of a vital call.
Read Full Review
30
Variety Robert Koehler
A dumbed-down remake of Kiyoshi Kurosawa's disturbingly abstract Japanese horror film.
Read Full Review
30
Chicago Reader J.R. Jones
The remake begins with the same premise and appropriates the most striking visuals, grafting them onto a more explicable but equally dull George Romero-style doomsday scenario.
Read Full Review
30
The New York Times Nathan Lee
The American version of Kiyoshi Kurosawa's "Pulse" mimics the plot fundamentals, but lacks any traces of Mr. Kurosawa’s creepy minimalism and conceptual rigor.
Read Full Review
25
San Francisco Chronicle Peter Hartlaub
Has maybe a half-dozen moderately frightening scenes.
Read Full Review
25
ReelViews James Berardinelli
It's not scary, it's not chilling, and it's not interesting.
Read Full Review
25
The Globe and Mail (Toronto) Jason Anderson
Tedious, baffling and ultimately laughable.
Read Full Review
25
New York Daily News Jack Mathews
Hideously ugly to look at and not even worth following.
Read Full Review
25
New York Post Lou Lumenick
Pulse bears more than a slight resemblance to a 1994 American horror called "Ghost in the Machine." They didn't screen that stinker in advance for critics, either.
Read Full Review
20
Film Threat Stina Chyn
Laughter erupts during scenes and certain close-ups that were designed to induce screams.
Read Full Review
11
Austin Chronicle Marc Savlov
It's a curiously dull Americanization of one of the finest examples of subtle, moody J-horror out there.
Read Full Review
10
LA Weekly Scott Foundas
Here, the CG effects are plentiful, but the scare factor rarely rises above the level of a viral email, and the desaturated color scheme of Sonzero and cinematographer Mark Plummer makes every frame look as though it was developed in a solution of vomit and ash.
Read Full Review

What Our Users Said

Vote Now!The average user rating for this movie is 3.5 (out of 10) based on 102 User Votes
Note: User votes are NOT included in the Metascore calculation.

Kevin B gave it a0:
I don't know why I even bother going to horror movies now a days. Because 99.9% of the time, the stuff directors chrurn out is crap, like Pulse. There is nothing scary about a computer virus. Unless of course you are a complete computer nerd. What makes this movie even worse, is the horrible acting. Big surprise, right? I pray for the day when a good horror movie comes out that will actually scare me. I've played computer games scarier than this sad excuse for a movie. The only thing scary about this is that I wasted $8.50 on a movie ticket to see it.

Robert M. gave it a1:
The only saving grace of this movie is Kristen Bell. The rest of it is lazy screenwriting. And red tape? Really? Come on... "they take your will to live." That's scary? No. It isn't. It's a good thing I didn't have to pay to rent this.

beardish gave it a2:
Moive remakes usually have the red flag indicating to potential viewers not to watch them. I'd sure like to say that Pulse wasn't like that, but I can't. I hate seeing good movies being remade into something that amounts to ........

Chad S. gave it a2:
"Pulse" blows. This filmmaker obviously has watched "Signs", the way in which he expands the crisis' scope from a local one to a full-scale apocalypse. Give M. Night Shyamalan some credit, the man knows how to direct his actors. For instance, he'd give more instructions to Brad Dourif than "act really, really crazy, man." As the two leads encounter survivors fleeing the city, that's when the real blowing begins. More over-acting, or maybe it's a consciousness that we gravitate towards pretty people. Would they for just anybody? The bad dialogue ably defeats Kristin Bell from the get-go. She laments not seeing the warning signs of her late boyfriend, and yet it takes ages for her, or anybody to notice that a friend under similar circumstances is also unresponsive to his text messages and cell calls.

WAJ gave it a2:
Although this movie had some decent visual effects and notable cinematography, the plot and acting left much to be desired. The movie seemed to have been made to show the director's/writer's hatred of how technology has become part of everyones lives. The beginning of the story spent more time acting as a commercial for razor phones rather than developing the charachters. By the end, the "moral" of the story is smashed repeatedly over your head, but the story itself strays and begins making less and less sense. It seems as though the writer or director began to run out of ideas and borrowed from much better horror/suspense movies such as 28 days later and The Shining. This movie is clearly not worth the ten dollars and definitely not worth the two hours or so of your life that it steals from you.

Sean C. gave it a2:
Everyone wanted to see this movie...the question I have for thoes people, is why? Why on earth would you ever want to disgrace your week by comming to the theaters and dropping 8 bucks on the biggest piece of crap you will see this summer. In fact I am so convinced this is the biggest failure in the last 10 years, I am willing to stake my annual income that each and every teen actor who appeared in this forsaken film will get hate mail by the millions.

Mr. Cheese gave it a1:
Remakes have had a dark history , some of them have defined what NOT to watch. Pulse is no other story, this "horror" movie tries to incorporate all of the best elements of horror and fails in all. The "scary" moments are extremely predictable and the story is laughable (dead people attacking by internet and phone connections, wanting to be whole again, how nice of them). The acting could definitely be better, you might be asking yourself if the main characters are mentally challenged since they walk to their demise without hesitating. The only good thing about this movie? It's a great comedy! My friends and I laughed throughout the entire movie, only watch this movie if you're a die-hard fan of Kurosawa's. Otherwise, you might not want to spend your hard-earned cash on this one and you deserve better.

Read more user comments...

Discuss this movie in our forums

Return to top of page
Home | FILM | DVD/VIDEO | MUSIC | GAMES | TV | Forums | About Metacritic metacritic.com

Popular on CBS sites: MLB | Spore | iPhone 3G | Paris Hilton | Antivirus Software | GPS | Recipes | Shwayze | NFL

About CBS Interactive | Jobs | Advertise

© 2008 CBS Interactive Inc. All rights reserved. | Privacy Policy | Terms of Use