Generally unfavorable reviews - based on 18 Critics What's this?

User Score

Mixed or average reviews- based on 129 Ratings

Your Score
0 out of 10
Rate this:
  • 10
  • 9
  • 8
  • 7
  • 6
  • 5
  • 4
  • 3
  • 2
  • 1
  • 0
  • 0
Score distribution:
  1. Positive: 1 out of 18
  2. Negative: 11 out of 18
  1. Reviewed by: 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.
  2. 50
    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.
  3. 42
    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.
  4. 30
    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.
  5. 25
    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.
  6. 25
    It's not scary, it's not chilling, and it's not interesting.
  7. 10
    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.

See all 18 Critic Reviews

Score distribution:
  1. Positive: 9 out of 26
  2. Negative: 16 out of 26
  1. DanK.
    Aug 10, 2006
    Great Film, genuinely scary at times. loved it
  2. Sep 26, 2012
    Better than the original by far.
  3. Pencils
    Aug 12, 2006
    Not the best, but not bad. Quite atmospheric and creepy at times. No, it didnt make a lot of sense in spots, but, then, what horror movies does, really? Very few, so I don't worry about that part. I liked the low-key special effects. In the end, it's an enjoyable way to spend a summer afternoon. Expand
  4. SeanC.
    Aug 16, 2006
    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. Expand
  5. beardish
    Aug 18, 2006
    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 ........ Expand
  6. Mr.Cheese
    Aug 14, 2006
    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. Expand
  7. AmitabhJ.
    Aug 9, 2006
    Simple...One of thw worst films ive seen...Not even worth the space it occupies on the web.

See all 26 User Reviews