User Score
5.9 out of 10

Mixed or average reviews- based on 44 Ratings

User score distribution:
  1. Positive: 23 out of 44
  2. Negative: 17 out of 44

Review this movie

  1. Your Score
    10 out of 10
    Rate this:
    out of 10
  1. Submit
  2. Check Spelling
  3. Characters remaining: 5000 out of 5000

  1. JayH.
    Jul 6, 2008
    4
    4.5/10. Well enough made, good imagery, but it never once convinced me, and that is essential for this film. Watchable but not memorable.
    • 1 of 1 users said yes
  2. tug
    Aug 8, 2008
    2
    This movie is ridiculous. Predictable, boring and the exact same imagery and themes as most other Japanese horror remakes. Almost no redeeming qualities. We laughed out loud more than a couple of times watching the awkward attempts to scare.
    • 0 of 0 users said yes
  3. PatrickL.
    Mar 24, 2008
    8
    A pretty good remake! In some ways, better than the original! Critics seem to miss the point!!
    • 0 of 0 users said yes
  4. ChristianD.
    Mar 31, 2008
    0
    Anyone who gives this a good rating is either a plant, or has really low standards when it comes to viewing a film. i'd rather tip my waiter 11more dollars than give it to whoever directed this abortion.
    • 0 of 0 users said yes
  5. TN
    Apr 25, 2008
    2
    I saw the original version from Thailand. And I have to say this film disgrace everything the original version owns. It tries to ride on a high of J-horror show which I believe it's now saturated and forgot the real origin of the movie which make the matter worse. When I saw the original one, it scare the shite out of me, but for this version, I dosed off. Can't hollywood respect the original material and stick to it? So far, all those Asian horror (or any other Asian film for that matter) movies that I have seen remade by Hollywood are all crap. I have to say this, just import the original and screen as is would be a much better idea. Expand
    • 0 of 0 users said yes
  6. JmaesL.
    Jul 24, 2008
    8
    Unlike what most american critics say in general they dont have an open mind of asian directors and stories. They have just the typical hollywood style filmaking that they are used to. This is an example of a good horror story which these american critics and american movie goers are not used to.
    • 0 of 0 users said yes
  7. jvjhh
    Mar 21, 2008
    10
    This movie rocks! and the original rocks too!
    • 0 of 0 users said yes
  8. [Anonymous]
    Mar 21, 2008
    3
    I can't say I was disappointed because I didn't go to the see the move with very high expectations. You really can't expect much out of horror flicks these days. But anyways, while the movie was maybe even halfway done I had the whole thing figured out, the plot has been used a million times and all the scares are, hey look out behind you scares.
    • 0 of 0 users said yes
  9. Devin
    Mar 22, 2008
    1
    Lifeless, scareless, dull, and predictable. The acting, directing, writing, lighting, directing, editing, and sound are ALL poor. This film is a fraud and a shambles from the ground up. Why has hollywood become so useless with regard to horror films?
    • 0 of 0 users said yes
  10. ChadS.
    Mar 22, 2008
    2
    She ain't heavy, she's my crazy ex-Japanese girlfriend. Benjamin(Joshua Jackson) has neck pains, and a past. He and his blushing bride aren't exactly the sharpest pencils in the box. Jane(Lisa Whelchel, I mean, Rachael Taylor) looks genuinely surprised that her hubbie's old girlfriend is in the same shape as Norman Bates' mother. That's why they call it spirit photography, honey. Jane is either xenophobic, or stupid, or a stupid xenophobic. She wonders aloud if the Japanese eat ice cream. She also thinks the clothing that the woman she (not "we", Jane, YOU hit that pedestrian, not HE, your husband, who was asleep at the time) ran over was wearing clothing that seemed inappropriate(Jane, you're in JAPAN) at the time. "Shutter" isn't scary, but that's because the film doesn't work very hard. It takes short cuts. At Benjamin's place of employment, Jane shows her ghostly photographs to Benjamin's assistant, whose ex-boyfriend just happens to be the editor of a spiritual photography magazine. When "Shutter" isn't being scary, it's busy not being "Lost in Translation", too. Jane's walking tour of the Tokyo pavement recalls Scarlett Johannson in the Sofia Coppola movie. Scarlett Johannson went to a Shintoist temple. Jane goes to a pachinko parlour, and takes a picture...of HERSELF! You'll shudder at "Shutter" with exasperation, not fright. But this will probably be the only chance you'll ever get to see an ex-cast member of "Dawson's Creek" speak Japanese. Expand
    • 0 of 0 users said yes
  11. GenaC.
    Mar 22, 2008
    10
    Surprisingly this is a good remake !
    • 0 of 1 users said yes
  12. DavidW
    Mar 23, 2008
    3
    Easy to predict what's going to happen, this movie had nothing new, lame plot.
    • 0 of 1 users said yes
  13. MartinC.
    Mar 24, 2008
    9
    As far as Asian remakes go this is one of the best ones - much better than films like Pulse. Creepy atmosphere, great score, definitely worth checking out.
    • 0 of 0 users said yes
  14. SeanC.
    Mar 31, 2008
    2
    Pretty cookie cutter with the overacting by all the major players. The films doesn't seem to want to scare. Pretty boring... If you really want to see it, wait till dvd and let your friend buy it, then borrow it. Don't waste your money.
    • 0 of 0 users said yes
  15. JacobS.
    Aug 10, 2008
    2
    It really is sad the movies that pass for horror these days. Apparently people that give the green light for modern movies like these seem to think horror movie goers have the IQ of a football. Maybe the Hollywood machine is just assuming that we don't like variety. Whatever the reason, give me a random oldschool Sam Neil flick over this any day. ( I'm of course referring to the In the mouth of madness/Event Horizon days of course ), I've never seen the movie this was based on, so take my feedback as such. As far as American movies go, this movie randomly splices together elements of "The Grudge", "What Lies Beneath" and "The Ring", and it does so pretty badly. It’s simply as predictable as you can get, we're talking you'll know what's up within 15 minutes and the occasional spooky moments just aren't spooky enough to keep you interested. If you are starving for a decent horror flick (and who isn’t with today’s selection) you may want to check it out, but don’t expect much. Expand
    • 0 of 0 users said yes
  16. RileyG.
    Mar 21, 2008
    0
    Worst film I've seen it a while.
    • 0 of 0 users said yes
  17. DD
    Mar 21, 2008
    2
    Thai Version would be so much much much better.
    • 0 of 0 users said yes
  18. RM
    Mar 23, 2008
    2
    This movie made me and all my friends stand up out of our chairs!!!....and get a refund......not a good movie.
    • 0 of 0 users said yes
  19. JeremyS.
    Mar 29, 2008
    9
    I liked it, its not really a horror, like I figured it would be, but its still good.
    • 0 of 0 users said yes
Metascore

Generally unfavorable - based on 12 Critics

Critic score distribution:
  1. Positive: 2 out of 12
  2. Negative: 4 out of 12
  1. 75
    Surprisingly effective supernatural tale in which there's more to fear from the living than the dead.
  2. Genuine scares are few and far between, and the climactic explanation for the ghost's appearances comes as something less than a revelation.
  3. Reviewed by: Dennis Harvey
    40
    A blandly cast and crafted remake of the same-titled 2004 Thai pic that itself emulated J-horror norms, which seemed a lot fresher back then.