Pulse

Niether weak, nor poorly done, this is a brilliant arthouse horror film. The bad reviews just didn't get it! 2005-10-18 If you like your movies to be dark, surreal, mysterious, moody, paranoid unsettling, mythical, open to interpretation, and above all, an "experience" MORE than a "piece of entertainment", then you should see "Pulse" (aka "Octane").
If you're looking for a straightforward "Jeepers Creepers" standard horror movie popcorn entertainment piffle piece, then you're approaching this from the wrong direction, and you will most assuredly be disappointed.

A work of art does not have to be a "masterpiece." But, for some reason or other, people have taken the plain statement of explanation (or fact) "it's a work of art" to mean the "it" of which they are speaking is a "masterpiece." Odd, the English language, how nuances will creep into a phrase making it a cliché with little semblance to the truth.
There are movies made to be movies, a thing you pay money for to be entertained by. Movies like "Diehard," meant to be only a movie, a business transaction, "here's my 8 bucks, entertain me."
Then there are movies made to be art, a thing you "experience" and possibly, but but by no means necessarily, "enjoy." A thing you are affected by, but not necessarily "entertained" by.

"Here's my 8 bucks, let me 'experience' something."

Such a film is "Octane" (cinema title) "Pulse" (DVD title).
(And perhaps the re-titling of the film relates this as well, "Octane" being a title for a Bruce Willis action movie, and "Pulse" being a title for an art film. Or, if you need it explained more; octane=fule, blood=fule, the cult is after blood. Or, pulse, the pulse of blood the cult is hunting.)

This movie isn't made to be "Jeeper's Creepers" it's made to be "The Hunger" or, even better, the vampire road-movie "Near Dark." A motion picture intended to be a motion painting, a musical journey, and an emotional experience.
Therefore, it is very difficult to speak of such a film in terms of "good" or "bad." It makes much more sense to talk about how you were affected by the experience of the film. And you have to be, absolutely must be OPEN MINDED to allow that to happen.
Talking about how poorly the film held up compared to boring comical made-up film school textbook "standards" imposed by the critic makes very little sense indeed. To say it wasn't edited up to professional standards or its plot wasn't linear according to writing standards or to say the ending didn't make sense in terms of how "standard" films have straightforward logical endings. . .all of this is just so much "dancing about architecture." (All that aside, to speak in the critics language, I saw NO evidence of poor editing, weak story, or confusing ending).
But if you talk about how the editing made you feel uneasy, on edge, confused, even wired as if you were on too much caffeine or had been popping speed (just like Madeline Stowe's character). . .if you talk about how the story line jumping all around to different sequences that didn't seem to make much sense (but later made perfect sense when all was revealed) made you feel confused and as if you were in a dream state. . .if you talk about how the music seemed to almost overpower the dialogue and sound effects in some instances and cause you to feel off kilter and slightly disassociated from the "reality" of the film. . .all of this is much more on target.
Feeling, experience.
I don't think you can say a movie like this was bad the way you can say a work of pure entertainment like "Jeepers Creepers" fell apart in the third act and was therefore a "bad movie." This kind of film is really more of a case of you either like it, or you don't but either way you appreciated the experience.
Or, even better, you got it, or you didn't get it. And, as is the case with most artistically oriented cinema, all the bad reviews I've read so far add up to people just not getting it. And why? Because they approach it looking for logic, reason, things to be explained to them, spoon fed to them, for it to follow these made-up "standards" of "how it's supposed to be."

Leave all that behind, and take a ride down a dark highway for no other reason than to see where it leads you. After all, its not about the destination, its all about the journey.

Now. . .I'd like to know the source of this conspiracy theory that 60% of the film, that 60% allegedly including a large portion of key actor performance sequences, was shot 2nd unit with actors wearing the same clothes for continuity and "going through generic emotions." That's just pereposterous!
First of all, the film takes place over several hours in ONE NIGHT, thus the lack of wardrobe changes (duh) for "most" of the characters. (However, Mischa and Bijou have do have a couple of wardrobe changes.)
Second, this description of reaction shots patched in and seeming out of place and not making sense is nowhere to be seen in the film I watched. Stowe and Mischa appear "dazed and confused" becuase their CHARACTERS ARE "dazed and confused!" (double-duh) and nowhere does it even remotely appear these reactions were cut and pasted in. I saw no continuity errors or ANY sign that the editor had some kind of chore matching these "supposed" out of place reaction shots to either the actors performances or the action. It was seamless, cohesive, and perfectly choherant in terms of editing and performance consistancy.
I dismiss this claim as ridiculous, unfounded, and untrue.
I'm certain that a good portion of this film, perhaps even this alleged 60% WAS shot 2nd unit AS ARE ANY films with as much action, outside locations, and vehicle action shots are, not to mention the tedious task of filming all of these sequences at night on location on the highway. This is done so that the 1st unit can focus on the "performance of the actors" instead of how to orchestrate semi-trucks and cars driving and crashing here and there.
But this wild idea that the actual acting performances were done cut and paste by different units with "generic" emotion shots is just plain silly. There's no evidence of that anywhere in this film.

And, just for the record, it's impossible to give a woman as exquisite as Madeleine Stowe a "bad haircut." Just ain't possible. And accusing Mischa of being "ugly" is just sinful. (tripple-duh on you, hehe)

- Amazon