There was little closure; what happened to the three, evil ghosts? It had little dialog, and thus, it did not bring out Keaton's great acting talent. However, it was scary, and the music was impeccably timed. It reminded me of the movie, Frequency. When are they going to give Keaton some better roles? Quicksand and, now, this? If you want to see Keaton in some other films, watch Night Shift (funny), Clean and Sober (tragic), and The Paper (crazy). If you want to see some better written, new scary movies, watch Signs and What Lies Beneath. However, if you just want to go to the movies to be scared, the film is worth the money; it does keep you on the edge of your seat.
413 Reviews
I wouldn't exactly call it cinematic pleasure.....but I sorta liked it!
Danny-Rodriguez7 February 2006
Michael Keaton gives a good performance as architect Jonathan Rivers. I found the movie good and thrilling at times but it somehow lost its phase in the end. But then again that's also the case with many films like Timecop and Hard Cash.
Storywise the movie was quite good. The idea of a device which can record our personalities after death is quite interesting. A quote by Thomas Edison made in 1928, which is used in the beginning of the movie, states: "Nobody knows whether our personalities pass on to another existence or sphere, but if we can evolve an instrument so delicate as to be manipulated by our personality as it survives in the next life such an instrument ought to record something." The concept of E.V.P.; (Electronic Voice Phenomenon) is elaborated on through the entire movie and it leaves us still thinking.
The directing and the way it's written holds up pretty good up until about 2/3 in the movie. The characters and Michael's acting as a father is quite good and not flawed in any way. The story flows in a good and convincing way. But it's in the end where it starts to get a little hectic. There's a twist to the story which sorta destroys the original set up and it becomes a tad....well dull and inconsistent to be perfectly blunt.
But all in all this is an enjoyable film. Just don't expect to be blown away.
Storywise the movie was quite good. The idea of a device which can record our personalities after death is quite interesting. A quote by Thomas Edison made in 1928, which is used in the beginning of the movie, states: "Nobody knows whether our personalities pass on to another existence or sphere, but if we can evolve an instrument so delicate as to be manipulated by our personality as it survives in the next life such an instrument ought to record something." The concept of E.V.P.; (Electronic Voice Phenomenon) is elaborated on through the entire movie and it leaves us still thinking.
The directing and the way it's written holds up pretty good up until about 2/3 in the movie. The characters and Michael's acting as a father is quite good and not flawed in any way. The story flows in a good and convincing way. But it's in the end where it starts to get a little hectic. There's a twist to the story which sorta destroys the original set up and it becomes a tad....well dull and inconsistent to be perfectly blunt.
But all in all this is an enjoyable film. Just don't expect to be blown away.
Too Little, Too late.
Zaphod_4214 January 2005
I first heard about White Noise when I saw the TV advert. Before then I didn't even know it existed. I watched the trailer online and decided that I would go and see it. Now being a fan of films like The Sixth Sense, I thought that this film would give me everything I wanted. It has Michael Keaton in it, and he rocks. Unfortunately the film did not deliver. It tried to be another Sixth Sense or Stir of Echoes, and failed miserably. It has a very promising start, but the middle just drags on repeating itself, and ends with a completely poor twist which any monkey could have figured out. Unfortunately like most "Scary" films nowadays it relies on loud noises and bangs to make the audience jump. This film could have been so much more. It's a shame because it was a good idea.
An intriguing subject gone haywire *1/2
JoeKarlosi9 January 2005
What a shame it is when a potentially captivating and refreshingly low-key story manages to latch onto your interest at the start and then gradually lets you down further and further until you're left scratching your mystified head by the time it reaches its overdone conclusion. Unfortunately, this is what happened to me by the end of WHITE NOISE.
It wasn't Michael Keaton's fault; it was a pleasure to see him return as the star of a brand new movie once again, looking a bit wrinkled perhaps, but still managing to give a strong and sincere performance. As a man whose wife has recently died, he becomes obsessed with her wandering spirit in the afterlife (not a new idea), apparently getting contacted by her through that funky electrical fuzz business you see on your television screen when there's nothing being broadcast.
The idea of spirits communicating via the airwaves is called EVP (Electronic Voice Phenomena) and there are a lot of people who actually believe in it for real, so I'm not going to make any comments about what I think of that, or them. Let me just say that I'm all for suspension of disbelief when it comes to buying into fantastic films like this, but what I can't tolerate is not understanding what the hell was supposed to be taking place, which is about where I was left stranded when the credits finally began to roll. Much static indeed.
There are occasionally movies like this that have me completely baffled, but if a film fails to make itself clear for me, I tend to consider that to be the fault of the filmmaker, not my own (unless I watched it while I was too tired to focus or something). Well, for WHITE NOISE I was wide awake, bright-eyed and bushy-tailed -- so guess who's to blame?
It wasn't Michael Keaton's fault; it was a pleasure to see him return as the star of a brand new movie once again, looking a bit wrinkled perhaps, but still managing to give a strong and sincere performance. As a man whose wife has recently died, he becomes obsessed with her wandering spirit in the afterlife (not a new idea), apparently getting contacted by her through that funky electrical fuzz business you see on your television screen when there's nothing being broadcast.
The idea of spirits communicating via the airwaves is called EVP (Electronic Voice Phenomena) and there are a lot of people who actually believe in it for real, so I'm not going to make any comments about what I think of that, or them. Let me just say that I'm all for suspension of disbelief when it comes to buying into fantastic films like this, but what I can't tolerate is not understanding what the hell was supposed to be taking place, which is about where I was left stranded when the credits finally began to roll. Much static indeed.
There are occasionally movies like this that have me completely baffled, but if a film fails to make itself clear for me, I tend to consider that to be the fault of the filmmaker, not my own (unless I watched it while I was too tired to focus or something). Well, for WHITE NOISE I was wide awake, bright-eyed and bushy-tailed -- so guess who's to blame?
Works because of set design, cinematography and atmosphere
BrandtSponseller20 January 2005
Jonathan Rivers (Michael Keaton) is a successful architect. His wife, Anna (Chandra West) is an even more successful novelist. When Anna goes missing one night, they fear she is dead. Suddenly, an odd man named Raymond Price (Ian McNeice) shows up and tells Jonathan that his wife has been trying to contact him from "the other side", via Electronic Voice Phenomena (EVPs). Rivers also gradually gets wrapped up in EVPs, which lead him to some unusual situations and the heart of a mystery.
I had a very divided reaction to White Noise. Some aspects were excellent, but in many ways, the film had potential that was never actualized. There are also some flaws that kept drawing me out of the film's universe. Overall I felt the film worked, but probably not as writer Niall Johnson and director Geoffrey Sax intended.
Let's talk about what the film did right first. The major assets, as mentioned in the title of my review, were the production/set design, cinematography and overall atmosphere. The latter largely hinges on the first two. The production/set design and cinematography were nearly perfect. Everything was focused on the idea of white noise, especially the most well known visual depiction of white noise--television "static" or "snow". The credits introduced a motif of jarring intrusions of white noise, which occasionally recurred throughout the film (although perhaps not enough). There were clever instantiations of a visual "white noise" theme in the sets, such as the outside waterfall on the lower level of Jonathan's apartment building, and the wall of glass blocks inside his apartment. The color scheme was white, silver and blue, washed out so that the film had an almost black and white feel. There were also more abstract references to white noise, such as the running water motif (water dynamics are mathematically chaotic, as is white noise, which is also thought of as being literally random), and the arcing electricity. All of this combined to provide a wonderful, gloomy atmosphere, and in another film, would easily compensate for any minor flaws to bring the film up to a 10.
However, there are a number of problems with White Noise. Keaton's performance was the major sticking point for me. He seems aloof and brooding throughout the entire film. While that may have been perfect for Batman, it doesn't work for me here. Both McNeice and Deborah Kara Unger (as Sarah Tate) were fine, but their roles were minor enough to not be able to carry the film. I usually like Keaton a lot, and I can't say that I dislike him here, but his performance is very odd and off-putting.
Another problem was the pacing. For a long time, White Noise may as well have been a realist drama. While that's fine for other films, it also doesn't tend to work in a horror/thriller. The only directors I've seen really able to pull that combination off effectively are Alfred Hitchcock and M. Night Shyamalan. It takes so long to get to the horror/thriller part of the story that many people likely either lose interest by that point, or they're interested because they'd rather see a realist drama, and the more supernatural ending will be unsatisfying for them. The pacing also doesn't fit with the white noise/chaos motif. This is a film that should have been edited like a Michael Bay vehicle.
Finally, I had a number of problems with the story. One, there are quite a few superfluous elements (such as Jonathan's son). Two, although I'm not someone who usually complains about genre combinations, there was an attempt to make White Noise both a "benevolent spirit" story, ala Ghost (1990) and a Ring (2002)-like otherworldly threat. The two just didn't meld. Three, the thriller aspect, which enters primarily at the climax of the film, seems too tacked on to engender an appropriate emotional reaction from the audience. And four, the supernatural aspects and especially the "twist revelation" of the ending are very rushed and unpleasantly ambiguous, possibly in an attempt to hide the fact that the plot in these respects wasn't very well thought out. There is a tremendous amount of potential in the script, and it is entertaining enough to marginally recommend, but this seems more like an early draft that was rushed to completion, or possibly a film that suffered a lot of studio meddling.
The bottom line is that while there are enough positive elements to make White Noise worth a watch to serious genre fans and students of film-making, do not expect the story to grab you by the short and curlies, and do not expect much of a resolution. Enjoy the film primarily for its visuals. I'm generously rating the film a 7 out of 10.
I had a very divided reaction to White Noise. Some aspects were excellent, but in many ways, the film had potential that was never actualized. There are also some flaws that kept drawing me out of the film's universe. Overall I felt the film worked, but probably not as writer Niall Johnson and director Geoffrey Sax intended.
Let's talk about what the film did right first. The major assets, as mentioned in the title of my review, were the production/set design, cinematography and overall atmosphere. The latter largely hinges on the first two. The production/set design and cinematography were nearly perfect. Everything was focused on the idea of white noise, especially the most well known visual depiction of white noise--television "static" or "snow". The credits introduced a motif of jarring intrusions of white noise, which occasionally recurred throughout the film (although perhaps not enough). There were clever instantiations of a visual "white noise" theme in the sets, such as the outside waterfall on the lower level of Jonathan's apartment building, and the wall of glass blocks inside his apartment. The color scheme was white, silver and blue, washed out so that the film had an almost black and white feel. There were also more abstract references to white noise, such as the running water motif (water dynamics are mathematically chaotic, as is white noise, which is also thought of as being literally random), and the arcing electricity. All of this combined to provide a wonderful, gloomy atmosphere, and in another film, would easily compensate for any minor flaws to bring the film up to a 10.
However, there are a number of problems with White Noise. Keaton's performance was the major sticking point for me. He seems aloof and brooding throughout the entire film. While that may have been perfect for Batman, it doesn't work for me here. Both McNeice and Deborah Kara Unger (as Sarah Tate) were fine, but their roles were minor enough to not be able to carry the film. I usually like Keaton a lot, and I can't say that I dislike him here, but his performance is very odd and off-putting.
Another problem was the pacing. For a long time, White Noise may as well have been a realist drama. While that's fine for other films, it also doesn't tend to work in a horror/thriller. The only directors I've seen really able to pull that combination off effectively are Alfred Hitchcock and M. Night Shyamalan. It takes so long to get to the horror/thriller part of the story that many people likely either lose interest by that point, or they're interested because they'd rather see a realist drama, and the more supernatural ending will be unsatisfying for them. The pacing also doesn't fit with the white noise/chaos motif. This is a film that should have been edited like a Michael Bay vehicle.
Finally, I had a number of problems with the story. One, there are quite a few superfluous elements (such as Jonathan's son). Two, although I'm not someone who usually complains about genre combinations, there was an attempt to make White Noise both a "benevolent spirit" story, ala Ghost (1990) and a Ring (2002)-like otherworldly threat. The two just didn't meld. Three, the thriller aspect, which enters primarily at the climax of the film, seems too tacked on to engender an appropriate emotional reaction from the audience. And four, the supernatural aspects and especially the "twist revelation" of the ending are very rushed and unpleasantly ambiguous, possibly in an attempt to hide the fact that the plot in these respects wasn't very well thought out. There is a tremendous amount of potential in the script, and it is entertaining enough to marginally recommend, but this seems more like an early draft that was rushed to completion, or possibly a film that suffered a lot of studio meddling.
The bottom line is that while there are enough positive elements to make White Noise worth a watch to serious genre fans and students of film-making, do not expect the story to grab you by the short and curlies, and do not expect much of a resolution. Enjoy the film primarily for its visuals. I'm generously rating the film a 7 out of 10.
Definitely worth seeing but could have been great
SmithWrite9 January 2005
Warning: Spoilers
I loved the first 3/4 of this movie for its emotional depth as well as creepiness, which showed it had the potential be another "The Sixth Sense" in terms of a film that could both scary and moving. However as happens with so many horror/suspense films, especially those involving supernatural elements, the scriptwriter and/or director eventually abandoned the rules by which they were playing in favor of a conventional "anything goes" Hollywood ending, thereby robbing the film of its credibility and emotional depth.
(SPOILER ALERT -- SPOILER -- SPOILER -- SPOILER -- SPOILER -- SPOILER) In the part of the movie that works, the concept is established that people who have died can communicate with the living through electronic means, ranging from simple things and ambiguous such as turning electronic devices on or off to actual aural messages and visuals. The film nicely develops Jonathan (Michael Keaton's) passage from disbeliever to someone who has had his grief assuaged by learning his loved one still exists, then takes the further turn to show how someone could become obsessed with these communications, even to the point of ignoring the emotional needs of his child. It also raises the concept that the person receiving the messages may be so eager to hear them that they do not recognize the possibility the messages are being manipulated by someone with less benign intentions.
(SPOILER -- SPOILER -- SPOILER -- SPOILER -- SPOILER -- SPOILER) Eventually the movie veers away from the central concept (dead people communicating with loved ones) to include live people near death sending help messages about real-time occurrences, then further to include messages about future occurrences, which may or may not be avoidable. While some of this was definitely chilling, the film lost me when it broke the central rule (dead people can only communicate through electronic means) to allow the forces of evil to take on corporal forms.
(SPOILER -- SPOILER -- SPOILER -- SPOILER -- SPOILER - SPOILER) What is particularly irksome is that the film could have stayed within its rules and still put its main characters in physical jeopardy. For example, instead of having Sarah threatened by a dark form somehow sneaking into her bedroom and either psychically or actually physically causing her jump from the window, why couldn't she have been threatened by electronic means (i.e. having the electrical system in her cut off while driving on the freeway.) Or causing an accident by spooking her. In the form of the very much alive workman who was abducting the women, they had a way to explain all the non-electrical damage that occurred (such as the vandalism of Jonathan's equipment) including a reasonable motive (the villain had allowed his obsession with the subject matter to carry him over into evil) without resorting to supernatural creatures. As it was, I didn't find the ending one bit believable, and when a movie fails to make me feel as though a threat could be real, it also ceases to be frightening.
(SPOILER ALERT -- SPOILER -- SPOILER -- SPOILER -- SPOILER -- SPOILER) In the part of the movie that works, the concept is established that people who have died can communicate with the living through electronic means, ranging from simple things and ambiguous such as turning electronic devices on or off to actual aural messages and visuals. The film nicely develops Jonathan (Michael Keaton's) passage from disbeliever to someone who has had his grief assuaged by learning his loved one still exists, then takes the further turn to show how someone could become obsessed with these communications, even to the point of ignoring the emotional needs of his child. It also raises the concept that the person receiving the messages may be so eager to hear them that they do not recognize the possibility the messages are being manipulated by someone with less benign intentions.
(SPOILER -- SPOILER -- SPOILER -- SPOILER -- SPOILER -- SPOILER) Eventually the movie veers away from the central concept (dead people communicating with loved ones) to include live people near death sending help messages about real-time occurrences, then further to include messages about future occurrences, which may or may not be avoidable. While some of this was definitely chilling, the film lost me when it broke the central rule (dead people can only communicate through electronic means) to allow the forces of evil to take on corporal forms.
(SPOILER -- SPOILER -- SPOILER -- SPOILER -- SPOILER - SPOILER) What is particularly irksome is that the film could have stayed within its rules and still put its main characters in physical jeopardy. For example, instead of having Sarah threatened by a dark form somehow sneaking into her bedroom and either psychically or actually physically causing her jump from the window, why couldn't she have been threatened by electronic means (i.e. having the electrical system in her cut off while driving on the freeway.) Or causing an accident by spooking her. In the form of the very much alive workman who was abducting the women, they had a way to explain all the non-electrical damage that occurred (such as the vandalism of Jonathan's equipment) including a reasonable motive (the villain had allowed his obsession with the subject matter to carry him over into evil) without resorting to supernatural creatures. As it was, I didn't find the ending one bit believable, and when a movie fails to make me feel as though a threat could be real, it also ceases to be frightening.
Better to watch actual static for two hours
bluemonkdizzy13 January 2005
Warning: Spoilers
Absolutely one of the worst movies of the year. The plot is ridiculous, the characters poorly developed, and the premise irritatingly stupid. It all begins when Michael Keaton, fresh off of doing nothing noteworthy since Batman, loses his beautiful author wife, Anna, to a car accident, possibly caused by her driving one of those convertible VW bugs even though she's supposed to be rich. In his grief, Batman moves to a new apartment and takes up a hobby: recording nothing and then watching it. He learned this from a really fat pathetic guy who got murdered by three tall shadowy fellows who lived in his TV. Pretty soon, he starts to see dead people, thanks to EVP, or Electronic Voice Phenomenon, which is evidently this deal wherein dead people can send messages to living people through tape recorders, video cameras, dead cell phones ("Anna cell calling? But she's...DEAD!...Must be ghosts. Mhmmm. No other possible explanation. I'd better start messing around with this indiscriminately.") etc. Why they can't just write something down on a piece of paper or knock over some stuff to form creative pictograms is never explained. ANyway, eventually Batman discovers that he's actually seeing the future, and he decides to go help this woman he doesn't know. He gets out of his house just in the nick of time, because the tall dark guys enter just after he leaves ("D*mn it! Can travel between the living and dead using electronics, but I'll be d*mned if we can be on time! Am I right guys? (They nod in bemused agreement)."). He tracks this lady to a warehouse and finds out that this character from the first ten minutes of the movie (look hard, or you'll miss him!) is actually a serial killer working for three tall shadowy demons, who in Raiders of the Lost Ark style swoop down and kill him, looking like the cartoons that they are. Just then some detectives show up and save the lady. After Batman's funeral, he decides to send a message from beyond the grave apologizing to his son for being an idiot, evidently feeling that the best way to protect his kid from the horrors of EVP is to expose him to it. The little kid just smiles. Nothing phases that dude, not even when his dad, Batman of course, starts talking to TV's. The high-point of the movie was when someone's phone rang and some guy yelled out, "It's Anna!"
Creepy
darkdementress17 October 2020
Legitimately creepy and unsettling without trying to hard or relying on female nudity to try and sell a lame story like most horror movies! I was on a marathon of horror movies and watched final destination, the gift, it lurks below, and this and this movie was the best by far. It made sense, it was logical, it was creepy, decent acting and based on reality but with amped up supernatural stuff and no nudity! Recommended :)
Exciting idea is wasted.
loomis78-815-98903430 July 2014
Warning: Spoilers
Jonathan Rivers (Keaton) world turns upside down when his author wife (Chandra West) is found dead of an apparent accident. His grief turns him to a man named Raymond (McNeice) who does experiments with EVP Electronic Voice Phenomena. This phenomenon allows the dead to communicate with the living through machines and electronics. Raymond tells Jonathan that he is getting messages from his wife which drives him to invest in equipment and see, or hear for himself. This leads to an unhealthy obsession that gets out of hand fast. The EVP in this script is a cool idea and early on Director Geoffrey Sax uses this for a few solid jump scares and some genuine creepy moments. Unfortunately it runs out of steam quickly after these first few scenes. The second half of this movie just mail's it in and it definitely misses a good opportunity. The sound design is excellent but it is wasted on scenes that are just simply dull. The script is way too involved in Jonathan's obsession with the EVP and a simpler and straight forward approach by the writers and director would have helped a lot. This is certainly watchable, but instantly forgettable.
Chilling and effective.
meako19735 January 2005
White Noise is a film that takes a true scientific phenomenon, and makes a film out of it. The phenomenon is one which involves electronic recording/broadcast equipment. In amongst white-noise (that crackle and hiss you get on a blank recording) and static on untuned TV reception there are voices and images discernible. Sometimes these voices have been clear enough to work out, and many people believe they are the voices and images of those who have died, trying to contact the living.
In the film, Michael Keaton plays Jonathan Rivers, an estate agent who loses his wife. When he is approached by Raymond, a man who lost his son years ago and claims he has heard from Jonathan's wife, it draws him into the phenomenon, and pretty soon he becomes obsessed, recording his own tapes and viewing/listening to them for messages. Then, suddenly, the messages become clear, and seem to be premonitions. Can he decipher the meaning of the messages, or will he disturb something best left alone? I was uncertain going into the film what to expect. Too many times the film world have come up with a great concept, but failed to deliver anything more than mediocre when it is a horror subject. Expecting another Godsend, I was pleasantly surprised to find a pretty good film, with some nice touches, and chills. Admittedly the story wouldn't look out of place on X-Files, but unlike the recent The Forgotten, it manages to feel complete, and doesn't seem to take the easy option at the end.
The direction by Sax (best know for his TV work such as Tipping the Velvet, Dr Who, Clocking Off, and Spitting Image to name a few) is more than sufficient, and he uses the white-noise to great effect. A little buzz here, and flicker there all serve to unnerve, and you could be forgiven for thinking you are watching another Japanese adaptation. There are a lot of similarities to eastern horror throughout, the use of silence the unnerve, the distorted images in the TV sets, and so on. Only the occasion "music to let you know you should jump" lets down the tone.
Nevertheless, with a well woven script which doesn't pander to the lowest denominator, and a sterling performance from Michael Keaton, who hasn't really had a presence on the screen since 1998s Jack Frost, make this an enjoyable little movie which deserves a viewing or two.
In the film, Michael Keaton plays Jonathan Rivers, an estate agent who loses his wife. When he is approached by Raymond, a man who lost his son years ago and claims he has heard from Jonathan's wife, it draws him into the phenomenon, and pretty soon he becomes obsessed, recording his own tapes and viewing/listening to them for messages. Then, suddenly, the messages become clear, and seem to be premonitions. Can he decipher the meaning of the messages, or will he disturb something best left alone? I was uncertain going into the film what to expect. Too many times the film world have come up with a great concept, but failed to deliver anything more than mediocre when it is a horror subject. Expecting another Godsend, I was pleasantly surprised to find a pretty good film, with some nice touches, and chills. Admittedly the story wouldn't look out of place on X-Files, but unlike the recent The Forgotten, it manages to feel complete, and doesn't seem to take the easy option at the end.
The direction by Sax (best know for his TV work such as Tipping the Velvet, Dr Who, Clocking Off, and Spitting Image to name a few) is more than sufficient, and he uses the white-noise to great effect. A little buzz here, and flicker there all serve to unnerve, and you could be forgiven for thinking you are watching another Japanese adaptation. There are a lot of similarities to eastern horror throughout, the use of silence the unnerve, the distorted images in the TV sets, and so on. Only the occasion "music to let you know you should jump" lets down the tone.
Nevertheless, with a well woven script which doesn't pander to the lowest denominator, and a sterling performance from Michael Keaton, who hasn't really had a presence on the screen since 1998s Jack Frost, make this an enjoyable little movie which deserves a viewing or two.
not even good for a nap
loveletterbomb13 January 2005
Warning: Spoilers
I frequently comment on the utter dirth of truly scary movies on the market, and sadly White Noise only served to reduce my faith that the film industry remains capable of such an endeavor. I was surprised to find myself growingly increasingly fatigued as the plot wore on and my static-induced headache increased. I found White Noise to be preposterous beyond our best efforts of suspension of disbelief. Even after witnessing the harrowing ordeal sustained by Michael Keaton, I was totally unaffected by his demise. Up until the credits I diligently awaited for something--anything-- of substance to connect me to the characters' story, but such relief never came. Sure, there were the occasional heart-stopper moments, but only because loud noises tend to do that to the dozing viewer.
While the acting was lame, Michael Keaton may have played his studliest role to date. Perhaps the only redeeming quality that White Noise has to offer is the stunning archietecture in both of Keaton's abodes. Overall, White Noise leaves one with the morbidly depressing idea that those who die are trapped in a world guarded by three malicious shadows, contriving to trick the living into following the dead to their own graves.
While the acting was lame, Michael Keaton may have played his studliest role to date. Perhaps the only redeeming quality that White Noise has to offer is the stunning archietecture in both of Keaton's abodes. Overall, White Noise leaves one with the morbidly depressing idea that those who die are trapped in a world guarded by three malicious shadows, contriving to trick the living into following the dead to their own graves.
Are some voices better off not being heard?
TheMovieMark7 January 2005
Interesting. Intense. Somewhat original. All words to describe a conversation with Johnny Betts. But they also apply to Michael Keaton's White Noise. What we have here is a ghost story that tackles the subject of electronic voice phenomenon, or, as the cool kids like to call it - EVP.
For those of you who, unlike Johnny Betts, aren't master ghost hunters, EVP is the alleged communication by spirits through the white noise of staticky radio stations, television stations, and other electronic devices. People truly believe in it, and if you do a quick search on the Internet then you can find plenty of websites with audio files they say prove the existence of EVP. Detractors will brush this off with explanations of the "chaos theory" and cross modulation. I'll let you do your own research if you're interested in the subject.
If you're looking for a factual exploration of EVP's possible legitimacy, then you won't find it in White Noise. This is a movie that takes a subject popular with ghost hunters and glorifies it. It reminds me a little of The Mothman Prophecies, which was a fictionalized account of what was supposed to be a "true story." I have no problem with that. That's what movies are all about.
Michael Keaton crawls out from underneath whatever rock he's been under, does his best "Bruce Willis in The Sixth Sense" impersonation, and dives into the world of receiving messages from the dead. Folks, you can nitpick the logic to death if you want, and trust me, most critics are. "Why would he just put his successful life on hold and spend all his time trying to receive messages from his wife through a bunch of radio and TV static?" Dunno. The tragic death of a spouse can do weird things to people. Plus, you know, IT'S A MOVIE! And in the movie, he actually does receive messages from the dead. I guess he figured he'd try it; it worked, so he got more involved. Lighten up. It's called fiction.
"Yeah, well, if his wife wanted to contact him, then why wouldn't she send him clearer messages? Why does it have to be through static?" BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT EVP IS ALL ABOUT! Take it up with the proponents of EVP, not the movie. I totally agree that one of the things that makes so many people skeptical about EVP is that the messages are never complex. If I heard an EVP that said, "Tell Johnny Betts that the afterlife rules, and he should keep the Movie Mark going strong," then I'd probably be convinced. But what we get is a lot of one syllable words and sounds strung together. That's not the movie's fault. Deal with it and move on.
As some of you know, I'm a huge fan of the thriller/horror genre. Admittedly, White Noise isn't one of the best of all time in the genre, but that's OK. It didn't convince me to run home, record a static TV channel for hours, and then play it back to see if Uncle Jack was sending me a message from the great beyond. Like an apology for that little streaking stunt that completely ruined my 16th birthday party. However, what the movie did do is entertain me. The mystery is deliberately paced, it kept my interest, and it provided some creepy moments along the way.
Things start to get pretty intense near the end of the movie, and some people might not be happy with the finale. But keep in mind that trying to communicate with the dead is a bit of a dark subject. Some people, as the movie depicts, think that if they can contact their dead relatives then they'll have hope, they'll know all is right in the afterlife. They want some sort of message for closure. But I'm just curious, what if that message is, "Burning. Hell. I screwed up." ??? I'm guessing that'd be a bit of a kick in the pants.
But getting back to the movie... if there's good in the afterlife, there has to be evil as well, right? In the movie, contacting the dead initially seems harmless enough. But why would you think only the good would respond if you create that human/afterlife portal? What would happen if evil decided to communicate as well? White Noise has a viewpoint on that subject, and you can't expect everything to be cute and cuddly.
Now if you'll excuse me, I'm gonna take a closer listen to this static coming from the radio. Let's see. Sounds like Uncle Jack! I can just make it out... "Johnny. Reviews. Not funny. Quit. Now." Um, yeah, just as I thought - nothing but a little cross modulation! THE GIST White Noise is an interesting take on the ghost story, using the subject of EVP as its backdrop. It isn't what I'd call scary, but it's got its share of creepy moments and effective jump scenes. If you're looking for a docu-drama on the scientific accuracy of EVP then you might be disappointed, but if you're in the mood for a few chills to start the year then White Noise just might suit you.
Rating: 4 (out of 5)
For those of you who, unlike Johnny Betts, aren't master ghost hunters, EVP is the alleged communication by spirits through the white noise of staticky radio stations, television stations, and other electronic devices. People truly believe in it, and if you do a quick search on the Internet then you can find plenty of websites with audio files they say prove the existence of EVP. Detractors will brush this off with explanations of the "chaos theory" and cross modulation. I'll let you do your own research if you're interested in the subject.
If you're looking for a factual exploration of EVP's possible legitimacy, then you won't find it in White Noise. This is a movie that takes a subject popular with ghost hunters and glorifies it. It reminds me a little of The Mothman Prophecies, which was a fictionalized account of what was supposed to be a "true story." I have no problem with that. That's what movies are all about.
Michael Keaton crawls out from underneath whatever rock he's been under, does his best "Bruce Willis in The Sixth Sense" impersonation, and dives into the world of receiving messages from the dead. Folks, you can nitpick the logic to death if you want, and trust me, most critics are. "Why would he just put his successful life on hold and spend all his time trying to receive messages from his wife through a bunch of radio and TV static?" Dunno. The tragic death of a spouse can do weird things to people. Plus, you know, IT'S A MOVIE! And in the movie, he actually does receive messages from the dead. I guess he figured he'd try it; it worked, so he got more involved. Lighten up. It's called fiction.
"Yeah, well, if his wife wanted to contact him, then why wouldn't she send him clearer messages? Why does it have to be through static?" BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT EVP IS ALL ABOUT! Take it up with the proponents of EVP, not the movie. I totally agree that one of the things that makes so many people skeptical about EVP is that the messages are never complex. If I heard an EVP that said, "Tell Johnny Betts that the afterlife rules, and he should keep the Movie Mark going strong," then I'd probably be convinced. But what we get is a lot of one syllable words and sounds strung together. That's not the movie's fault. Deal with it and move on.
As some of you know, I'm a huge fan of the thriller/horror genre. Admittedly, White Noise isn't one of the best of all time in the genre, but that's OK. It didn't convince me to run home, record a static TV channel for hours, and then play it back to see if Uncle Jack was sending me a message from the great beyond. Like an apology for that little streaking stunt that completely ruined my 16th birthday party. However, what the movie did do is entertain me. The mystery is deliberately paced, it kept my interest, and it provided some creepy moments along the way.
Things start to get pretty intense near the end of the movie, and some people might not be happy with the finale. But keep in mind that trying to communicate with the dead is a bit of a dark subject. Some people, as the movie depicts, think that if they can contact their dead relatives then they'll have hope, they'll know all is right in the afterlife. They want some sort of message for closure. But I'm just curious, what if that message is, "Burning. Hell. I screwed up." ??? I'm guessing that'd be a bit of a kick in the pants.
But getting back to the movie... if there's good in the afterlife, there has to be evil as well, right? In the movie, contacting the dead initially seems harmless enough. But why would you think only the good would respond if you create that human/afterlife portal? What would happen if evil decided to communicate as well? White Noise has a viewpoint on that subject, and you can't expect everything to be cute and cuddly.
Now if you'll excuse me, I'm gonna take a closer listen to this static coming from the radio. Let's see. Sounds like Uncle Jack! I can just make it out... "Johnny. Reviews. Not funny. Quit. Now." Um, yeah, just as I thought - nothing but a little cross modulation! THE GIST White Noise is an interesting take on the ghost story, using the subject of EVP as its backdrop. It isn't what I'd call scary, but it's got its share of creepy moments and effective jump scenes. If you're looking for a docu-drama on the scientific accuracy of EVP then you might be disappointed, but if you're in the mood for a few chills to start the year then White Noise just might suit you.
Rating: 4 (out of 5)
White Noise is Pretty Much What I Expected
c-j-stpierre7 January 2005
If you've seen the Ring or The Sixth Sense, then you'll go into "White Noise" looking for a similar experience. This movie certainly has it's moments and it's great to see Michael Keaton back in the mainstream acting again (where had he gone?). This movie introduces a phenomenon new to me, EVP, the idea that dead people can contact us through distorted radio signals or out of tune televisions. I don't know how much proof this phenomenon has, but the movie sure does make me want to investigate it further. Keaton is enjoyable to watch as always, and has no problem filling the role and playing in a suspense movie. The suspense thriller has become very popular in the movie industry over the last few years, and they're all over the place now, so it's no secret that you might anticipate some of the BOO! out of nowhere tricks that suspense movies often use to scare you. I saw a lot of them coming, probably because I'm familiar with seeing these types of movies. Still, it's fun to be scared and if you go on a night like I did, saturated with the local high school kids, you'll even get a smile out of hearing some girls scream. I recommend seeing this film. If anything the filmmakers do accomplish having you on the edge of your seat at times, and isn't that really what you go to a suspense movie for anyway? Since when do movies like this get nominated for Oscars anyway?
"White Noise" was previewed in Portland, Oregon this evening...
Radio_Lady4 January 2005
Sorry to tell you that this movie has one of the worst scripts ever. It's just a shame, too -- because I like Michael Keaton and think he has one of the sexiest mouths I've ever seen (and I'm probably old enough to be his mother). I really wanted to like this flick since I couldn't recall the last movie I'd seen him in.
On the positive side, "White Noise" was well acted and directed. The scary effects were jolting. The music was exciting and helped to build the tension. The characters were interesting and, although I don't particularly believe in ghosts, I felt some emotional bond with this theme.
Aside from that, the movie's script makes little or no sense. The ending was unforgivably dumb and for me, the movie was a big waste of time. My husband fell asleep for the last twenty minutes, so he was in a better place for the incredibly unmotivated ending.
I didn't stay for the credits. Where was this film shot? There are no filming locations noted here at IMDb. The only clue was one character has a business card that says "Washington" and area code 206.
I'm giving it a "D" and just cannot recommend this movie. However, there are some January holdovers that may pique your interest. Try "The Aviator" -- "Kinsey" -- or "Sideways" this weekend.
See you at the movies!
On the positive side, "White Noise" was well acted and directed. The scary effects were jolting. The music was exciting and helped to build the tension. The characters were interesting and, although I don't particularly believe in ghosts, I felt some emotional bond with this theme.
Aside from that, the movie's script makes little or no sense. The ending was unforgivably dumb and for me, the movie was a big waste of time. My husband fell asleep for the last twenty minutes, so he was in a better place for the incredibly unmotivated ending.
I didn't stay for the credits. Where was this film shot? There are no filming locations noted here at IMDb. The only clue was one character has a business card that says "Washington" and area code 206.
I'm giving it a "D" and just cannot recommend this movie. However, there are some January holdovers that may pique your interest. Try "The Aviator" -- "Kinsey" -- or "Sideways" this weekend.
See you at the movies!
good moody turns into a muddle
SnoopyStyle11 July 2016
Successful architect Jonathan Rivers (Michael Keaton) is overjoyed when his wife Anna (Chandra West) reveals her pregnancy. Then she disappears. Jonathan confronts Raymond Price (Ian McNeice) who's been following him. Raymond who lost his son tells him about Electronic Voice Phenomenon and that he has received messages from Anna. Her body is found having drowned. Six months later, Jonathan moves into an apartment and strange electronic things continue. He becomes convinced about EVP. He goes to Raymond who is now helping Sarah Tate (Deborah Kara Unger) with her lost fiancé. As he obsessively decipher the electronic signals, he encounters menacing spirits and even those who are not dead quite yet.
Michael Keaton is past his early successes and is yet to gain his resurgent accolades. It's a time period when he was a has-been doing limited work. If nothing else, this movie's success shows that he can still be the lead. I really like the cold static moody atmosphere. I don't think the son is necessary but it's where the story goes that leaves me a bit cold. The spirits are a disappointment. The near-death messages idea is where the movie goes down the wrong path. The moody ghost story turns into a muddled thriller. The spirits' climatic battle is a mess. This movie starts good but ends poorly.
Michael Keaton is past his early successes and is yet to gain his resurgent accolades. It's a time period when he was a has-been doing limited work. If nothing else, this movie's success shows that he can still be the lead. I really like the cold static moody atmosphere. I don't think the son is necessary but it's where the story goes that leaves me a bit cold. The spirits are a disappointment. The near-death messages idea is where the movie goes down the wrong path. The moody ghost story turns into a muddled thriller. The spirits' climatic battle is a mess. This movie starts good but ends poorly.
An interesting misfire
dj_bassett15 January 2005
Warning: Spoilers
Keaton loses his wife tragically, is approached by a psychic who claims he's getting messages from her through the static on broadcast equipment. At first skeptical, Keaton eventually becomes obsessed, only to learn there's some down sides to the whole "Electronic Voice Phenomenon" experience.
It's an interesting premise for a horror film. Keaton is excellent, playing a nice, normal guy slowly going off the rails very convincingly. There are a couple of effective jolts and scares, especially in the middle part of the movie.
There are two main problems with the movie. One is the climax, which is absolutely horrendous, bringing in a serial killer and involving other characters in the movie in an absolutely unbelievable, contrived kind of way.
The other is that the movie tries to be serious and sober-minded about it's subject matter, which is admirable, but it's serious only in tone, not content. So we have a lengthy set up to ease us into the horror, which is a good idea -- but we also apparently are in a world where nobody thinks psychics con them. There are efforts to plug obvious plot holes, which is good, but we still have Keaton behaving like every other horror movie fruitcake, Abandoning the Woman Whom He's Sworn to Protect; Delving Into Things Man Was Not Meant To Know; Going Into The Spooky Place Alone.
In other words, the movie's not really serious -- it doesn't really want to investigate this idea intelligently. It's using "seriousness" as a pose, much as another might use "ironic". And that's a real problem, because just as you're being lulled into thinking this is something different and special, you get bumped up against some stunning stupidity that ruins the mood. Then just when you adjust to the cheesiness, we go back to seriousness again, which ruins *that* mood. And so on.
The blame I think has to go with the director, who after all controls the vibe of the movie. It's kind of depressing -- I think there's a good movie in here somewhere. Better hands might have brought it out.
It's an interesting premise for a horror film. Keaton is excellent, playing a nice, normal guy slowly going off the rails very convincingly. There are a couple of effective jolts and scares, especially in the middle part of the movie.
There are two main problems with the movie. One is the climax, which is absolutely horrendous, bringing in a serial killer and involving other characters in the movie in an absolutely unbelievable, contrived kind of way.
The other is that the movie tries to be serious and sober-minded about it's subject matter, which is admirable, but it's serious only in tone, not content. So we have a lengthy set up to ease us into the horror, which is a good idea -- but we also apparently are in a world where nobody thinks psychics con them. There are efforts to plug obvious plot holes, which is good, but we still have Keaton behaving like every other horror movie fruitcake, Abandoning the Woman Whom He's Sworn to Protect; Delving Into Things Man Was Not Meant To Know; Going Into The Spooky Place Alone.
In other words, the movie's not really serious -- it doesn't really want to investigate this idea intelligently. It's using "seriousness" as a pose, much as another might use "ironic". And that's a real problem, because just as you're being lulled into thinking this is something different and special, you get bumped up against some stunning stupidity that ruins the mood. Then just when you adjust to the cheesiness, we go back to seriousness again, which ruins *that* mood. And so on.
The blame I think has to go with the director, who after all controls the vibe of the movie. It's kind of depressing -- I think there's a good movie in here somewhere. Better hands might have brought it out.
Very good thriller.
doowop_dempsey10 November 2005
This movie was very entertaining, but it is the kind of movie you would never care to see again. Very good thriller though and I would suggest renting it. It is not a scare-you-to-death horror movie. But it is very interesting. There is some extremely tense parts and some very "shock you out of your socks" parts. Over-all it was a good movie.
The story line is very decent, but lacks the simplicity that horror-movies need.
I would classify it as a thriller/suspense not horror. It is VERY complex and,I would have to admit, I was even a little confused. I think it wise to watch it in quite. Because it is sometimes hard to catch some parts of it.
The story line is very decent, but lacks the simplicity that horror-movies need.
I would classify it as a thriller/suspense not horror. It is VERY complex and,I would have to admit, I was even a little confused. I think it wise to watch it in quite. Because it is sometimes hard to catch some parts of it.
this movie is TERRIBLE
elliehigginbottom13 January 2005
I don't think I've ever been so bowled over by the sheer absurdity of a movie in my entire life as i was when i walked out of this piece of crap. NOTHING in it makes any sense. none of it is clever or well thought out. out of lack of truly suspenseful moments they repeatedly use that total cop-out trick where you build up the music before the character does something like open a door or push aside a curtain and then nothing's there. thats OK to do once, maybe, but i counted three times. there are things thrown in for no apparent reason, characters, half-formed story lines.... the characters weren't well developed at ALL. the ending was.. bad. bad, bad, bad, everything, every component, of this film is terrible. and I'm just here to warn you all of that.
Such a shame that it doesn't do what it says on the tin.
idelhenke17 January 2005
White Noise comes across as a horror movie that tries to do something original before they are forced into doing a remake of an Asian film. It will still draw comparison with Hideo Nakata's Ring trilogy because of the static TV's but that is unfair due to the subject. The subject being Electronic Voice Phenomenon (EVP), which is a paranormal occurrence where the dead contact the living through static, recorded on the TV or a sound recording device. Original enough to make a movie about plus scary things jumping out of a static TV is relevant to the subject. Yay Hollywood. The apparent decent plot and the not-too-shabby cast headed by Michael Keaton actually had me very eager to see this, such a shame then that the movie actually doesn't do what it says on the tin.
The first half of the movie is a decent drama about the loss of a mans wife and his obsession with contacting her from beyond the grave whilst his work and the relationship with his son suffers. The second half however seems to just draw from the basic scary movie template and disappointingly swerves away from the dead contacting the living and into Keaton running around like a psychic detective in a race against time trying to save people from dark forces.
The movie opens in generic perfect home situation. Keaton plays Jonathan Rivers the successful architect who is married to his wife Anna the successful author, even his sons mother (the divorcée) has a good relationship with Mr. & Mrs. Rivers. Apart from the radio skipping to static a few times (an unused plot device?) things seem pretty rosy. Until "I love you" gets mouthed from the wife leaving the driveway taking the kid to school. Automatic dead meat. When will they learn? The police assume she slipped from the motorway, bashed her head on a rock then got taken away by the tide but Jonathan doesn't accept her death and doesn't give up hope. However, on his first day back from work since his wife went missing he is followed by a stranger whom he confronts. The stranger turns out to be some sort of expert in a phenomenon known as EVP and he says not only is Anna dead but she has been contacting him from the other side. Jonathan dismisses it until she leaves a message on his answering machine. Yeah, it is that simple. Cue Jonathan getting obsessed about finding out what her message is, mishaps happening and Jonathan getting even more obsessed over something completely different. Drawing in another believer in EVP they investigate into messages the recording equipment seems to be getting from the future.
The ending leaves the movie ridden with plot holes, which has frankly become expected of movies like this from the past few years. It could have been so much more. Perhaps the director was wary of making this film 'The Sixth Sense from the other point of view' but then again the CGI scary ghosts wouldn't work in a more subtle setting like that. The plot turns into some non-sensical slush whilst the score let's the film down. The acting wasn't the strongest either but if you want to be scared every 20 minutes by the volume being cheaply cranked up and CGI ghouls flying out of static then go spend your hard earned cash on this.
6/10 Robb Idle
The first half of the movie is a decent drama about the loss of a mans wife and his obsession with contacting her from beyond the grave whilst his work and the relationship with his son suffers. The second half however seems to just draw from the basic scary movie template and disappointingly swerves away from the dead contacting the living and into Keaton running around like a psychic detective in a race against time trying to save people from dark forces.
The movie opens in generic perfect home situation. Keaton plays Jonathan Rivers the successful architect who is married to his wife Anna the successful author, even his sons mother (the divorcée) has a good relationship with Mr. & Mrs. Rivers. Apart from the radio skipping to static a few times (an unused plot device?) things seem pretty rosy. Until "I love you" gets mouthed from the wife leaving the driveway taking the kid to school. Automatic dead meat. When will they learn? The police assume she slipped from the motorway, bashed her head on a rock then got taken away by the tide but Jonathan doesn't accept her death and doesn't give up hope. However, on his first day back from work since his wife went missing he is followed by a stranger whom he confronts. The stranger turns out to be some sort of expert in a phenomenon known as EVP and he says not only is Anna dead but she has been contacting him from the other side. Jonathan dismisses it until she leaves a message on his answering machine. Yeah, it is that simple. Cue Jonathan getting obsessed about finding out what her message is, mishaps happening and Jonathan getting even more obsessed over something completely different. Drawing in another believer in EVP they investigate into messages the recording equipment seems to be getting from the future.
The ending leaves the movie ridden with plot holes, which has frankly become expected of movies like this from the past few years. It could have been so much more. Perhaps the director was wary of making this film 'The Sixth Sense from the other point of view' but then again the CGI scary ghosts wouldn't work in a more subtle setting like that. The plot turns into some non-sensical slush whilst the score let's the film down. The acting wasn't the strongest either but if you want to be scared every 20 minutes by the volume being cheaply cranked up and CGI ghouls flying out of static then go spend your hard earned cash on this.
6/10 Robb Idle
What?
Smells_Like_Cheese16 January 2005
The idea was awesome, the actors were incredible, the story could of been very scary, but the writing was poor and there was no depth. I couldn't really get into this movie. I couldn't feel for the characters, there were a lot of cliffhangers, and the movie just ends very weirdly. Was it a happy ending? I don't know. Was it a sad ending? Again, I don't know. You leave the theater feeling unsatisfied. The movie had so much to give, but couldn't. Just because you can edit, doesn't mean you should, right? I wouldn't really recommend this movie because you just can't say that you left the movie feeling like it was completed. You'll just be confused. Trust me, you will probably thank me if you don't watch this movie.
3/10
3/10
very scary
bajopalabra15 June 2017
I don't know why it has just 5.5/10 points.... I saw the movie on vacations, a dark night, I began to hear noises everywhere, my god, what a moment. For me the movie paid what it promises: it promises fear, so you get fear. Perhaps the context has much to do, I don't know. The characters are believable, and I found it very well conceived
Supernatural horror with loose ends
anna1986413 July 2012
Warning: Spoilers
As much as the beginning of the film had promise - happily married couple are destroyed by the wife dying in an apparently tragic accident - the fact that the grieving husband was receiving messages from his dead wife through white noise (reminiscent of Steven Spielberg's Poltergeist) seemed like a suspenseful plot until we understand it is to help other people who are about to die.
I wanted his wife's communications to be about the exact nature of her own demise and that it had been far more sinister than it first appeared - which it was - but not in the way we want it to be. The fact that she was newly pregnant played out to virtually no significance.
Unfortunately, there are too many unanswered questions and loose ends that leave the viewer with an overwhelming sense of frustration.
I marked it down for being somewhat unsatisfied by it, while marking it up more for creating genuine fear and suspense.
I wanted his wife's communications to be about the exact nature of her own demise and that it had been far more sinister than it first appeared - which it was - but not in the way we want it to be. The fact that she was newly pregnant played out to virtually no significance.
Unfortunately, there are too many unanswered questions and loose ends that leave the viewer with an overwhelming sense of frustration.
I marked it down for being somewhat unsatisfied by it, while marking it up more for creating genuine fear and suspense.
Totally Believable
triedit14 December 2004
I recently was allowed to view this movie at a press screening. I can tell you as a professional ghost researcher, the portrayals are quite realistic and believable. The characters are accurate and the subject of Electronic Voice Phenomena is well represented.
It is a Hollywood-esquire movie in that some things are portrayed a little bigger than real life, but that in no way detracts from the believability of the movie. It has none of the fantasy that things like "Ghostbusters" bestowed upon a naive audience.
I loved this movie. Truly. It touched me on a personal level. It made me think about some of the more risky possibilities of my profession. And some parts really made me jump in my seat!
See it. At least twice.
It is a Hollywood-esquire movie in that some things are portrayed a little bigger than real life, but that in no way detracts from the believability of the movie. It has none of the fantasy that things like "Ghostbusters" bestowed upon a naive audience.
I loved this movie. Truly. It touched me on a personal level. It made me think about some of the more risky possibilities of my profession. And some parts really made me jump in my seat!
See it. At least twice.
Good but a bit confusing.
Joey_the_random8 January 2005
Warning: Spoilers
When i went to the cinema i intended to see a different film but arrived there late and I'm glad i did because i got to watch this instead. I went in knowing nothing about the film and enjoyed it all the way through even if i didn't always understand what was happening. The film is about a man receiving messages from his dead wife through the fuzzy sound that appears on t.v. or radio. There are some moments in the film that are jumpy (even made me jump once and i don't usually do that) but most of the horror in built up using suspense. I was a bit confused at what happened at the end but both my friends who watched the movie with me seemed to understand so it was probably just me that missed something.
*SPOILER ALERT* The worst part of the movie for me was the classic horror movie symptom where the killer is not a character that is actually part of the story, just a character that says three words earlier in the film and were all supposed to remember.
*SPOILER ALERT* The worst part of the movie for me was the classic horror movie symptom where the killer is not a character that is actually part of the story, just a character that says three words earlier in the film and were all supposed to remember.
White Noise was a disappointment
shealtm12 January 2005
I was psyched at first when I heard this movie was coming out. Well what a disappointment it turned out to be. I am an EVP\ITC specialist and paranormal phenomenon investigator. First off they blurred the lines of definitions between EVP and ITC. EVP or electronic voice phenomena is the capturing of entities or ghosts if you will on voice recorder or digital computer programs such as EVPMaker or Audition 1.5. It has nothing to do (not directly) with ITC or instrumental trans communication which is the process of taking a video camera hooking it up to a television output and input as you would if you wanted to playback what you recorded, then recording what the camera sees on the television. Theory is that the feedback loop frequency is the same one ghosts are geared to. These two topics of EVP and ITC are closely related but not the same thing. I was immensely disappointed (why should I have expected Hollywood to research fully a topic that they put to movie genre) with this movie and how it portrayed my field of work. It wasn't even really a good horror movie either. I really wish Hollywood would research it's ideas first before blurring the lines to make a buck, then leaving researchers like myself holding the ball trying to undo the misconceptions they have made.
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
