I love Takefumi Haketa's score - sometimes disquieting, sometimes sorrowful, but always lending substantially to the mood in the film. I love the haunting atmosphere that pervades the feature, cemented with scenes of desolation - empty buildings and streets.
I wish I had more concrete praise to offer.
There's a vague theme about not giving in to despair and loneliness, as such surrender is the real killer. This thematic content is stronger than any specific sense of narrative - which seems backwards, but here we are. For as much as the Internet is emphasized in one way or another, it's nothing more than a starting point for the plot. For as much as red tape is emphasized, it doesn't seem to serve any actual function in-universe, and therefore none in the plot. And because a few different ideas seem to be put forth, it's unclear why events transpire in the first place. The netherworld is the embodiment of loneliness, maybe? Ghosts want to pass into the real world from the netherworld - because the real world is inherently not lonely, maybe? Ghosts and humans can't coexist in the same space, maybe? Ghosts want to make friends, maybe?
I can abide narrative that is disordered, weak, minimized, or scarce - but I do generally require narrative of some kind in a movie, or some overarching unifying quality. Unless... is that lingering ambiguity the whole point? Is the lack of clarity about what is happening, or why, the other side of the coin to the looming air in the picture of nervous foreboding?
I've only seen a few other Kiyoshi Kurosawa features, but I greatly enjoyed those that I have. I began watching 'Pulse' with high expectations, and I'm sad to say I'm let down. I don't think it's outright bad, but I want to like it much more than I do. The great atmosphere and music keep the film aloft while deeply indistinct writing prevents it from achieving greater heights. Why, as if to accentuate the very difficulty I'm having - I note two blurbs from critics who, speaking from opposite perspectives, still had the same conclusion. Stephen Hunter, for The Washington Post, wrote a positive review in saying "'Pulse' is best enjoyed if it's not questioned too closely. It lives visually in a way it cannot live intellectually." In a nearly identical remark, Jeff Shannon's critical review for The Seattle Times observed "While it's rattling your nerves, 'Pulse' leaves your brain wanting more."
I don't know anything about ghosts, but 'Pulse' definitely exists in a liminal space between life and death. Or is that uncertainty also wholly intentional?
Obviously many other people have gotten more out of this than I have; I'm glad for them. Perhaps given more time and consideration I'll turn a corner and regard 'Pulse' more highly. As it is, much to my disappointment, I'm just unsatisfied.
