Grantes; it's not possible to make a movie anywhere near perfect, but this one has been so misunderstood that I created an account and am writing my first review ever in its defense.
If you don't like a movie that doesn't play by your rules (the characters must develop, the scenes must be sequential, ghosts can't leave their haunting grounds, any unresolved ending means a sequel...), then buy tickets to movies you know you'll like instead of getting disappointed and complaining. I don't mean to offend any of the readers or reviewers that thought badly of the movie, but the overwhelming negativity I found to be based more on false assumptions and adherence to non-universal traditions
--spoilers ahead--
For those who didn't pay enough attention and got confused, here are some things people missed that are a little essential for keeping up with the plot (in no particular order or completeness): Yoko's jaw, which she is later without, is the bloody chunk in the attic. The gasoline used to burn the house was brought in by the detective. The lighter--also to burn the house--was not the heroine's, it was her boyfriend's (who we did in fact see smoking in the Buddhist mourner scene). The spirits are not ghosts as we think of them; other reviews have gone into depth to explain that. The creepy hair is a Japanese spirit trademark, like doors closing themselves in American horror. Bill Pullman's suicide is explained very thoroughly throughout the movie, if you remember all the parts and link them together.
Another thing I would like to point out is the extreme differences between theater traditions around the world. Americans prefer a plot-based, character-driven experience. In Native American storytelling, in contrast, characters routinely change their names and appearances. Japanese kabuki theater purposefully avoided plot entirely. What I'm trying to say is that this movie is very easy to misunderstand when viewed in the American horror paradigm. There are thematic materials and deep traditions all over the place, and it really is a scary movie if you get into it and ignore the schoolchildren around you laughing at it, but if you don't pick up on (or at least accept) the deeper meanings then a lot of the experience is lost. The movie was (re)made for American audiences, so it isn't quite as quirkily Japanese as it could be; so just let the idiosyncrasies draw you in and then scare you ####less.
If you don't like a movie that doesn't play by your rules (the characters must develop, the scenes must be sequential, ghosts can't leave their haunting grounds, any unresolved ending means a sequel...), then buy tickets to movies you know you'll like instead of getting disappointed and complaining. I don't mean to offend any of the readers or reviewers that thought badly of the movie, but the overwhelming negativity I found to be based more on false assumptions and adherence to non-universal traditions
--spoilers ahead--
For those who didn't pay enough attention and got confused, here are some things people missed that are a little essential for keeping up with the plot (in no particular order or completeness): Yoko's jaw, which she is later without, is the bloody chunk in the attic. The gasoline used to burn the house was brought in by the detective. The lighter--also to burn the house--was not the heroine's, it was her boyfriend's (who we did in fact see smoking in the Buddhist mourner scene). The spirits are not ghosts as we think of them; other reviews have gone into depth to explain that. The creepy hair is a Japanese spirit trademark, like doors closing themselves in American horror. Bill Pullman's suicide is explained very thoroughly throughout the movie, if you remember all the parts and link them together.
Another thing I would like to point out is the extreme differences between theater traditions around the world. Americans prefer a plot-based, character-driven experience. In Native American storytelling, in contrast, characters routinely change their names and appearances. Japanese kabuki theater purposefully avoided plot entirely. What I'm trying to say is that this movie is very easy to misunderstand when viewed in the American horror paradigm. There are thematic materials and deep traditions all over the place, and it really is a scary movie if you get into it and ignore the schoolchildren around you laughing at it, but if you don't pick up on (or at least accept) the deeper meanings then a lot of the experience is lost. The movie was (re)made for American audiences, so it isn't quite as quirkily Japanese as it could be; so just let the idiosyncrasies draw you in and then scare you ####less.