Kiyoshi, not Akira. Elements of the cinematography are indeed reminiscent of A. Kurosawa's great films, and the plot could be a good one, but the gaping plot holes completely spoil any possibility of its being seen as a good movie. And I can't figure out why no one else has commented on THAT here.
As mentioned in another review, a girl is kidnapped and escapes her kidnapper, then while running away through the forest jumps into an empty trunk to hide from him. The trunk belongs to a sound engineer recording some "tree creaking" as per an earlier scene. When the sound engineer packs up to leave, he locks down the lid of the trunk; we know the girl is still inside because --behind his back while he is packing the car several feet away-- it starts rocking back and forth. So far, so good. Then everything falls apart as far as plot goes, because we are supposed to believe that the sound engineer just loads the trunk into his car and goes home, unloading it leaving it there locked on the garage floor.
Oh really? So, let's get this straight...the guy habitually takes an EMPTY trunk out to wherever he is recording and is utterly incapable of feeling the difference between 2# and 60# (yeah, riiiight)...or...the guy habitually takes a trunk with equipment in it out to wherever he is recording and for no reason at all with absolutely nothing distracting him THIS TIME after using it forgets to pack up his equipment and just leaves it there (yeaaaah, riiiight). How else is he going to have a trunk big enough for an 8 year old to curl up in it lying about completely empty when he goes to record something and load it without noticing it's become substantially heavier? Right there, POOF, the entire credibility of the movie vanishes in an instant. We're never given the slightest reason why this could have happened at all. It's not stupidity on the character's part...it's impossible --not in the way of a fantasy or sci fi or horror plot needing one suspension of disbelief (eg vampires exist)but in the real world everyday way of 'ain't happening', so it comes across as filmmaker expecting audience to have an IQ of 10.
The girl's subsequent discovery and killing by the couple is another problem. After more than enough time to make it believable that she has died trapped inside the trunk, they find her, ,begin to call police, and see her crawling after them. More on that in the next paragraph. The movie has two more scenes of the live girl after they put her to bed. In both the sound engineer is trying to keep her quiet. In the first he shoves her flat on the bed with his hand (and a fold of blanket) over her mouth and straddles her to hold her down. In the second, he wraps the blanket or comforter around her and holds her in it while she kicks and struggles. Both times he then exits the bedroom to tell his wife the girl is now "asleep". Okay, let's see. So...she doesn't suffocate inside the locked trunk for an extended period of time.....and she doesn't croak when a full grown adult slams her backward and holds her down with a blanket over her face until she "falls asleep", but she dies suddenly wrapped in a blanket and kicking fit to beat the band. yeah, riiiight. This on again off again dead girl stuff is patently ridiculous. Of the three incidents, it would, frankly, have been believable only if the trunk death had come last. The one that was supposed to have killed her was the least likely to, and the man acting exactly as he had previously when we thought she was dead but she was not makes us wonder if the filmmaker had the slightest idea the girl was supposed to be dead that time or just filmed a ton of 'ooooopps, not yet scenes' and didn't check the editing to see which was in there as the final one.
BTW, the crawling girl scene is straight out of Ringu --she moves precisely the same way with precisely the same sort of tangled long hair approach etc. The scene of her crawling could have been directly lifted out of the other movie. To me that sort of exactness belongs in a parody, not in a separate serious movie. The way in which this and the next scenes are filmed are mildly confusing --the audience initially wonders why on earth the two haven't called the police before tumbling to the thought that the couple are worried about being charged with the kidnapping.
As a last comment, for those confused about why a doppleganger would appear when the guy who saw it didn't die...I believe the implication is supposed to be that the guy is going to be executed for murdering the girl. I haven't the faintest idea how Japanese law views such crimes so I can't be sure, but if that is it, of course the Japanese audiences would have a better chance of figuring it out. Besides that, the doppleganger scenes were in no way in the original story either, they are added because K. Kurosawa likes them. Unfortunately they don't do what he wants them to --there is really no reason in the film for an audience member to "get" that the sound engineer burns his doppleganger as a finger up against fate/an assertion he will choose his own fate. That idea comes out when you listen to the K Kurosawa interview!
As mentioned in another review, a girl is kidnapped and escapes her kidnapper, then while running away through the forest jumps into an empty trunk to hide from him. The trunk belongs to a sound engineer recording some "tree creaking" as per an earlier scene. When the sound engineer packs up to leave, he locks down the lid of the trunk; we know the girl is still inside because --behind his back while he is packing the car several feet away-- it starts rocking back and forth. So far, so good. Then everything falls apart as far as plot goes, because we are supposed to believe that the sound engineer just loads the trunk into his car and goes home, unloading it leaving it there locked on the garage floor.
Oh really? So, let's get this straight...the guy habitually takes an EMPTY trunk out to wherever he is recording and is utterly incapable of feeling the difference between 2# and 60# (yeah, riiiight)...or...the guy habitually takes a trunk with equipment in it out to wherever he is recording and for no reason at all with absolutely nothing distracting him THIS TIME after using it forgets to pack up his equipment and just leaves it there (yeaaaah, riiiight). How else is he going to have a trunk big enough for an 8 year old to curl up in it lying about completely empty when he goes to record something and load it without noticing it's become substantially heavier? Right there, POOF, the entire credibility of the movie vanishes in an instant. We're never given the slightest reason why this could have happened at all. It's not stupidity on the character's part...it's impossible --not in the way of a fantasy or sci fi or horror plot needing one suspension of disbelief (eg vampires exist)but in the real world everyday way of 'ain't happening', so it comes across as filmmaker expecting audience to have an IQ of 10.
The girl's subsequent discovery and killing by the couple is another problem. After more than enough time to make it believable that she has died trapped inside the trunk, they find her, ,begin to call police, and see her crawling after them. More on that in the next paragraph. The movie has two more scenes of the live girl after they put her to bed. In both the sound engineer is trying to keep her quiet. In the first he shoves her flat on the bed with his hand (and a fold of blanket) over her mouth and straddles her to hold her down. In the second, he wraps the blanket or comforter around her and holds her in it while she kicks and struggles. Both times he then exits the bedroom to tell his wife the girl is now "asleep". Okay, let's see. So...she doesn't suffocate inside the locked trunk for an extended period of time.....and she doesn't croak when a full grown adult slams her backward and holds her down with a blanket over her face until she "falls asleep", but she dies suddenly wrapped in a blanket and kicking fit to beat the band. yeah, riiiight. This on again off again dead girl stuff is patently ridiculous. Of the three incidents, it would, frankly, have been believable only if the trunk death had come last. The one that was supposed to have killed her was the least likely to, and the man acting exactly as he had previously when we thought she was dead but she was not makes us wonder if the filmmaker had the slightest idea the girl was supposed to be dead that time or just filmed a ton of 'ooooopps, not yet scenes' and didn't check the editing to see which was in there as the final one.
BTW, the crawling girl scene is straight out of Ringu --she moves precisely the same way with precisely the same sort of tangled long hair approach etc. The scene of her crawling could have been directly lifted out of the other movie. To me that sort of exactness belongs in a parody, not in a separate serious movie. The way in which this and the next scenes are filmed are mildly confusing --the audience initially wonders why on earth the two haven't called the police before tumbling to the thought that the couple are worried about being charged with the kidnapping.
As a last comment, for those confused about why a doppleganger would appear when the guy who saw it didn't die...I believe the implication is supposed to be that the guy is going to be executed for murdering the girl. I haven't the faintest idea how Japanese law views such crimes so I can't be sure, but if that is it, of course the Japanese audiences would have a better chance of figuring it out. Besides that, the doppleganger scenes were in no way in the original story either, they are added because K. Kurosawa likes them. Unfortunately they don't do what he wants them to --there is really no reason in the film for an audience member to "get" that the sound engineer burns his doppleganger as a finger up against fate/an assertion he will choose his own fate. That idea comes out when you listen to the K Kurosawa interview!