Critic Consensus: No consensus yet.
Critic Reviews for Wavelength
Audience Reviews for Wavelength
It's a 45 minute zoom on to a picture on the wall of a room. Occasionally something happens, but mostly there's just a steady tone getting higher and higher in pitch. I'll give it 5/5 stars for innovation, artistic merit, surprising emotional depth, and lasting reputation in avant garde cinema. I'll give it 0/5 stars for being essentially unwatchable and headache inducing.
This film is a lot less dull than one might expect, considering it's basically just one slow, slow time-lapse zoom toward a picture on the wall of a (mostly) deserted room. What hooks me is the artificial tension created by the zoom and the droning, rising pitch of the soundtrack. Somehow this creates even more "suspense" than the entrance of a mysterious dying man. And hey, there's a vintage usage of "Strawberry Fields Forever" too. Did Apple bother to demand royalties?
How do you score a movie like this? It's experimental avant-garde, it's a pile of crap, but that's what the director intended. It's soundtrack is a high-frequency squeal that gets higher and higher as the camera zooms slowly forward. A dude dies in the middle of the room. A ghost-looking chick uses the telephone. The pitch gets higher, the camera zooms closer to. . .a picture on the wall. I felt compelled to fast-forward through at a few points because I didn't want to wake anybody up with the incessant droning noise at 1:30 a.m., which I admit is cheating, but I could still SEE what was going on (nothing). So do you rate it highly because the director intentionally made it hideous, or do you rate it low because of its hideousness? It becomes something of a philosophical question, which I guess is better than nothing. So I'm voting this one straight down the middle, 2.5/5.
There are no approved quotes yet for this movie.