Miedo.punto.com

And I wanted to see this movie back in 2002! I'm glad, no, I'm proud that I didn't waste my money on this movie back in 2002 when it premiered on theaters.

This is one of the worst Horror movies from the new millennium and not even Mr. Stephen Dorff (known better for his B-movie roles) could save this from the trash can.

The plot had potential but it's poorly executed and makes "The Ring" look like a masterpiece.

The f/x are CGI mediocrity and there isn't any remarkable production value.

My advice is : forget about this movie. It's not worth your time, money, or anything. It's not even recommended to make fun about it.

Investigating a spate of similar deaths that may be virus related, officer Mike Reilly and Department of Health's Terry Huston are left stumped by the connections in the similar deaths. However as the deaths continue, some video taped clues surface and guide them. They uncover a website that may be related to the deaths and also reminds Reilly of the cruel doctor Alistair Pratt. What CAN it all mean?

In an attempt to be fair to this film, I was in the gym when I watched this film and was jogging for the majority of the time. Maybe that means I wasn't concentrating and thus missed the good side of it, or I was too focused on it (to avoid the pain) and became nick-picky. Either way I'm sure my opinion of this film would be the same in either situation. – that this film is polished nonsense.

The plot is so lacking a central focus point, a driver if you will, that at times it is as disjointed as some of the butchered bodies on display. Those strands that do exist are very loose and don't really hang convincingly well together. The end result is that there is no real tension to speak of – certainly no fear. While I did think that the main idea of the website was good, it went nowhere of merit.

What was left was simply a lot of flashy MTV camera shots and cinematography to try and give the impression of weirdness or an impressive film. If the substance had been there in support these might have been more impressive, as it is they only serve to highlight how utterly hollow they are.

The cast are all pretty average. I only watched it because I saw Dorff's name in the credits but he did nothing to really speak of. Likewise McElhone easily slips into scream queen mode. Rea's evil doctor was OK but not expanded on at all or used well at any point. The support cast of victims all run round scared (or bleeding) as required – no more no less.

Overall I was disappointed wit the film. It had an interesting, if not great concept to work from, but failed to build any sort of substance and comes off just looking like a long music video with gore.

I'd rather watch Anti-Smoking Commercials than this because at least you'd see real horror. I saw this film when it was fresh in theaters. Hearing no negative feedback (or any for that matter) I thought it looked interesting so I went to see it. Considering I was one of about 4 people in the whole theater I jumped to the conclusion that this movie was bad, and was it. The whole movie is very dark in scenery and in acting.

The movie is about a website (feardotcom.com) that if you go there some dead chick asks you if you want to play a game, and then eventually kills you. Behind the website is a snuff film maker that shows footage of him killing people 'erotically.' The director of this movie must has some screws loose in his head. It's like a cheap cheesy very poorly done 8mm ripoff.

I'm all for movies in the 'Bottom 100' of IMDB. I enjoy movies that the critics hate. But this movie just makes you wonder, who would put out money to release this?

At time of writing Feardotcom is down as the 53rd worst rated movie on IMDB and I truly don't understand why. Let's make something perfectly clear, this is a bad movie but it's in no way bad to that degree.

Starring Stephen "Blade" Dorff, Natascha "Truman Show" McElhone, industry veteran Stephen Rea, one of my all time favorite actors Jeffrey Combs and the token cameo appearance by Udo Kier it certainly does have a decent roster.

It tells the story of a website which when visited gives you 48hrs before you go insane and die. Basically it's Ringu/The Ring (1998) just with tweaks. Sadly those tweaks aren't very good and the movie has come out as a bit of a confused mess.

I get what they were trying to do and disagree with other reviewers that the film didn't make sense, it really did. It just wasn't very good and it felt like such a great cast were thoroughly wasted on this, especially considering it's a blatant ripoff of The Ring which had its US remake the very same year this came out.

Bad film? Absolutely. One of the worst? Hardly.

The Good:

Natascha McElhone and Jeffrey Combs

The Bad:

Stephen Rea and Jeffrey Combs feel wasted

Plot falls apart

Takes a lot from other films

Every so often a film will come along that requires a fair deal of sacrifice. You have to sacrifice your personal code of what you come to call of perfection and you must view the world through your eyes and not your mind. Feardotcom is one of those films. In a grey world, with a blue atmosphere and a black existence, lies a man, bleeding from the eyes from some sort of hemerage, dead, because of his plagued visions of a little blonde girl with a white ball. The case is brought forward to a detective who fears germs and disease and one who works with them at the Department of Health. As they search for the answers of why so many people are being found dead, bleeding from the eyes they stumble upon a website entitled feardotcom.com. As more research is made available they are able to link the death of the victim to occurring exactly forty-eight hours after logging on to the site. Then comes the obligatory promise to not visit that site at any cost but instantly break it as soon as the others back is turned. There are three functioning parties within the parameters of this film. There are the good guys. The bad guy, a medical reject that is known only as The Doctor. This is a man who believes that death is an art and therefore should be as graphic as possible. He tortures his victims until they beg to die and then he kills them, making him an artist instead of a murderer. The last formation in this morbid puzzle is a blonde dominatrix, a pale little girl with a white ball and a rotting corpse at the bottom of a flooded reservoir. She is a neutron force that keeps the cell process moving in a forward fashion. She is neither good nor evil. She kills but does so in hopes of redemption. A person searching for something but hasn't found the right key to unlock her treasure chest of ghastly bliss. The problem here is that neither the Doctor nor does the ghost have any connecting factors. First the cops search for the Doctor, then they becomes side tracked by the site that is killing people and search for the ghost and forget about the Doctor, until they finally set the ghost aside and go back to searching for the doctor. This film is an incoherent mess that possesses no bonding materials to make its story move at one pace and stick to one thing at a time. It is like a huge black whole where things come out of and get sucked back in as they feel. Scenes end short with no others to vouch for them. People are found dead and forgotten about and detectives find things without having to search for them, only to have nothing in which to apply them to in the future. But we must take into consideration that this is one of the best boring films I have ever seen. It's a film that makes promises to its viewer and then breaks them because it can. It is more of an experience than a film itself. It is a group of scenes that would make David Lynch bow his head in honours but would never be dumb enough to form a movie around. It is a cyber kinetic game that plays with its viewer's emotions. Why do you look at car crashes even though you know you don't want to see what could have happened to the victim? It is because people want to see something that they shouldn't. It's a voyeuristic tendency that people have that could push oneself to the edge of decency and still leave the person hungry for more. This is a film that wants to feed our fetishes with the obscene by being as sick and twisted as possible. We are shown skinned human carcasses, blood spewing reptile like women and live surgery, all broadcast on the Internet. The human body is a network of gears and leavers that read codes that enable life, so why can't computers do the same thing? The Internet is a body of work that previews the future by utilizing the past. Yet this is not a smart film, it ditches the idea of having something to say within the first half an hour. It has no moral code and follows no ingenious rules, it goes wherever it wants, whenever it wants and has no problem in knowing that it is absolutely terrible. You could probably get the same effect of this film from lining up four televisions in a row and playing Seven, Dee Snider's Strangeland, the Cell and House on Haunted Hill all at once. It is one huge mash of colours and feeling that the eyes will love but the brain will loathe. The film was directed by William Malone who knows how to make terrible horror films (House on Haunted Hill) that are like nice, big, juicy, red apples. They look delicious until you bite into it and get a mouthful of a nice plump worm. This is one of the most visually stunning films of the year and one of the most inconsistent all at the same time. This is a film that has so much going for it that that its priorities get lost in the cause and become little of the effect. But although this is a truly brilliant film, it is nothing more than a W.Y.S.I.W.Y.G. (what your see is what you get). It suffers in trying to compare but results in little contrast. The visuals have really nothing to do with anything that happens in this film. It's not some deep, emotional burden that uses symbolic structures and astounding breakdowns to amplify the viewer's attention span and make them think. This is a run-of-the-mill detective thriller with a ghost story twist. It has no symbolic substance meaning that if you really wish to see how miraculous this film is you have to watch this film in such a fashion that you will be able to absorb the films good qualities, on mute. William Malone, a man whose fascination with fear allows him to produce the product but rarely radiate it, directed the film. I think it would suit Malone wonderfully to consider becoming a conceptual artist of take up the art of silence film. The film also sees Malone in one of the years most ironic pairing in actor Stephen Dorff (neither seems to read scripts before signing on to films). Dorff is the films greatest asset in that he is the most talented man on screen and he does the best he can to make this film seem like a real detective film. As for Stephen Rea as the Doctor, he falls flat on his face. Rea is one of the most boring and unthreatening villains I have ever seen, clearly this guy called in a favour to get this role. Since this film was released I have seen nothing but negative comments for it, which, in all entirety, it deserves. But in all honesty there is more good about this film than people are willing to realize because they are bogged down by the incepted story and not willing to care about anything else. But for the most part, in the genre of bad films, this one is just about the best.