NOTE IMDb
3,4/10
23 k
MA NOTE
Un détective de la ville de New York enquête sur des morts mystérieuses survenues 48 heures après que des utilisateurs se soient connectés à un site nommé fear.com.Un détective de la ville de New York enquête sur des morts mystérieuses survenues 48 heures après que des utilisateurs se soient connectés à un site nommé fear.com.Un détective de la ville de New York enquête sur des morts mystérieuses survenues 48 heures après que des utilisateurs se soient connectés à un site nommé fear.com.
- Réalisation
- Scénario
- Casting principal
- Récompenses
- 3 victoires et 3 nominations au total
Avis à la une
I've seen my fair share of bad movies. But I can honestly say that this is in my top 3 worst movies. Usually, when I see an extremely bad film, it's so awful that it's funny - which makes it somewhat entertaining. But this film went into another and far worse category. A film so awful that I got a headache - not because the plot was so complex and intelligent, but because the plot was so ridiculous and unrealistic.
It's simple: when you go in search of a killer, call for backup. Don't go alone into an empty building. Have some common sense! Unfortunatelt, all the characters in FeardotCom, seem to have been born without the common sense gene.
I could suffer through dozens of cheesy horror flicks where the victim getting chased by a killer conveniently trips and falls down while the killer get increasingly closer. . . I could even suffer through poor acting in a horror flick if the plot is entertaining and at least scary.
But, when the plot of a film is neither logical nor entertaining you get one movie: FeardotCom
It's simple: when you go in search of a killer, call for backup. Don't go alone into an empty building. Have some common sense! Unfortunatelt, all the characters in FeardotCom, seem to have been born without the common sense gene.
I could suffer through dozens of cheesy horror flicks where the victim getting chased by a killer conveniently trips and falls down while the killer get increasingly closer. . . I could even suffer through poor acting in a horror flick if the plot is entertaining and at least scary.
But, when the plot of a film is neither logical nor entertaining you get one movie: FeardotCom
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
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
About halfway through the movie, I was actually considering giving this a 4, but the complete and utter lack of reasoning in this movie that made me give it a 1 I will now try to sum up.
The ghost made a website that people can log (and start hallucinating from) onto only 48 hours later they will be dead unless they find her body so she can exact revenge on someone who killed her on another website that people subscribe to, even though she kills other people in car crashes and train accidents who had no involvement with her death.
Things I learned from FearDotCom:
-Ghosts are capable of creating websites.
-The internet is inherently evil.
-People who use the internet are freaks.
-People who use the internet are incapable of closing their eyes.
-A bunch of weird images on a computer can drive someone crazy and make them hallucinate.
-A bunch of weird images on a movie can drive someone so crazy that they hallucinate so they think what they are watching makes one ounce of logical sense.
Obviously the producers of this movie wanted the audience to be driven insane by the film and have shut off our brains by the time the "ending" has arrived. Sadly, I was still conscious at the end which didn't explain anything and only dropped my score from a 4 to a 1.
And it's a very boring movie too. Did I mention this movie sucks?
The ghost made a website that people can log (and start hallucinating from) onto only 48 hours later they will be dead unless they find her body so she can exact revenge on someone who killed her on another website that people subscribe to, even though she kills other people in car crashes and train accidents who had no involvement with her death.
Things I learned from FearDotCom:
-Ghosts are capable of creating websites.
-The internet is inherently evil.
-People who use the internet are freaks.
-People who use the internet are incapable of closing their eyes.
-A bunch of weird images on a computer can drive someone crazy and make them hallucinate.
-A bunch of weird images on a movie can drive someone so crazy that they hallucinate so they think what they are watching makes one ounce of logical sense.
Obviously the producers of this movie wanted the audience to be driven insane by the film and have shut off our brains by the time the "ending" has arrived. Sadly, I was still conscious at the end which didn't explain anything and only dropped my score from a 4 to a 1.
And it's a very boring movie too. Did I mention this movie sucks?
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?
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?
I would estimate that I've seen over a thousand movies in my lifetime. FeardotCom may very well be the worst of those films. The acting is bad, the dialogue is worse, and the editing is terrible. The film lacks coherence, cohesiveness, and, in some parts, comprehensiveness. The film manages to maintain its unwatchability for over an hour, but by that point the viewer will probably have already logged onto www.feardotcom.com in hopes of ending the misery. If I had been able to give this movie less than a star, I would have done so in a heartbeat. Do not make the mistake of renting this movie; there's a small chance it may scare you, but the odds of that happening are not worth sitting through 90 minutes of some of the worst examples of film-making.
Le saviez-vous
- AnecdotesIn pre-production the website featured in the film was called Fear.com, despite the producers not owning that website in real-life. They had hoped to buy the domain name from its owners at the time, but were told that it was not for sale at any price, leading to the website's name in the film being changed to Feardotcom.com.
- GaffesWhen Terry and Mike find the doctor, Terry gets injected with a drug in the neck, but a couple of seconds later she runs to comfort Mike acting as though there are no effects of the drug.
- ConnexionsFeatured in FeardotCom: Visions of Fear (2003)
Meilleurs choix
Connectez-vous pour évaluer et suivre la liste de favoris afin de recevoir des recommandations personnalisées
- How long is Feardotcom?Alimenté par Alexa
Détails
Box-office
- Budget
- 40 000 000 $US (estimé)
- Montant brut aux États-Unis et au Canada
- 13 258 249 $US
- Week-end de sortie aux États-Unis et au Canada
- 5 710 128 $US
- 1 sept. 2002
- Montant brut mondial
- 18 902 015 $US
- Durée1 heure 41 minutes
- Couleur
- Mixage
- Rapport de forme
- 2.35 : 1
Contribuer à cette page
Suggérer une modification ou ajouter du contenu manquant