[go: up one dir, main page]

    Calendrier de sortiesLes 250 meilleurs filmsLes films les plus populairesRechercher des films par genreMeilleur box officeHoraires et billetsActualités du cinémaPleins feux sur le cinéma indien
    Ce qui est diffusé à la télévision et en streamingLes 250 meilleures sériesÉmissions de télévision les plus populairesParcourir les séries TV par genreActualités télévisées
    Que regarderLes dernières bandes-annoncesProgrammes IMDb OriginalChoix d’IMDbCoup de projecteur sur IMDbGuide de divertissement pour la famillePodcasts IMDb
    OscarsEmmysSan Diego Comic-ConSummer Watch GuideToronto Int'l Film FestivalIMDb Stars to WatchSTARmeter AwardsAwards CentralFestivalsTous les événements
    Né aujourd'huiLes célébrités les plus populairesActualités des célébrités
    Centre d'aideZone des contributeursSondages
Pour les professionnels de l'industrie
  • Langue
  • Entièrement prise en charge
  • English (United States)
    Partiellement prise en charge
  • Français (Canada)
  • Français (France)
  • Deutsch (Deutschland)
  • हिंदी (भारत)
  • Italiano (Italia)
  • Português (Brasil)
  • Español (España)
  • Español (México)
Liste de favoris
Se connecter
  • Entièrement prise en charge
  • English (United States)
    Partiellement prise en charge
  • Français (Canada)
  • Français (France)
  • Deutsch (Deutschland)
  • हिंदी (भारत)
  • Italiano (Italia)
  • Português (Brasil)
  • Español (España)
  • Español (México)
Utiliser l'appli
  • Distribution et équipe technique
  • Avis des utilisateurs
  • Anecdotes
  • FAQ
IMDbPro

Terreur.point.com

Titre original : Feardotcom
  • 2002
  • 16
  • 1h 41min
NOTE IMDb
3,4/10
24 k
MA NOTE
Terreur.point.com (2002)
Trailer
Lire trailer0:31
9 Videos
99+ photos
Cyber ThrillerHorreur surnaturelleCriminalitéHorreurThriller

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
    • William Malone
  • Scénario
    • Moshe Diamant
    • Josephine Coyle
    • Holly Payberg-Torroija
  • Casting principal
    • Stephen Dorff
    • Natascha McElhone
    • Stephen Rea
  • Voir les informations de production sur IMDbPro
  • NOTE IMDb
    3,4/10
    24 k
    MA NOTE
    • Réalisation
      • William Malone
    • Scénario
      • Moshe Diamant
      • Josephine Coyle
      • Holly Payberg-Torroija
    • Casting principal
      • Stephen Dorff
      • Natascha McElhone
      • Stephen Rea
    • 440avis d'utilisateurs
    • 93avis des critiques
    • 16Métascore
  • Voir les informations de production sur IMDbPro
    • Récompenses
      • 3 victoires et 3 nominations au total

    Vidéos9

    FeardotCom
    Trailer 0:31
    FeardotCom
    Fear Dot Com Scene: Turn Around Benny
    Clip 1:13
    Fear Dot Com Scene: Turn Around Benny
    Fear Dot Com Scene: Turn Around Benny
    Clip 1:13
    Fear Dot Com Scene: Turn Around Benny
    Fear Dot Com Scene: Do You Want To Play With Me
    Clip 1:14
    Fear Dot Com Scene: Do You Want To Play With Me
    Fear Dot Com Soundbite: Additional Soundbites
    Clip 5:59
    Fear Dot Com Soundbite: Additional Soundbites
    Fear Dot Com Scene: It's Not A Virus
    Clip 0:32
    Fear Dot Com Scene: It's Not A Virus
    Fear Dot Com Scene: One Thing In Common Is The Fear Site
    Clip 1:09
    Fear Dot Com Scene: One Thing In Common Is The Fear Site

    Photos103

    Voir l'affiche
    Voir l'affiche
    Voir l'affiche
    Voir l'affiche
    Voir l'affiche
    Voir l'affiche
    + 97
    Voir l'affiche

    Rôles principaux37

    Modifier
    Stephen Dorff
    Stephen Dorff
    • Mike
    Natascha McElhone
    Natascha McElhone
    • Terry
    Stephen Rea
    Stephen Rea
    • Alistair
    Udo Kier
    Udo Kier
    • Polidori
    Amelia Curtis
    Amelia Curtis
    • Denise
    Jeffrey Combs
    Jeffrey Combs
    • Styles
    Nigel Terry
    Nigel Terry
    • Turnbull
    Gesine Cukrowski
    Gesine Cukrowski
    • Jeannine
    Michael Sarrazin
    Michael Sarrazin
    • Frank Bryant
    Jana Güttgemanns
    Jana Güttgemanns
    • Little Girl
    Anna Thalbach
    Anna Thalbach
    • Kate
    Siobhan Flynn
    Siobhan Flynn
    • Thana Brinkman
    Evie Garratt
    • Albino Woman
    Lex Kreps
    • Tenant
    Joan McBride
    • Mrs. Richardson
    Isabelle Van Waes
    • Victim
    Derek Kueter
    Derek Kueter
    • Officer #1
    Elizabeth McKechnie
    Elizabeth McKechnie
    • Alice Turnbull
    • Réalisation
      • William Malone
    • Scénario
      • Moshe Diamant
      • Josephine Coyle
      • Holly Payberg-Torroija
    • Toute la distribution et toute l’équipe technique
    • Production, box office et plus encore chez IMDbPro

    Avis des utilisateurs440

    3,423.5K
    1
    2
    3
    4
    5
    6
    7
    8
    9
    10

    Avis à la une

    3mm-39

    Stupid Dot com

    I hate horror movies that evolve into a waste of time. The plot becomes too unbelievabe, and gets across as stupid. This film starts out all right, and is a cross between 8mm and Videodrome. The idea of a virus invading the mind threw the optic nerve, and attacking the eletormagnetic impulses in the mind is scary, and I hope will never become a reality. Instead of following up on this scary idea, the movie become too unbelievable. It contains idiotic scenes where the viewer says to himself you got to be kidding! I wish I saved the $15 for my wife and myself, but it has been a awful summer for movies. 3/10
    1psthedon

    I'd rather watch Anti-Smoking Commercials

    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?
    casey_choas66

    ***1/2 out of 5

    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.
    bob the moo

    Nonsensical rubbish given glossy finish

    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.
    2Sleepin_Dragon

    It's a mess.

    I was interested to see if time had been kind to this film, or if the original loathing I felt during the release still held. Well the answer, it's worse then I remember, time has of course been unkind, so it now looks dated, but worse, it's an incoherent mess, that makes absolutely no sense. I will give some credit to Natasha McElhone, who does at least try and give a sincere performance, but she was up against it in this dire film.

    At the time the production values were pretty good, so I won't slate it for ageing, but I will slam it for being a terrible film, that makes no sense at all, it never decides whether it wants to be a thriller or a supernatural horror.

    Avoid. 2/10

    Vous aimerez aussi

    Consumed
    3,7
    Consumed
    Retour à la maison de l'horreur
    4,5
    Retour à la maison de l'horreur
    Alone in the Dark
    2,4
    Alone in the Dark
    La Maison de l'horreur
    5,6
    La Maison de l'horreur
    Le monstre qui vient de l'espace
    4,3
    Le monstre qui vient de l'espace
    Nuits de terreur
    5,0
    Nuits de terreur
    Don't Open Till Christmas
    4,7
    Don't Open Till Christmas
    Abattoir
    4,5
    Abattoir
    Spectre
    4,7
    Spectre
    Boogeyman : La Porte des cauchemars
    4,2
    Boogeyman : La Porte des cauchemars
    One by One
    4,6
    One by One
    Spirit in the Blood
    4,6
    Spirit in the Blood

    Histoire

    Modifier

    Le saviez-vous

    Modifier
    • Anecdotes
      In 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.
    • Gaffes
      When 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.
    • Citations

      Jeannie: Do you like to watch?

    • Connexions
      Featured in FeardotCom: Visions of Fear (2003)
    • Bandes originales
      Sonne
      Performed by Rammstein

      Courtesy of Motor, a division of Universal Music GmbH

    Meilleurs choix

    Connectez-vous pour évaluer et suivre la liste de favoris afin de recevoir des recommandations personnalisées
    Se connecter

    FAQ20

    • How long is Feardotcom?Alimenté par Alexa

    Détails

    Modifier
    • Date de sortie
      • 25 juin 2003 (France)
    • Pays d’origine
      • Royaume-Uni
      • Allemagne
      • Canada
      • Luxembourg
      • États-Unis
    • Sites officiels
      • Media 8 Entertainment
      • Official site
    • Langue
      • Anglais
    • Aussi connu sous le nom de
      • Terreur
    • Lieux de tournage
      • Dommeldange, Luxembourg
    • Sociétés de production
      • MDP Worldwide
      • ApolloMedia Distribution
      • Fear.Com Productions Ltd.
    • Voir plus de crédits d'entreprise sur IMDbPro

    Box-office

    Modifier
    • 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
    Voir les infos détaillées du box-office sur IMDbPro

    Spécifications techniques

    Modifier
    • Durée
      • 1h 41min(101 min)
    • Couleur
      • Color
    • Mixage
      • DTS
      • Dolby Digital
      • SDDS
    • Rapport de forme
      • 2.35 : 1

    Contribuer à cette page

    Suggérer une modification ou ajouter du contenu manquant
    • En savoir plus sur la contribution
    Modifier la page

    Découvrir

    Récemment consultés

    Activez les cookies du navigateur pour utiliser cette fonctionnalité. En savoir plus
    Obtenir l'application IMDb
    Identifiez-vous pour accéder à davantage de ressourcesIdentifiez-vous pour accéder à davantage de ressources
    Suivez IMDb sur les réseaux sociaux
    Obtenir l'application IMDb
    Pour Android et iOS
    Obtenir l'application IMDb
    • Aide
    • Index du site
    • IMDbPro
    • Box Office Mojo
    • Licence de données IMDb
    • Salle de presse
    • Annonces
    • Emplois
    • Conditions d'utilisation
    • Politique de confidentialité
    • Your Ads Privacy Choices
    IMDb, une société Amazon

    © 1990-2025 by IMDb.com, Inc.