[go: up one dir, main page]

    Calendario delle usciteI migliori 250 filmI film più popolariEsplora film per genereCampione d’incassiOrari e bigliettiNotizie sui filmFilm indiani in evidenza
    Cosa c’è in TV e in streamingLe migliori 250 serieLe serie più popolariEsplora serie per genereNotizie TV
    Cosa guardareTrailer più recentiOriginali IMDbPreferiti IMDbIn evidenza su IMDbGuida all'intrattenimento per la famigliaPodcast IMDb
    EmmysSuperheroes GuideSan Diego Comic-ConSummer Watch GuideBest Of 2025 So FarDisability Pride MonthSTARmeter AwardsAwards CentralFestival CentralTutti gli eventi
    Nato oggiCelebrità più popolariNotizie sulle celebrità
    Centro assistenzaZona contributoriSondaggi
Per i professionisti del settore
  • Lingua
  • Completamente supportata
  • English (United States)
    Parzialmente supportata
  • Français (Canada)
  • Français (France)
  • Deutsch (Deutschland)
  • हिंदी (भारत)
  • Italiano (Italia)
  • Português (Brasil)
  • Español (España)
  • Español (México)
Lista Video
Accedi
  • Completamente supportata
  • English (United States)
    Parzialmente supportata
  • Français (Canada)
  • Français (France)
  • Deutsch (Deutschland)
  • हिंदी (भारत)
  • Italiano (Italia)
  • Português (Brasil)
  • Español (España)
  • Español (México)
Usa l'app
  • Il Cast e la Troupe
  • Recensioni degli utenti
  • Quiz
  • Domande frequenti
IMDbPro

Paura.com

Titolo originale: Feardotcom
  • 2002
  • T
  • 1h 41min
VALUTAZIONE IMDb
3,4/10
23.435
LA TUA VALUTAZIONE
Paura.com (2002)
Trailer
Riproduci trailer0: 31
9 video
99+ foto
Cyber ThrillerSupernatural HorrorCrimeHorrorThriller

Un detective di New York indaga su alcune misteriose morti verificatesi 48 ore dopo la visita delle vittime a un sito chiamato "paura.com".Un detective di New York indaga su alcune misteriose morti verificatesi 48 ore dopo la visita delle vittime a un sito chiamato "paura.com".Un detective di New York indaga su alcune misteriose morti verificatesi 48 ore dopo la visita delle vittime a un sito chiamato "paura.com".

  • Regia
    • William Malone
  • Sceneggiatura
    • Moshe Diamant
    • Josephine Coyle
    • Holly Payberg-Torroija
  • Star
    • Stephen Dorff
    • Natascha McElhone
    • Stephen Rea
  • Vedi le informazioni sulla produzione su IMDbPro
  • VALUTAZIONE IMDb
    3,4/10
    23.435
    LA TUA VALUTAZIONE
    • Regia
      • William Malone
    • Sceneggiatura
      • Moshe Diamant
      • Josephine Coyle
      • Holly Payberg-Torroija
    • Star
      • Stephen Dorff
      • Natascha McElhone
      • Stephen Rea
    • 439Recensioni degli utenti
    • 93Recensioni della critica
    • 16Metascore
  • Vedi le informazioni sulla produzione su IMDbPro
    • Premi
      • 3 vittorie e 3 candidature totali

    Video9

    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

    Foto103

    Visualizza poster
    Visualizza poster
    Visualizza poster
    Visualizza poster
    Visualizza poster
    Visualizza poster
    + 97
    Visualizza poster

    Interpreti principali37

    Modifica
    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
    • Regia
      • William Malone
    • Sceneggiatura
      • Moshe Diamant
      • Josephine Coyle
      • Holly Payberg-Torroija
    • Tutti gli interpreti e le troupe
    • Produzione, botteghino e altro su IMDbPro

    Recensioni degli utenti439

    3,423.4K
    1
    2
    3
    4
    5
    6
    7
    8
    9
    10

    Recensioni in evidenza

    1BlinkFlame

    Worst Movie Ever

    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.
    2Coventry

    No wonder people claim the horror genre is dead

    If the survival of horror films depends on titles such as this "FearDotCom", we are indeed facing the downfall of the genre. This is lame, uninspired and repetitive garbage that irritates you from start to finish. Director William Malone's idea of suspense exists out of underexposed and fuzzy images of murders edited together in boisterous flashes that actually show you NOTHING. Add a poorly written script about a murderous website and completely unconvincing characters to this and you've got yourself one of the biggest cinema-turkeys since the new millennium. If the premise of this film rings a bell, it means that you recognize it from the Japanese cult hit "Ringu"…. Or the slightly inferior American remake "the Ring". Only, the videotape has been replaced by an internet website and the poor victims have only 2 days left to live after being exposed instead of 7. Typical for an unscrupulous rip-off…Faster, louder and modernized! The elaboration is a mess: weak dialogue, plot holes all over the place, no style or atmosphere and very bad acting. I can't believe class actors like Udo Kier and Stephen Rea were talked into accepting roles like this? Surely they can still do better even though they both have seen their best times. Stephen Dorff and the leading lady deliver lousy performances in roles that really don't fit them. Dorff as a tough, experienced copper? Doubtful… Perhaps what annoyed me most about the cast (shallow, I admit) is seeing how one of my all-time favorite B-actors, Jeffrey Combs, is given such a small and insignificant role! That's Doctor Herbert West from Re-Animator we're talking about, dammit! Show a little more respect, Malone! If you love horror, you should avoid "FearDotCom" at all costs! It's bad for your nerve system.
    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.

    Trama

    Modifica

    Lo sapevi?

    Modifica
    • Quiz
      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.
    • Blooper
      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.
    • Citazioni

      Jeannie: Do you like to watch?

    • Connessioni
      Featured in FeardotCom: Visions of Fear (2003)
    • Colonne sonore
      Sonne
      Performed by Rammstein

      Courtesy of Motor, a division of Universal Music GmbH

    I più visti

    Accedi per valutare e creare un elenco di titoli salvati per ottenere consigli personalizzati
    Accedi

    Domande frequenti

    • How long is Feardotcom?
      Powered by Alexa

    Dettagli

    Modifica
    • Data di uscita
      • 30 maggio 2003 (Italia)
    • Paesi di origine
      • Regno Unito
      • Germania
      • Canada
      • Lussemburgo
      • Stati Uniti
    • Siti ufficiali
      • Media 8 Entertainment
      • Official site
    • Lingua
      • Inglese
    • Celebre anche come
      • Fear Dot Com
    • Luoghi delle riprese
      • Dommeldange, Lussemburgo
    • Aziende produttrici
      • MDP Worldwide
      • ApolloMedia Distribution
      • Fear.Com Productions Ltd.
    • Vedi altri crediti dell’azienda su IMDbPro

    Botteghino

    Modifica
    • Budget
      • 40.000.000 USD (previsto)
    • Lordo Stati Uniti e Canada
      • 13.258.249 USD
    • Fine settimana di apertura Stati Uniti e Canada
      • 5.710.128 USD
      • 1 set 2002
    • Lordo in tutto il mondo
      • 18.902.015 USD
    Vedi le informazioni dettagliate del botteghino su IMDbPro

    Specifiche tecniche

    Modifica
    • Tempo di esecuzione
      1 ora 41 minuti
    • Colore
      • Color
    • Mix di suoni
      • DTS
      • Dolby Digital
      • SDDS
    • Proporzioni
      • 2.35 : 1

    Contribuisci a questa pagina

    Suggerisci una modifica o aggiungi i contenuti mancanti
    Paura.com (2002)
    Divario superiore
    By what name was Paura.com (2002) officially released in India in English?
    Rispondi
    • Visualizza altre lacune di informazioni
    • Ottieni maggiori informazioni sulla partecipazione
    Modifica pagina

    Altre pagine da esplorare

    Visti di recente

    Abilita i cookie del browser per utilizzare questa funzione. Maggiori informazioni.
    Scarica l'app IMDb
    Accedi per avere maggiore accessoAccedi per avere maggiore accesso
    Segui IMDb sui social
    Scarica l'app IMDb
    Per Android e iOS
    Scarica l'app IMDb
    • Aiuto
    • Indice del sito
    • IMDbPro
    • Box Office Mojo
    • Prendi in licenza i dati di IMDb
    • Sala stampa
    • Pubblicità
    • Lavoro
    • Condizioni d'uso
    • Informativa sulla privacy
    • Your Ads Privacy Choices
    IMDb, una società Amazon

    © 1990-2025 by IMDb.com, Inc.