An online stalker torments a young woman.An online stalker torments a young woman.An online stalker torments a young woman.
Peter Michael Dillon
- Detective Bonham
- (as Peter Dillon)
- Director
- Writers
- All cast & crew
- Production, box office & more at IMDbPro
Featured reviews
This is a terrible movie. I watch a lot of movies and this one has no real life base.
It's one thing to try and scare people into being careful, but it's another to totally shield the audience from reality.
The cinematography is totally horrible. I am still not sure what Lifetime Channel had hoped to achieve form this movie.
Even the leading actress is working half way - - at no point do we see her authentic self.
Was it the company? The production? or the writers?
I have no clue. But I feel like I want my dollar back from red-box (it was that bad).
It's one thing to try and scare people into being careful, but it's another to totally shield the audience from reality.
The cinematography is totally horrible. I am still not sure what Lifetime Channel had hoped to achieve form this movie.
Even the leading actress is working half way - - at no point do we see her authentic self.
Was it the company? The production? or the writers?
I have no clue. But I feel like I want my dollar back from red-box (it was that bad).
Simple but mildly effective thriller starring Barton as a once carefree young woman stalked by a maniac for thirteen years, struggling to adjust to society whilst her tormentor remains on the loose. Whilst the game's up prematurely, it's still fun finding out how many of those close to Barton will suffer the consequences by association.
Whilst she's perhaps better known for her off-screen exploits, Barton knows how to act and she makes it look effortless as it should; she's timid as the character would be in the circumstances, but doesn't overact the part. Lea playing the dedicated detective is reliable in support, and there's a range of would-be suspects to entice the patient viewer, although the answer isn't especially well disguised, and waiting for a red herring which never appears is disappointing.
Low budget but appropriate for a telemovie, this Canadian thriller lacks logic but achieves its aim of a few cheap thrills and is elevated by Barton's balanced performance.
Whilst she's perhaps better known for her off-screen exploits, Barton knows how to act and she makes it look effortless as it should; she's timid as the character would be in the circumstances, but doesn't overact the part. Lea playing the dedicated detective is reliable in support, and there's a range of would-be suspects to entice the patient viewer, although the answer isn't especially well disguised, and waiting for a red herring which never appears is disappointing.
Low budget but appropriate for a telemovie, this Canadian thriller lacks logic but achieves its aim of a few cheap thrills and is elevated by Barton's balanced performance.
...they telegraphed who the bad guy was. I mean, the instant the person appeared on screen, I knew it was the killer/stalker. That ruined any sense of suspense the movie could have had. So there was nothing else to keep my interest after that. It was especially bad since it happened relatively early in the film.
The technique of always hiding the bad guys' face throughout the movie just affirmed who it was. That was just very poor writing.
Another reviewer here said "The filmmakers kept the audience guessing about his identity". meaning the identity of the bad guy. Are you kidding me? Anyone who didn't know who the bad guy was as soon as they appeared should be ashamed of themselves. Judging by the number of high ratings in some of the reviews here, lots of people share that shame.
The technique of always hiding the bad guys' face throughout the movie just affirmed who it was. That was just very poor writing.
Another reviewer here said "The filmmakers kept the audience guessing about his identity". meaning the identity of the bad guy. Are you kidding me? Anyone who didn't know who the bad guy was as soon as they appeared should be ashamed of themselves. Judging by the number of high ratings in some of the reviews here, lots of people share that shame.
This this movie uses way too much intense music to the buildup of absolutely nothing. Every few minutes that intense music comes on it's very annoying. So I'm going to have a hard time trying to get through this movie but I started it so I must finish unfortunately I'm about to lose 2 hours of my life for a movie I would not recommend. However I'm not a person that takes people's opinions and doesn't watch a movie because they say it sucks so have a looksee and see what you think. Can't believe that when the film was reviewed prior to being released somebody didn't say wait a minute you're using way too much music buildup for nothing.
It is nice. Just nice because it is the good choice after a work day. Three things are good in its case- the splendid predictability- you know the hustler too easy, Mischa Burton and, maybe, the smile and pectorals of Marco grazzini. Low budget, not high ambitions, a comfortable story, absurde, full of cliches, decent. And it is enough for see it out of expectations.
Did you know
- GoofsWhen Dayton pulled up the files on his computer showing the personal information of both Paul Rogers and Detective John Bonham, the personal and business phone numbers in each file were exactly the same.
- How long is Cyberstalker?Powered by Alexa
Details
Box office
- Budget
- $1,800,000 (estimated)
- Runtime
- 1h 32m(92 min)
- Color
Contribute to this page
Suggest an edit or add missing content