Rating: 
Summary: Udo Kier
Review: The only reason I sat through this mess to the end was to see if the guy who gets hit by the train at the beginning was Udo Kier. It owes me a star.
Rating: 
Summary: Polterheist !
Review: Wow! What a sense of deja-vu ! Was it just me or did the ghostly little girl bouncing the ball seem to be Carol Ann, lifted right out of the POLTERGEIST series? It put me in such a mood for the same sort of movie as those, that I eneed up disappointed, even though I never was a huge fan of POLTERGEIST and its sequels or their particular sub-genre of horror. Yes, FEAR DOT COM delivers even less than those. This film is muddled, sometimes resembling a supernatural shockfest, sometimes a detective story, and sometimes a cyber-thriller. And those disparate elements adhere together to make a coherent whole poorly if at all. I ended up not knowing for sure just what happened in this story or just how the title web site inexorably drew its victims into their fate. What's more, it didn't make me care that much. It's not like I missed anything I'd want to view the movie again to decipher -- just that there couldn't be anything there possibly un-confounded enough to hang in for and try to take in. It seems a worthy cast is wasted herein. I particularly hoped to see Natascha McElhone do more. I remembered her mainly from THE TRUMAN SHOW, in which she was a likable character one would want to see have a role in the story's outcome, only to see the movie treat her as a throw-away character as if we weren't supposed to care about her. But she gives us little more to care about in FEAR DOT COM, nor does any of the rest of the cast. The most memorable character herein remains the eerie little one bearing an uncanny resemblance to Carol Ann or a clone thereof, lurking through this movie's confusion. But there's virtually no light for her to lead anyone into this time.
Rating:
Summary: havent seen it but heres why
Review: any movie that the producers refuse to let critics review PRIOR to its release can only mean 1 thing.its garbage!just like halloween 21.that wasnt previewed either and that junk i did go see.i gave that 1 star reluctantly(zero would have been too many!).i gave this 2 stars for originality(i guess).ill wait for this to show up for rent and watch to see if my rating was correct.i bet ill need to reduce it by 2 stars.
Rating: 
Summary: "Do you want to watch?..........."
Review: I am reading some of these reviews and I am having a Bruce Campbell moment.
"Hello, fancy pants! It's a horror/thriller film, not a John Huston drama." Unless you were going to see Lilo & Stitch and went in the wrong theater, and were tied to the seat, you sort of knew you were going to see something that was trying to be a little "scary".
I know we have classics like, "The Shining", "The Thing", and "Aliens" and I think of Clive Barker, Dario Argento, Alfred Hitchcock, and Takashi Miike before "SeVen" comes to mind, but whatever. It is a horror film trying to spike your blood pressure, shine a little light on the dark voyeuristic obsessed decade we are living in, (Reality TV, aka: [BAD]), and make some money. Geeze! I liked this film, because I like horror films. I like film, it's my business. I think that on a technical level, it could have been a little tighter, and I don't know about the "love" interest part of the story, it was a bit vague and choppy, but - the attraction I could buy. Love is always an important factor in horror, but also a hard sell. I mean there is usually someone that we care about and that is why we are going into the dark house, alone... in the dark . Someone, money or a threat to our life. Something that makes it seem less STUPID. So I bought Dorff's character's motives, but the girl came off a little on the scary/desperate side, but nice underneath it all. I loved seeing the guys from the Warhol films and Re-Animator, makes my heart warm to see them always. I like Dorff as an actor - I think he did well with the part. * I do have issues with the make-up person though, not the effects person, the make-up for the talent on set. It was way too heavy on the female actors, very "Dallas", like the alarm goes off in the morning and you have full make-up? Hello. But - all in all - I liked the acting, and the story. You may notice I am not going to much into the story, because I don't want to ruin it for you, I am just telling you it is a fun ride, with a couple of jumps for you horror fans. As for the above review complaining about editing - and how "SEvEN" was better, number one, as an editor I just want to say Abel Gance! Montage was not created in the last two decades. I liked the images, I really did. Number two; they are totally two different movies, apples and oranges. I think I would have liked everything to flow together just a bit more, but as far as a good creepy movie I was very entertained. I love the way the mood was created and how the story developed. I think it should have been titled, "Do you want to watch...?"
Rating:
Summary: Pure trash
Review: The last time I saw a film devoid of any colour whatsoever, it was probably 'Waterworld'; today it has to be this film which is pure trash. They tried so hard to emulate 8mm, but then Se7en also; but then again, they surely wanted a 90-minute version of a Marylyn Manson video. Oh well. They tried too hard and ended up with something that is not credible, entertaining or worthwhile.The script tried so hard from the get-go to try and have us believe that the main detective character had been trying to catch the evil 'Doctor' for some time already (who, of course, has sent him various letters and so-on to taunt him). This same psycho 'Doctor' hosts a web-site that depicts the torture of kidnapped victims. But of course they can't catch him in this 'live' act. If that wasn't the worst of a so-called story, we're supposed to believe that anyone logging-on to this website is so shocked/horrified (and somewhat excited) by what they see, their adrenaline levels are sufficiently spiked to cause them to hemorrhage blood from their eyes, nose etc within a 48 hour period. Anyhoo. Not to spoil the so-called story for you (such as it is), but if you enjoy that kind of thing anyway, you're probably going to find this film wanting. And if you DON'T enjoy watching this kind of thing, you're going to basically hate it (big time); if so, don't even bother with a rental. And if you have a medical condition that makes you vulnerable to bright lights & short-editing (suitable for the attention-span of a hummingbird), then avoiding this film anyway as it will probably save you from suffering an epileptic episode anyway.
Rating:
Summary: Visually, the Best Movie of the Year
Review: Director William Malone has a horrifying visual style all his own which he has established with Fear Dot Com and House on Haunted Hill. Actually, it would not be inaccurate to compare what he has done so far with David Fincher because the two directors have such an awesome, singular style all their own. What is unfortunate is that while Fincher was doing modern classics like Fight Club and Se7en, Malone was doing guilty pleasure B-movies. Not to knock either of Malone's movies, both were sufficiently creepy and entertaining, but they will not be remembered a decade from now by anyone but die-hard horror fans.
Rating: 
Summary: Really, REALLY Freaky and Scary
Review: I just snuck into this with my friend last night and, right from the beginning, we knew it was going to be SCARY!!! It's about these two police officers who investigate the deaths of four people. The coincidence is that these four people all died exactly 48 hours after they logged onto the website. But the only way for the police officers can find out how the victoms died is to log onto the website themselves, which leads them to figure out that a serial killer is finding out who is logging onto that site which was created by him, then brutally murdering the visitors of the site. When they go on the site, they are asked if they want to "play the game" and they respond yes. But, the "game" is that they have 48 hours to find this killer or else they die a horriblly painful death, too. This movie is full of thrills, chills, AND NON-STOP SCARY!!! If anyone tries to convince you that this movie is junk, which is what alot of people are saying, DO NOT BELIEVE THEM!!!!! FEAR DOT COM IS RATED R FOR VIOLENCE, GRISTLY IMAGES OF TORTURE, STRONG LANGUAGE, AND SEXUALITY/NUDITY.
Rating: 
Summary: Tons of style, ounces of substance
Review: If you want a visual extravaganza that is genuinely scary at times, this is your movie. If you care deeply about things like believability, reality, and plot, maybe not. This is a great escapist film that should have been released at the beginning of the summer, not the end. OK, the good stuff. We've had movies before that try to visually interpret what goes on "behind" that screen more and more of us Internet browsers look at. The fact that this is a horror film means the makers of the film have to add that element to it. For this, I think the movie succeeds very well. If you haven't figured it out from the title, this is a movie that suggests that something very nasty is happening in connection with an Internet web site. This is not giving away too much plot. And this is what they do very well. From little teasings at the beginning, to taking several people through the steps of... the movie does it's job in making it appropriately creepy. It also does a good job in supplying scares when one is not looking at a computer screen. Also without revealing too much, there is a ghost/monster/whatever that accompanies the torment of those who fall victim to the site. This entity is both beautiful and scary at the same time. When it appears, it's very well done, and provides the movie's scariest moments. There are other scary parts that start going into the problems I have with plot. The heroine, Natascha McElhone, who looks like a younger, taller, cuter Meryl Streep, is told later in the film that she can find something she's looking for by swimming through what seems to be industrial waste water at an abandoned industrial plant. The fact that this is a very scary undertaking and the scream payoff is big may be all that you care about, and at that level it's great. However, this movie has been compared to "Seven", and the fact that there are deaths and it always seem to dark and raining are tie-ins. But I would compare it closer to "Dark City", a much better sci-fi film a few years ago. In that film, it was not only dark all the time, but there was a lack of humanity that made us not get as close to the characters as we'd like to. In "Seven", also a much better film, there was the presence of Gwyneth Paltrow to bring human caring to the grisly things going on. There is no such relief here, which is probably the look the directors wanted. Another criticism is the complete lack of reality when it comes to police procedure. It looks like after all the money was spent on terrific special effects, there was no more left to hire more actors. The cast is really very small, and sometimes it seems there are only two or three police officers on an entire large metropolitan police department. Which might explain why crime scene after crime scene doesn't contain even a bit of restraining tape, and anyone seems to be able to go to the scenes as much as they want to. Or that the underwater scene, as scary as it was, would not have occurred in real life. No I don't believe that a female who is not even a cop, would go to a very creepy shut down factory and swim what seems like a half a block underwater at night just because some bum told her to. And when they finally find the bad guy, again there is no real backup, and Stephen Dorff seems to not even know the basics of prisoner procurement once he seems to have nailed him. Perhaps this police department also lacks handcuffs. But if things like that are not important, then catch the film. A lot of effort was spent to create a new world, and in that sense they succeed. I just think that with a few adjustments, they could have come up with a real classic.
Rating:
Summary: COWPHLOP.COM
Review: I knew there was something wrong when I asked the girl at the ticket counter , (on Labor Day weekend) how the seating was for 'Fear.Com,' she gave me thumbs-up and me and 6 other's had the theater to ourselves. One half hour is all I could take, I walked out mumbling to myself, "why didn't I do my homework ," and check the reviews. I guess I wanted to be entertained, what a fool!
Stephen Dorff, Cecil B. Demented, Deuces Wild, tried, but there were no lines for him to respond to. Natasha McElhone, Solaris, Laurel Canyon. Went around with a knowinggrin that said "I know what you did last summer." As a CSI forensic lab woman, she failed miserably and trying her best to look and act-like MERYL STREEP, was annoying. Stephen Rea seemed to be the only one who had a part to play and he did his creepy best as the snuffer. But by this time I was running for the EXIT. Save your money and being the smart audience that you are you WILL check out the reviews, before you throw that hard earned money away. I gave this PHLOP, ** stars for Rea, and Dorff. Oh it had been referred to as a possible 'SEVEN ' -- like movie?? The only likeness was the dark an dank scenes, which were not hazy, but more like fog rushing in from the sea. Very dramatic!!
ciao yaaah
Rating:
Summary: Grade A [junk]
Review: The movie is scary as hell and its just downright wrong. Do not see this if you're scared of seein gore or dead people. The acting is pretty lousy and if they listened to all their friends, they wouldnt go on the site in the first place. Its just awful...
|
