FeardotCom Movie
Storyline
TAGLINES
Want to see a really killer website? It's the last site you'll ever see.
Abandon all hope.....Access all evil......Enter Feardot.com
Feardot.com
The last site you'll ever see.
Four bodies are found in New York City. Why, why, why? The coincidence? They all died 48 hours after logging on to a site named feardotcom.com. Tough detective Mike Reilly collaborates with Department of Health associate Terry Huston to research these mysterious deaths. The only way to find out though what really happened is to enter the site itself...
| Stephen Dorff | Detective Mike Reilly |
| Natascha McElhone | Terry Huston, Dept. of Health |
| Stephen Rea | Alistair Pratt, 'The Doctor' |
| Udo Kier | Polidori |
| Amelia Curtis | Denise Stone |
| Jeffrey Combs | Sykes |
| Nigel Terry | Turnbull |
| Gesine Cukrowski | Jeannine |
| Michael Sarrazin | Frank Bryant |
| Jana Güttgemanns | Little Girl |
| Anna Thalbach | Kate |
| Siobhan Flynn | Thana Brinkman |
| Evie Garratt | Albino Woman |
| Lex Kreps | Tenant |
| Joan McBride | Mrs. Richardson |
| William Malone |
3.20 out of 10 (6039 votes)
Visitor Reviews
Terrible Waste!
posted on 26 Aug 2009This has to be one of the biggest wastes of money, time and effort ever! Director William Malone did an entertaining job before this mess with the remake House On Haunted Hill, but here the story has clearly got the better of him and everyone involved! Meaning that there is no story, of course! It's a rambling mess of set pieces that have no tension and zero scare factor. Stephen Dorff is one of those actors who needs to fire his agent, he is talented and easy on the eye, and has made some good films like Blood and Wine, and World Trade Centre. Still, more often than not we find him in the midst of films such as this and Alone In The Dark, where he so obviously is searching for a way out, presumably so he can kill his agent! Natasha McElhone is an actress who's work I genuinely enjoy, films such as The Truman Show and Ladies In Lavender show how good she can be. The poor thing had no chance, she looks worried for her reputation the entire running time ... and please dear, who goes swimming in some flooded factory with a homeless woman as your lifeguard?! And why were you asking her questions about some girl? Oh, sorry Natasha, you didn't know either did you? Stephen Rea ... I can't even think of why he is here ... no excuse at all. After this and In Dreams (a big mistake for Neil Jordan!) he is gonna need about 10 movies as good as Interview With The Vampire, The Crying Game and The End Of The Affair for him to sink his acting chops into again, before he can wash the taste of this experience out of his mouth! Cinematography was basic, and effects were so forced as to make me wonder if the film was set in the future. It's not, it's trying to push for a reaction to the growing threats that the internet can bring on society, but instead it looks terribly dated. Commentory from the director is useless ... he talks of mixing old and new looks ... blah blah blah, it didn't work Billy, your film makes everyone look like they need a good wash and a shot of tequila ... if only to wake up from the nightmare of being in this stupid, incoherent story! Phew, so glad to have got that off my chest ... please save yourselves and don't see this film. To follow what I could of the films "it'll be the last site you visit" story ... this could be the last film you watch ... that's how much it will make you cry for the state of cinema!
a confusing mess and a bore
posted on 24 Aug 2009a confusing mess and a bore of a movie this totally rips off The Ring i must say it did have a couple of creepy moments but the acting was not that great Stephen was alright i guess but this just way too mean spirited and lousy for it's own good what is up with that stupid ending it made me mad also why the hell would they go to the website when they know it is dangerous i mean use your brain for goodness sake (cant swear) lame huh yeah i think so anyway not worth your time *1/2 out of 5
feardotcom
posted on 18 Aug 2009Detective Mike Reilly(Stephen Dorff), with assistance from Department of Helth inspector Terry Huston(Natascha McElhone)seek the truth behind a series of strange deaths where victims have horrifying facial expressions of fear, mouths opened wide, dry blood trickled from their eyes. These victims fell prey to a creepy website, "feardotcom" where a homicidal rejected medical surgeon, Alistair Pratt(Stephen Rea)commits grisly torturous acts to female victims until they beg to die. It seems that once a person logs on to this site(..and is willing to play), in 48 hours each one dies under horrifying circumstances, often through suicide because the hallucinogenic fears they see are too much to deal with. Pratt is a serial killer Reilly has been unable to capture, with the mad doctor sending him letters as a way to tease the detective. It seems that victims are falling under the supernatural spell of the first Pratt surgical casualty, Jeannine(Gesine Cukrowski)whose restless vengeful spirit lives within the Internet wires for which her death was publicized. She wants her body and Pratt found before her soul can rest..both Reilly and Terry will take part in her game so that this can happen.I loved the way this film looks and the dread and unsettling nature that exists. But, the preposterous premise and lack of chemistry between Dorff and McElhone left me rather underwhelmed and frustrated. The visual work, through the technical collaboration of director William Malone and cinematographer Christian Sebatldt, is stunning. They create quite the nightmarish landscape..this world we inhabit, particularly at night, is both beautifully conceived(..using light, with fluid camera-work, and highlighting the murky world of a city with a moral plight) yet unpleasant and disturbing. The hallucinations of those who enter the gates of feardotcom often are quite ominous and skin-crawling(..such as roaches or apparitions which visit our heroes looking for the killer). Rea's cold and uncaring psychopath, seen constantly tormenting a recently kidnapped and bound female victim, is quite a chilling interpretation and his hellish environs certainly only add to the evil of his character. Dorff and his police station is modeled after those noirish types from the 30's. He's hard-boiled and laconic, but maybe a wee bit too young and unimposing for a leader of a force seeking murderers. McElhone is maybe just too beautiful for us to accept her as a blue-collar lonely-heart with a crummy Health inspector job. I say see this movie for it's "Hellraiser without the Cenobites" look and feel and expect a rather far-fetched premise. The film is extremely dark with minor moments of humor injected sparingly thanks to Terry. Malone may need work as a story-teller, but his visual eye can produce some striking images and set-pieces.
feardotcomdotcom?
posted on 12 Aug 2009Okay report card time:A for atmosphere -- the rain and gloom should have worked in the movies favorB for some of the effects. the computer graphics were decent and the albino kid was pretty spooky, but you made us watch those things so much they lost there shock value.C for cliches -- you pulled more than a few.D for characterization -- You didn't have any, were those actors or cardboard cutouts left over from Southpark?F for the plotline and story, it looks kind of familiar and there are huge holes in the story.
the smell of fear
posted on 08 Aug 2009Obviously this was not the best motion picture in the world. It wasn't all that good either but it is not, by a long stretch the worst movie of all time.
Going against the scathing reviews I read on here, I went ahead and rented this on pay per view. And while I was doing other things while it was on (sorting through old photos) it did pass the time. From what I did see of the movie, it was obvious that the makers of this film saw Ringu and tried to apply some more techie stuff to the story which could have worked but didn't do much for this movie.
There are certainly holes in this story and the acting could have been better but all in all it was kind of interesting comparing it to the Ring and seeing the similarities. Could have been better, it wasn't. Could have been a waste of time but it didn't seem like one. Maybe it was the picture sorting that helped pass the time and not the other way around. If you're a die hard horror fan, I say watch it, we're used to the really bad stinkers anyway and this one is only mildly smelly.
Wow. . I could have watched paint dry instead!
posted on 31 Jul 2009I'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
Ppl dont understand the plot...
posted on 19 Jul 2009If you watch it and play close attention, it actually has a deeper plot than "Go to the site and die". I can't say much that wont spoil the movie except that I really enjoyed it and it should be given more credit..and that little girls freaky! haha
Too much style over too little substance
posted on 19 Jul 2009Feardotcom was bad. Bad. BAD.Malone chose to put style before substance, and he did a poor job -- this "film" has all the signs of something made by a bunch of director wannabes with a digital camera. Everything was incredibly dark despite having been shot in places that would normally be brightly lit. Detectives were running around unshaven for a day or two. The dark scenes became a running joke as we watched it -- "looks like someone forgot to pay the electric bill."There's really no story, or if there was one, it was poorly constructed. Large elements of the film were stapled together with no thought to actually fitting the pieces together.Pathetic piece of film-making by someone who apparently thinks that "cool" lighting and effects can take the place of a weak story and underdeveloped characters.
Not as bad as some claim it to be.
posted on 09 Jul 2009A Detective (STEPHEN DORFF) investigates a series of gruesome murders who's only connection is the fact that each victim logged onto the website Fear.com, when he investigates further, he finds himself plagued by visions of ghosts & hearing voices, it seems that someone or something is trying to make contact with him & there may be even more to the case than what he originally thought. Despite some slow stretches, FearDotCom manages to hold up well through out the films running time, it's got some inventive kills & a pretty good storyline & the acting is fairly good. The ending is a bit of a change from the norm on who survives & who dosen't. Not for everyone that's for sure & light years away from anything spectacular, but it's worth a look for curiosity sake.*** (stars)
UGH!!!
posted on 05 Jul 2009The premise (although nothing really new) had potential, but this movie was just dull, tedious, uninvolving and UNSCARY!! William Malone's directorial style seemed pretty neat and inventive in his last film ("The House On Haunted Hill" remake) but grew pretty annoying here....WHY does every scene have to be filmed in near-darkness??? It's hard to care about the characters and what's happening to them when you can't even see them half the time!!! Don't waste YOUR time....skip this turkey. My rating: * star.
Feardotcom was definately scary
posted on 05 Jul 2009This movie was definately done by the same people as The Haunted. Terrible movie that admittedly was freaky but just way too twisted to be even slightly believable. Cast wasn't bad, but there was absolutely no getting to know any of the characters or even too much of the killers history.
A Real Sleeper
posted on 19 Jun 2009My wife brought this home for the family to watch. Well, I wasn't really tired but this one managed to put me to sleep. When I was awakened by my dog, I asked what I had missed. Two sentences brought me up to speed. The climax of the movie hit at 10PM. At that time,my wife says "we have to watch MEET THE FOLKS ". That about sums it up ....interrupted one man's bad film fantasy for another bad tv fantasy. Needless to say, I went back to sleep.
It' s crap-tacular!
posted on 13 Jun 2009Mmmmm...what to think about this about this movie? 3 minutes in and I was already laughing at the horror clichés thrown at us: a man (that good ol' Udo Kier having a cameo in what must be his 10 000th genre film!)descends in the subway station, an almost unbelievably dirty and filthy one at that, only to start seeing strange things like a dog and...a "freaky" little girl (cued by her over the top make-up) playing with a balloon on the tracks at the same time a train is coming(following the accepted horror convention that "little girls are scary", which actually works in The Shining but not here, not by a long shot!). Of course the man tries to heroically save the child only to be predictably run over (well, more pushed to the side strongly than run over) by the train in a lousy edited and acted sequence.So, what about the plot? I won' t start going into it but let' s just say that this movie borrows more than a little from Ringu (wich as already been remade in the surprisingly effective The Ring): a female spirit exerts vengeance via an electronic medium, this time being the internet, people dying 2 days after seing what was not to be seen instead of a week. To solve the murders, 2 people are put on the case, Stephen Dorff and Natascha McElhone, and as the nemesis behind all the madness, Stephen Rea. One note about the acting: it is completely and utterly horrible!! How could talented actors be wasted this way??!! The acting is so bad, it' s like watching headless chickens running around screen for a hour and a half!! Man! Stephen Dorff has seen some better days (his Deacon Frost in Blade was pretty effective) but I am totally shocked to see Stephen Rea and Natascha McElhone make complete fools of themselves in this trash!! And they' re American accents are actually funny to hear!Especially Rea for putting too much of a southern twang on it! Only the always reliable Jeffrey Combs seems to have fun with his role.The director, William Malone, does a overblown attempt at conveying a creepy atmosphere, mostly by underlighting everything (even in broad daylight) and by shooting every scene "music video" style. It almost worked before in his last movie, House on Haunted Hill, a movie that I enjoyed a great deal more than Feardotcom because it didn' t take itself too seriously in the first place (come on! Chris "Corky Romano" Kattan was in it!). It's true that the script really is not the greatest material available (from an original story by Moshe Diamant, producer of countless Van Damme movies: that tells you about the quality at work here!) but come on, really, how can a director can expect us to be scared by a scene in wich Dorff tries frantically to close a elevator door because a bouncing ball is coming fast towards him??(I'm not making this up!)So, in the end, if you are a serious film buff, avoid at all costs, but if you are like me and are a fan of bad cinema and want a good laugh, Feardotcom is worth it! It' s so bad, it is good! I particularly liked how the love blossoms between the 2 leads: McElhone asks Dorff to promise to not go see the damned internet site, then he comes to hug her, dissolve to McElhone asleep in a bed, Dorff getting up and going away, but not before looking at her in a caring, loving way (well, as much as he can portray!). And before that scene, there was no real sign of the two of them being attracted to one another! This scene is priceless I tell you!Oh, and if you plan on watching this with your buddies, I have got a good drinking game associated with this movie: every time McElhone says "Oh my God!", everybody take a shot! You' ll be pretty drunk by the end!
Not that bad, but not that great
posted on 13 Jun 2009I just had to comment on this film after seeing that it had around a 3 rating. I actually found this movie to be not that bad...not saying that it was the greatest horror movie ever, but I believe it was worth watching. It is certainly at least as good as some others around the same time (remake of 13 Ghosts for instance). While the story line was similar to The Ring (which I suppose is a "remake" of Ringu), I still think it was original enough to not call it a copy-cat (even though the release date for The Ring was after FearDotCom, I have no idea which was actually in development first).Either way, it has a fairly descent "creepy" factor, and enough little shocks & gore to certainly make it better than one of the bottom 100 movies rated on IMDb (as of June 2004).
FeardotCom (2002) *
posted on 09 Jun 2009A real missed opportunity. This film has a decent lead cast (Stephen Dorff and the lovely Natasha McElhone) and great cameos (Udo Kier and Michael Sarrazin), and it's at least a relief at first that director William Malone takes this whole horror business seriously. He presents very disturbing images and knows what to do while creating a scary film. Unfortunately, as much as I wanted to like this, things gradually became more and more distorted and nonsensical until it became impossible to follow what was supposed to be happening.What first seemed like a three-star winner deteriorated into a poor ball of confusion. A damn shame.
Couldn't finish this crap
posted on 03 Jun 2009This is one of those movies that against my better judgement began to watch at the urging of a friend of my wife's. Well to sum it up I have never until this now walked out of a movie. After rationalizing (since I had nothing better to think about during the movie) I figured that the only way I could recoup the cost of the movie was to cut my losses and leave. The some 1 1/2 hours that I would have spent watching the remainder of the movie would have been better spent licking a toilet at a buss station. ** SPOILER FOLLOWS ** IT SUCKED, IT REALLY REALLY SUCKED !!!!!!!
Is there another film called feardotcom??
posted on 03 Jun 2009First of all I have to say I never usually bother with registering for internet accounts to leave comments but here I feel the need to help right a great wrong.The other reviewers (OR) tell us this film is awful, not worth watching even for the fun of watching a bad film, in a new dimension of awfulness, save your rental money and other cruel comments.So I decided to watch it just to see how bad a bad film can be. I was so disappointed - it actually *wasn't* half bad!! I think what is happening here is everyone is jumping on the band-waggon and is afraid of saying anything against the general consensus. I say this because a lot of these (very) negative comments only seem to highlight the same aspects of the movie.OK the film is not perfect or an epic of our times, it has its faults of course which I can't remember really - mainly as the incongruities don't impinge on this film nearly as much as the OR would have you believe.SPOILERS COMING UP!! If you like films like Videodrome then you will like this movie (though not as intense as VD).The basic tenet of this movie is the internet is behaving like a neural net (an interesting proposition and not beyond the realms of possibility - i like the bit in the movie where the cop/female scientist meet the guy who had this theory and he tells them its a load of crap: he only wrote it because he needed money for a new car - so in a way the film debunks its own silliness!) and has evolved its own energy/consciousness born of all the bad vibes going in, and the ghost of the murdered woman is utilising this energy for her own website (feardotcom) to lead people to her killer (the Doctor), and as the stick to make them succeed if they don't do it in 48 hours (the time it took for her to die at the hands of the doctor) well they die too, which is fair enough considering it is internet users logging onto the Doctors 'swot' site which drive his online killing spree, plus the ghost of the woman uses the 48 hour time limit to develop a pattern in the deaths which finally gets noticed by the cop/female scientist.I think this is where some OR get confused - the doctor's site and the ghost's site (feardotcom) are NOT the same thing! The victims of feardotcom die a grisly death - they begin to suffer hallucinations based on their own mortal fears which become so insufferable they are driven to suicide, or given a nudge anyway by the ghost of the murdered woman to keep them in the 48 hour time-frame! So the cop/female scientist inevitably, and separately, look at feardotcom and themselves become affected and start to suffer hallucinations. Now the film gets interesting - it becomes difficult to distinguish between the reality in the film and the hallucinations they are suffering - there is an interaction taking place between the cop/female scientist and the ghost who is leading them to her killer.There is an interesting symbiosis developing: internet users log on to the doctor's site to see people die which drives the doctor's insanity but increases the negative energy in the neural net making feardotcom and the ghost of the woman stronger and more able to affect feardotcom visitors and thus influence the physical world, leading to the whereabouts of the Doctor (if only they could understand the hallucinations).Eventually they all catch up with each other: but it doesn't end like most horror movies with the protagonists holding hands and laughing about it.So in praise of this film: The plot is ingenious and contains themes worth more thought eg. can there be feedback from an anonymous medium like the internet which can impact individually on the user or collectively on society as a whole: by making this more explicit is where this film departs from Ringu, which OR have said this film 'rips off'. This is a large and interesting theme and I am sure there will be more films based on it - will they all be 'rip-offs' too? The actors *can* act (except for the bimbo who gets lured to her death - but then what do expect from a bimbo in a horror movie who gets lured to her death?!).The hallucination sequences, as said by OR, are great.The production values are high enough.The gore is as graphic as it needs to be - the fate of the young Germans at the beginning is largely left to our imaginations which lends an atmosphere of impending menace to the film.The cop/female scientist *do* call backup - he just ends up pinned to the wall! The female scientist is *not* stabbed with a big knife in the neck - it is a close-up of a hypodermic syringe being plunged into her neck to drug her and incapacitate her, to facilitate the Doctor making her his next victim - a truly terrifying prospect for her.So maybe its not a 10 really (at least 7 though!) but as I said the balance needs readdressing!
What a horrendous waste of precious celluloid!
posted on 28 May 2009SPOILER FREE COMMENT! (though I don't think that there's anything to spoil here...) I really don't know, how could I force myself not to turn this movie off after the first 20 minutes or so. In the first 1-2 minutes, I was hopeful, i thought, that it can't be a bad movie, because it has Udo Kier in it! My god, how wrong I was...When the movie reached the 20 minutes mark, I was so desperate, that I've never been in my life. By then, it was pretty obvious, that this is a bad movie. It wasn't like that, when a movie seems good at the start but goes downhill later; no. It was bad from the beginning to the end.There is no story. There is no acting. There is no direction. Character-development? Did you see any characters in this movie? Or can I even write down the word "movie" regarding this cinematic torture? I think, not. I won't. Moreover, I won't write anything more about this awful piece of film-making (Hmm... where did I see film-making in this? I really need to stop writing this comment, before I write some more ridiculous stuff. "Filmmaking", holy jeez...).IMDb's lowest rating is "awful". This word hardly represents the suffering you go through watching FearDotCom. This is the only movie I rated 1 on this site, and when the credits started rolling, I immediately put this movie into the AAAC-category. What does AAAC mean? AVOID AT ALL COST!!! 1/10
StinkDotCom
posted on 26 Aug 2009All you really need to know about this movie is that the writers were too stupid to realize that, in computereeze, the URL for "FearDotCom" would be represented as "fear.com", not "feardotcom.com". Believe all of the negative comments you read about this tripe. Even my 14-year-old daughter thought the lead actress was bad.Bill