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 Only, the videotape has been replaced by an internet website and the poor victims have only 2 days left to live after being exposed instead of 7.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.
434 Reviews
It's a mess.
Sleepin_Dragon7 April 2019
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
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
Stupid Dot com
mm-3930 August 2002
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
Incomprehensible
TheEtherWalk17 January 2003
About halfway through the movie, I was actually considering giving this a 4, but the complete and utter lack of reasoning in this movie that made me give it a 1 I will now try to sum up.
The ghost made a website that people can log (and start hallucinating from) onto only 48 hours later they will be dead unless they find her body so she can exact revenge on someone who killed her on another website that people subscribe to, even though she kills other people in car crashes and train accidents who had no involvement with her death.
Things I learned from FearDotCom:
-Ghosts are capable of creating websites.
-The internet is inherently evil.
-People who use the internet are freaks.
-People who use the internet are incapable of closing their eyes.
-A bunch of weird images on a computer can drive someone crazy and make them hallucinate.
-A bunch of weird images on a movie can drive someone so crazy that they hallucinate so they think what they are watching makes one ounce of logical sense.
Obviously the producers of this movie wanted the audience to be driven insane by the film and have shut off our brains by the time the "ending" has arrived. Sadly, I was still conscious at the end which didn't explain anything and only dropped my score from a 4 to a 1.
And it's a very boring movie too. Did I mention this movie sucks?
The ghost made a website that people can log (and start hallucinating from) onto only 48 hours later they will be dead unless they find her body so she can exact revenge on someone who killed her on another website that people subscribe to, even though she kills other people in car crashes and train accidents who had no involvement with her death.
Things I learned from FearDotCom:
-Ghosts are capable of creating websites.
-The internet is inherently evil.
-People who use the internet are freaks.
-People who use the internet are incapable of closing their eyes.
-A bunch of weird images on a computer can drive someone crazy and make them hallucinate.
-A bunch of weird images on a movie can drive someone so crazy that they hallucinate so they think what they are watching makes one ounce of logical sense.
Obviously the producers of this movie wanted the audience to be driven insane by the film and have shut off our brains by the time the "ending" has arrived. Sadly, I was still conscious at the end which didn't explain anything and only dropped my score from a 4 to a 1.
And it's a very boring movie too. Did I mention this movie sucks?
FearNotCom
mfrost823222 December 2004
Warning: Spoilers
'Feardotcom' was filmed in Luxembourg (apparently standing in for New York, I think.) and hasn't been officially released yet. I saw it as one of the featured films during the Luxembourg International Film festival. (Cinenygma) - One of the executive producers, who introduced the film, said it wasn't 100% finished yet, and that even the title might change. However, since every second of the film was even more tortuous than the depravities depicted on the screen, I believe no amount of focus groups or editing could save this film. I'd say 'straight to video', but that would be a major waste of plastic and cardboard. I suppose if they market it as a parody, they might salvage the cost of, um, the catering during the film.
Stephen Dorff plays a hard-boiled detective who's haunted by that one case that was never solved. You know he's haunted because he walks around with a 3 day growth of beard. Which stays at the same length the whole film, even though the film covers quite a few days (it was hard tell, nothing was very coherent) And guess what! His old nemesis from the unsolved case is killing again! Oh boy! And since we now have new cases to solve, AND they're dying from what looks to be a virus, we need to bring in the woman scientist and nominal love interest (Natascha McElhone - who displayed quite amply in 'The Truman Show' that she can't act. She must work cheap, or maybe they needed someone to make Dorff look good.) We know she's a scientist because she wears glasses. And just for grins we get Jeffrey Coombs as Dorff's partner, whose main role appears to be running around spouting non-sequiturs. Speaking of which, there was a writer listed for the film but I'd bet a Ben Franklin that they were making up the dialog as they went along, and probably for a different film. It's too bad 'Deep Space 9' went off the air - it might have prevented Coombs from getting caught up in this travesty. And there's Stephen Rea as the mad scientist, looking vaguely like Geoffrey Rush mad scientist character in 'Mystery Men.' Now, I could have sworn Rea could act, so maybe they are two of them? Amazingly a director is also listed, but from what I can tell they pretty much turned on the camera, came back later, took the film to the editing room, forgot to turn on the lights and just started editing. That would explain a lot.
And what of the plot? Ha! There isn't one! Well, OK, maybe a little one. I think the deal was that the girl killed in the unsolved case somehow inhabited the internet and is killing people if they log on to the mad scientist's site, where HE tortures women until they beg him to kill them - and all for $9.95! (but just for grins they (the unfortunates who log into fear.com) only die after 48 hours, because, I think, that's how long it took her to be killed) But I think you'd need a broadband connection, because somehow when you login, this girl living in the internet puts a hex on you, which involves you falling off your chair and eventually trashing your apartment and nose bleeds, and um, dying from the fright of your worst fear (like being cast in this movie) and I really don't think that could happen with a dial up connection. Um, anyway, she's going to keep on killing people unless the mad scientist is caught. And her body is found too. I mean they threw that bit in there about finding the body, but then when it was found, it didn't count for anything! Now, doesn't that just bite. Damn fickle internet ghosts.
**SPOILER**
Actually this whole film was a spoiler, at least it smelled spoiled to me. Anyway - the final scene where Dorff and the McElhone rush into the mad scientist's lair (located in an abandoned steel mill or nuclear plant - the film couldn't make up it's mind what it was - it identified it as both during different scenes in the film) and stop him only seconds before he's going to kill his latest victim had me rolling in the aisle with laughter. It was just like watching an old horror film from the 30's or 40's. Maniacal laughter, bug-eyed expressions of madness, flashing lights, tilted camera angles. So they manage to save the girl, but then the mad scientist shoots Dorff, and then stabs McElhone then Dorff grabs a keyboard and logs into feardot.com which drives the mad scientist so mad - he dies from fear! Then Dorff dies, and McElhone, who was in love with Dorff (oh, did I leave that part out? - apparently they fell madly in love in some 30 second scene earlier in the film - some real in-depth character development going on here.) sort of cries over his body, but um, somehow she's no longer stabbed! Maybe it was her Multi-vitamin.
**END OF SPOILER**
So -um, in conclusion - I can't imagine any changes to this film possibly making it watchable. I'll be surprised if gets released at all (though the executive producer said Warner Bros had picked it up for US distribution, and Columbia-Tri-Star for the rest of the world. Let's hope they come to their senses.) You have been warned. Go watch 'Donnie Darko' instead!
Stephen Dorff plays a hard-boiled detective who's haunted by that one case that was never solved. You know he's haunted because he walks around with a 3 day growth of beard. Which stays at the same length the whole film, even though the film covers quite a few days (it was hard tell, nothing was very coherent) And guess what! His old nemesis from the unsolved case is killing again! Oh boy! And since we now have new cases to solve, AND they're dying from what looks to be a virus, we need to bring in the woman scientist and nominal love interest (Natascha McElhone - who displayed quite amply in 'The Truman Show' that she can't act. She must work cheap, or maybe they needed someone to make Dorff look good.) We know she's a scientist because she wears glasses. And just for grins we get Jeffrey Coombs as Dorff's partner, whose main role appears to be running around spouting non-sequiturs. Speaking of which, there was a writer listed for the film but I'd bet a Ben Franklin that they were making up the dialog as they went along, and probably for a different film. It's too bad 'Deep Space 9' went off the air - it might have prevented Coombs from getting caught up in this travesty. And there's Stephen Rea as the mad scientist, looking vaguely like Geoffrey Rush mad scientist character in 'Mystery Men.' Now, I could have sworn Rea could act, so maybe they are two of them? Amazingly a director is also listed, but from what I can tell they pretty much turned on the camera, came back later, took the film to the editing room, forgot to turn on the lights and just started editing. That would explain a lot.
And what of the plot? Ha! There isn't one! Well, OK, maybe a little one. I think the deal was that the girl killed in the unsolved case somehow inhabited the internet and is killing people if they log on to the mad scientist's site, where HE tortures women until they beg him to kill them - and all for $9.95! (but just for grins they (the unfortunates who log into fear.com) only die after 48 hours, because, I think, that's how long it took her to be killed) But I think you'd need a broadband connection, because somehow when you login, this girl living in the internet puts a hex on you, which involves you falling off your chair and eventually trashing your apartment and nose bleeds, and um, dying from the fright of your worst fear (like being cast in this movie) and I really don't think that could happen with a dial up connection. Um, anyway, she's going to keep on killing people unless the mad scientist is caught. And her body is found too. I mean they threw that bit in there about finding the body, but then when it was found, it didn't count for anything! Now, doesn't that just bite. Damn fickle internet ghosts.
**SPOILER**
Actually this whole film was a spoiler, at least it smelled spoiled to me. Anyway - the final scene where Dorff and the McElhone rush into the mad scientist's lair (located in an abandoned steel mill or nuclear plant - the film couldn't make up it's mind what it was - it identified it as both during different scenes in the film) and stop him only seconds before he's going to kill his latest victim had me rolling in the aisle with laughter. It was just like watching an old horror film from the 30's or 40's. Maniacal laughter, bug-eyed expressions of madness, flashing lights, tilted camera angles. So they manage to save the girl, but then the mad scientist shoots Dorff, and then stabs McElhone then Dorff grabs a keyboard and logs into feardot.com which drives the mad scientist so mad - he dies from fear! Then Dorff dies, and McElhone, who was in love with Dorff (oh, did I leave that part out? - apparently they fell madly in love in some 30 second scene earlier in the film - some real in-depth character development going on here.) sort of cries over his body, but um, somehow she's no longer stabbed! Maybe it was her Multi-vitamin.
**END OF SPOILER**
So -um, in conclusion - I can't imagine any changes to this film possibly making it watchable. I'll be surprised if gets released at all (though the executive producer said Warner Bros had picked it up for US distribution, and Columbia-Tri-Star for the rest of the world. Let's hope they come to their senses.) You have been warned. Go watch 'Donnie Darko' instead!
Wow. . I could have watched paint dry instead!
moovie_grrl22 March 2006
I'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
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
Worst Movie Ever
BlinkFlame30 April 2009
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.
I'd rather watch Anti-Smoking Commercials
psthedon25 January 2003
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?
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?
Watching this is honestly similar to being brutally bludgeoned with a hard object
Dragoneyed36316 May 2008
I do not really remember how I came upon this movie, but I do know that somewhere along the way it has made it's way into my DVD collection. I do not know if I blindly bought it, was given it as a "gift", or if someone lent it to me and I just forgot to return it, but whatever way, it is in there now. I watched it quite some time ago, expecting it to be decent enough, entertaining at least, because I really liked the tagline and the premise seemed fun, though I have learned to stay away from a lot of "technology killing" horrors over the past few years now, and I remembered before I watched it again recently that I hated it the first time I watched it, a lot, and it was very negatively reviewed as well. Watching it again confirmed my feelings.
The film itself is just entirely ridiculous and absurd from beginning to end with a horrible storyline and lame performances and "thrills". There is zero to none interesting scenes that make the viewer feel creeped out or enticed in any way, and the whole film is a joke within itself. I especially hated the ludicrous characters and twists, and also the way the story was executed in a poor manner, not being able to stay with one main idea for too long that it is infuriatingly annoying to watch the plot, what plot there is at least, unfold. The movie resembles a little diddy of a film titled "Ringu/The Ring" an awful lot, though both of those renditions are spectacular and this pales entirely in comparison, and even though there are some nice settings in this movie, that is really and truly the only plus side to it.
There are many noticeable errors and plot holes, the dialogue is, for our inconvenience, not as laughable as one would hope, but corny enough to get a few giggles now and then, especially some of the deliverances from the female lead, and the climax/ending is not anywhere near heartracing or interest sparking, just bland and hardly tolerable. There are many useless scenes of violence that have no importance whatsoever except to try and get a rise in the viewer, which was not accomplished in my situation, and a lot of material is just thrown in there randomly, which goes back to how I stated it is poorly executed and extremely mediocre. My summary pretty much warns anyone and everyone away from this movie, unless you are a masochist and want to be put through this pain.
The film itself is just entirely ridiculous and absurd from beginning to end with a horrible storyline and lame performances and "thrills". There is zero to none interesting scenes that make the viewer feel creeped out or enticed in any way, and the whole film is a joke within itself. I especially hated the ludicrous characters and twists, and also the way the story was executed in a poor manner, not being able to stay with one main idea for too long that it is infuriatingly annoying to watch the plot, what plot there is at least, unfold. The movie resembles a little diddy of a film titled "Ringu/The Ring" an awful lot, though both of those renditions are spectacular and this pales entirely in comparison, and even though there are some nice settings in this movie, that is really and truly the only plus side to it.
There are many noticeable errors and plot holes, the dialogue is, for our inconvenience, not as laughable as one would hope, but corny enough to get a few giggles now and then, especially some of the deliverances from the female lead, and the climax/ending is not anywhere near heartracing or interest sparking, just bland and hardly tolerable. There are many useless scenes of violence that have no importance whatsoever except to try and get a rise in the viewer, which was not accomplished in my situation, and a lot of material is just thrown in there randomly, which goes back to how I stated it is poorly executed and extremely mediocre. My summary pretty much warns anyone and everyone away from this movie, unless you are a masochist and want to be put through this pain.
Got Fear?...this sure didn't. - Contains Spoiler
Uriko18 March 2003
Warning: Spoilers
Ok, so my boyfriend and I were going to go see this while it was in the theaters but we never quite made it (Perhaps it was a divine stroke of luck). So we rented the DVD from a video store. We were delayed from seeing it yet again (you'd think we would've taken the hint) and left the DVD disc at my house. After getting down to watching the movie, I was excited and ready to be scared. We'd watched The Ring a few nights ago and it easily gave me nightmares. But despite our hopes that this movie would do the same job, we were sorely let down.
The movie had a strong start even if it was confusing. A man is hit by a subway train when he sees a little girl on the tracks. Why did he jump back out in front of the train? Then you meet the male lead and his associate in the police department. Why do they both sound like the stupidest cops you'll ever see? The female lead knew more about policing than the both of them. Most of the other actors sounded like they were reading off cue cards and the plot quickly because unbeliveable (ah yes, I'll let my sick daughter play in an old steel mill even if she's supposively afraid of sharp things and on top of that, how did Terry know to listen to the half blind old lady in the mill? and let's not forget, to get to the site, its "feardotcom.com" not "fear.com." the doctor got ripped off on his site) By this point in the movie I begged my boyfriend to let it keep playing just to see if it saved itself. It didn't. The ending was cliche', and the special effects when they killed the doctor were the only positive things in the movie. The basic story for FearDotCom was a creative one...but poorly executed (no pun intended). Save yourself a rental and go see something else. You'll thank yourself later.
The movie had a strong start even if it was confusing. A man is hit by a subway train when he sees a little girl on the tracks. Why did he jump back out in front of the train? Then you meet the male lead and his associate in the police department. Why do they both sound like the stupidest cops you'll ever see? The female lead knew more about policing than the both of them. Most of the other actors sounded like they were reading off cue cards and the plot quickly because unbeliveable (ah yes, I'll let my sick daughter play in an old steel mill even if she's supposively afraid of sharp things and on top of that, how did Terry know to listen to the half blind old lady in the mill? and let's not forget, to get to the site, its "feardotcom.com" not "fear.com." the doctor got ripped off on his site) By this point in the movie I begged my boyfriend to let it keep playing just to see if it saved itself. It didn't. The ending was cliche', and the special effects when they killed the doctor were the only positive things in the movie. The basic story for FearDotCom was a creative one...but poorly executed (no pun intended). Save yourself a rental and go see something else. You'll thank yourself later.
***1/2 out of 5
casey_choas6621 April 2003
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.
Good...
RosanaBotafogo6 September 2020
I was afraid of the videos, in the best style of "The Call", by the way, a very brazen copy, but I liked it, a dose of humor would have made it lighter and less serious, after all, we rarely take a horror movie seriously , sinned when trying, but it's not that bad, assistable for lovers of the trash land, there was no blood, there was no humor, but it's worth the money, better used if you watch the night alone, I don't take any chances...
DAMN people it WASN'T that bad
dragoncherie9 December 2020
All these 1 reviews ha. Yea we get it it, this movie isn't hereditary or even in the level of the conjuring type "scary"... But this film certainly isn't terrible. It had a decent eerie atmosphere and dark tones throughout. Also, the plot was relatively solid.
FearDotCRAP!
landslide07831 August 2002
Warning: Spoilers
Contains Spoilers I admit, I wanted to see this movie. I expected it to be decent, as it was from the same people who made House On Haunted Hill. What I didn't expect was for it to be so bad.
1. What was up with the lighting? Did they spend the entire budget on the website graphics and not have enough left over for electricity?
2. How many times can one movie reuse special effects from House On Haunted Hill? The "ghosts" walking around and having a seizure? The "ghost" at the end looked so much like the "shadow" from HOHH that I was waiting for Famke Janssen to pop out of it looking for Geoffrey Rush. The even ripped off the gory statues that could be found in the foyer to the basement in HOHH.
3. How did the main characters fall in love after meeting for two seconds? They had very little chemistry together. Which is probably due to the fact that Natascha McElhone CAN'T ACT!
4. The website issue and Denise the ghost woman were never really tied together that well either. AND, while we're on the subject of little Miss Ghost Denise, what mother would let her hemopheliac 8 year old walk 2 miles down the street to play in an old abandoned steel mill?
With a running time of 98 minutes that felt like 3 hours, by the end of feardotcom I had laughed so much that I really didn't care how it ended. I only wish that McElhone hadn't survived either, because the last part of the movie, the epilogue of her answering the phone and it being just static made no sense either.
Thank God they showed a preview for Ghost Ship!
1. What was up with the lighting? Did they spend the entire budget on the website graphics and not have enough left over for electricity?
2. How many times can one movie reuse special effects from House On Haunted Hill? The "ghosts" walking around and having a seizure? The "ghost" at the end looked so much like the "shadow" from HOHH that I was waiting for Famke Janssen to pop out of it looking for Geoffrey Rush. The even ripped off the gory statues that could be found in the foyer to the basement in HOHH.
3. How did the main characters fall in love after meeting for two seconds? They had very little chemistry together. Which is probably due to the fact that Natascha McElhone CAN'T ACT!
4. The website issue and Denise the ghost woman were never really tied together that well either. AND, while we're on the subject of little Miss Ghost Denise, what mother would let her hemopheliac 8 year old walk 2 miles down the street to play in an old abandoned steel mill?
With a running time of 98 minutes that felt like 3 hours, by the end of feardotcom I had laughed so much that I really didn't care how it ended. I only wish that McElhone hadn't survived either, because the last part of the movie, the epilogue of her answering the phone and it being just static made no sense either.
Thank God they showed a preview for Ghost Ship!
What a horrendous waste of precious celluloid!
sati_849 March 2005
Warning: Spoilers
SPOILER 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
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
Utter Rubbish
huzzporter1 January 2006
Warning: Spoilers
So many holes in this film, so many. I have no idea what it was trying to be, if its intentions were to be artistically driven metaphors etc, or if it was just a bad idea. If i were either Dorff, Rea or Mcelhone i would be embarrassed with the result. It is as if they lost pages of the script during the production, or they wrote it while they were making it. The characters had no depth at all, and it didn't make sense why Mcelhones character as a health department investigator hung around trying to solve a case that had nothing to do with the skills she had. It was like she became a police officer for a while. Also, Rea's character was a strange parody of a delusional madman, trying to be meaningful and purposeful with his depraved acts. And what website was he broadcasting to? Fear dot com wasn't his website, and the relevance of the girl, his first victim was unclear. How\why was she the only victim that wanted revenge? Why did she kill people who didn't find her body? It must have been her website. Why did Dorffs character flake out and become useless as soon as he viewed the website, leaving Mcelhone to do everything? Yet he then became well enough to go and finish... blah blah blah. It is not worth writing about anymore, I assure you that this is one of the worst horror films, no, one of the worst films ever made.
What a Piece of Rubbish!
jkdrummond12 March 2005
Warning: Spoilers
I picked this up this evening for no other reason than the cast. Oh, sure, now and then I do enjoy a good horror flick (this isn't one) and was in the mood to watch some mindless goop. Well, FEARDOTCOM is certainly mindless; indeed, I muttered out loud when the credits were running, "Oh my God! They actually had a writer!" Could have fooled me -- I was literally expecting one of those "Script by Committee" acknowledgments; whoever Josephine Coyle is I sure hope she doesn't quit her day job (her only other credit listed at IMDb is as a "production coordinator" for PRESENCE OF MIND in 1999).
And, largely because of that miserable excuse for a script, it winds up being not a good ANY kind of film: When the bloody hell are film makers going to realize the rather elementary truth (as in Kindergarten level) that if you don't have a good script, you don't have a film? Period! Never mind good production values (and I hate to admit it but they ain't bad), good direction (this definitely has none of that - Lord! The number of bloopers is just astonishing SPOILER**Just as a for instance: When McElhone rushes into the psychiatric ward of the hospital to talk to Dorff (with no explanation WHY he's in a psychiatric unit), is directed to his room "first door on the left," she is instantly there, finds him having a full-on seizure (with no medical people in attendance, mind you), and suddenly -- when she, oh, so frightfully conveniently gets a phone call -- NOW she's got to go out the door onto a stair landing and through yet another doorway before she's back in the same corridor! Really good continuity there, folks!) END SPOILER.
I have admired Stephen Dorff in many films **but this was just, well, a grunting quasi-Neanderthal that pretty much embodied every tired cliché there is for a world weary cop since sometime in the 1930s**! (**Oh yeah! And somebody really should point out to this generally admirable young actor that if you have a story in which the primary character doesn't "solve" the main problem, but instead winds up a clueless bystander, you just don't have a viable story.**) I adored Natasha McElhone in MRS DALLOWAY (and -- even GIVEN the weaknesses of the character in the script -- in THE TRUMAN SHOW), and have been an admirer of Stephen Rea ever since THE CRYING GAME, too -- but I can't figure out why they agreed to do this one; did they all need some quick-and-dirty money or something. . . .
Usually one can at least learn something from a genuinely bad movie (which this is) but with this one, for the very first time, I wanted to go back to my film rental store and demand my $3.50 back on general principles.
I'm glad I didn't follow my first impulse to shut the show down at the end of the "first reel" 20 minute period, because I can quite honestly report about this disaster of a movie: Dreadful! Just dreadful on every level except, as I said above, production values. Big deal!
And, largely because of that miserable excuse for a script, it winds up being not a good ANY kind of film: When the bloody hell are film makers going to realize the rather elementary truth (as in Kindergarten level) that if you don't have a good script, you don't have a film? Period! Never mind good production values (and I hate to admit it but they ain't bad), good direction (this definitely has none of that - Lord! The number of bloopers is just astonishing SPOILER**Just as a for instance: When McElhone rushes into the psychiatric ward of the hospital to talk to Dorff (with no explanation WHY he's in a psychiatric unit), is directed to his room "first door on the left," she is instantly there, finds him having a full-on seizure (with no medical people in attendance, mind you), and suddenly -- when she, oh, so frightfully conveniently gets a phone call -- NOW she's got to go out the door onto a stair landing and through yet another doorway before she's back in the same corridor! Really good continuity there, folks!) END SPOILER.
I have admired Stephen Dorff in many films **but this was just, well, a grunting quasi-Neanderthal that pretty much embodied every tired cliché there is for a world weary cop since sometime in the 1930s**! (**Oh yeah! And somebody really should point out to this generally admirable young actor that if you have a story in which the primary character doesn't "solve" the main problem, but instead winds up a clueless bystander, you just don't have a viable story.**) I adored Natasha McElhone in MRS DALLOWAY (and -- even GIVEN the weaknesses of the character in the script -- in THE TRUMAN SHOW), and have been an admirer of Stephen Rea ever since THE CRYING GAME, too -- but I can't figure out why they agreed to do this one; did they all need some quick-and-dirty money or something. . . .
Usually one can at least learn something from a genuinely bad movie (which this is) but with this one, for the very first time, I wanted to go back to my film rental store and demand my $3.50 back on general principles.
I'm glad I didn't follow my first impulse to shut the show down at the end of the "first reel" 20 minute period, because I can quite honestly report about this disaster of a movie: Dreadful! Just dreadful on every level except, as I said above, production values. Big deal!
Stay Away From This Movie
TexasAlan31 August 2002
If you even think about going to see the "horror masterpiece" Feardotcom, I urge you to take off your shoes, stay at home and stare at the wall. You will be much more entertained. Trust me.
The directors and producers forgot about several things. First being a decent script. The second, having quality actors. Third, estabishing mood lighting for a 'scary movie' instead of having everything take place in a dark room or two.
Part of the movie takes place via digital cameras. It worked for The Blair Witch Project. It kinda worked for Halloween 8. It did not work here.
William Malone, the director, favored CGI over story telling. Too many of the "scares" were laughable, too many of the scenes pointless.The only saving grace for my $5.50 was the trailer for "Ghost Ship" before the movie.
The lead actress, Natascha McElhone,looks like a cross between Crystal Gayle and Meryl Streep, with the acting ablitiy of Tawny Kitaen. She's just that bad.
Stephen Dorff emotes like a wood board. Only one expression for fear, confusion, and insanity.
Please, I urge you to say home and stare at the wall. Save your money. You will thank me in the end.
The directors and producers forgot about several things. First being a decent script. The second, having quality actors. Third, estabishing mood lighting for a 'scary movie' instead of having everything take place in a dark room or two.
Part of the movie takes place via digital cameras. It worked for The Blair Witch Project. It kinda worked for Halloween 8. It did not work here.
William Malone, the director, favored CGI over story telling. Too many of the "scares" were laughable, too many of the scenes pointless.The only saving grace for my $5.50 was the trailer for "Ghost Ship" before the movie.
The lead actress, Natascha McElhone,looks like a cross between Crystal Gayle and Meryl Streep, with the acting ablitiy of Tawny Kitaen. She's just that bad.
Stephen Dorff emotes like a wood board. Only one expression for fear, confusion, and insanity.
Please, I urge you to say home and stare at the wall. Save your money. You will thank me in the end.
Not what I expected...
darkanasazi31 May 2004
After reading the description for this video and deciding to purchase it two days ago, I felt that it might be a worthy horror film. Unfortunately this movie was a major disappointment. This was definitely a "hack and slash" film, but it was the plot and continuity of the film that were cut to pieces. This movie had no redeeming qualities... The plot was non-existent, the acting was poor, the effects were poor... The worst part of all is that this movie was actually released and that there are people that like it. No offense to these folks, but when the best part of the movie is throwing it in the trash, you really need to reconsider what you're watching. This could have been a decent horror film, but all things considered, this movie ranks a 1 on the rating scale and a 10 on the pain scale.
My suggestion is to watch a horror film such as 'The Ring' or John Carpenter's 'The Thing.' Both are edge-of-your-seat thrillers that will show you what horror is meant to be... ;)
My suggestion is to watch a horror film such as 'The Ring' or John Carpenter's 'The Thing.' Both are edge-of-your-seat thrillers that will show you what horror is meant to be... ;)
No holding back!
mbbxkjel2 July 2003
This has to be the WORST movie idea. a decade ago the idea of the internet as a scary place where only freaks and weirdos hang out would on the internet might have creedance, now it seems absolutely stupid. there are NO redeeming features. everyone involved with this should hang there heads. terrible idea, very bad acting, awful script, poor acting, i could go on. a truely woeful effort. there are bad films, but this is so bad there are no words to describe it. and i'm a student of english. i love horror movies, but this is not even worth to be in the same category as the worst horror movies. DO NOT SEE THIS MOVIE, you will have wasted your money. just through your money in the bin, burn it, eat it. it will be more entertaining than this disgrace to the movie industry. A rating 0 out of 10. No that's too good. 0 out of a billion.
Terrible
rbverhoef30 July 2003
Warning: Spoilers
Not far in the movie I realized I was watching a terrible version of 'Ringu', the Japanese movie that inspired a very good US movie named 'The Ring'. It has the same elements. A medium that kills because you watch it (in 'The Ring' a videotape, here an internet-site), a little girl that is probably the key to solve the problem, a woman and a guy searching for the answer, both saw the site and therefor they both have to hurry, and why they have to hurry has something to do with earlier events. Here they have 48 hours to solve this mystery that involves The Doctor, a killer who broadcasts live killings over the internet. Well, not just killings. He tortures a woman for a long time and in the end there must be a point where the woman asks him to be killed. And so it is done.
To tell more about the messy plot would be stupid. I am not even sure if I understand everything. After you have seen the internet-site you die of your worst fear in 48 hours, that I did understand, but why do 'infected' people see the little girl over and over again while she herself was killed as an adult? I probably missed it but like I said it doesn't really matter. The scary visuals have something admirable. The images are really haunting but again I liked the videotape from 'The Ring' a lot more. May be you will like it for the images and some scary moments, but I think you can find a better movie. 'The Ring' may be.
To tell more about the messy plot would be stupid. I am not even sure if I understand everything. After you have seen the internet-site you die of your worst fear in 48 hours, that I did understand, but why do 'infected' people see the little girl over and over again while she herself was killed as an adult? I probably missed it but like I said it doesn't really matter. The scary visuals have something admirable. The images are really haunting but again I liked the videotape from 'The Ring' a lot more. May be you will like it for the images and some scary moments, but I think you can find a better movie. 'The Ring' may be.
This came out two weeks before the controversial American remake of "the Ring."
Carycomic6 June 2003
Warning: Spoilers
Major difference between the two? *Borderline spoiler.* This was about a jinxed computer website. The other was about a jinxed videotape. And, personally? I FOUND THIS WAY SCARIER THAN EITHER VERSION OF "THE RING!" So, good night and good viewing.
mystery
demoncomet2111 July 2007
i loved the movie because it had a good creepy feeling thats awesome in a scary movie and also the secret between the little girl and her mother and the scientist and that the little girl had a problem i diden see that coming she was a hemophiliac or something like that i haven't seen the movie in a long time i was 14 or 15 when i seen it yea the movie had tons of cool things to it that I'm not all going to whrite down but i am going to say that I'm going to get that movie for my movie collection fear.com was a rental so i wasn't able to keep it but years later while i was online it hit me fear.com lol kinda weard huh well I'm saying goodbye and to the ones in or made fear.com
The 'Ringu' of Internet A Ghost Story
claudio_carvalho22 October 2004
After some mysterious deaths showing the same symptoms in the victims, Terry Huston (Natascha McElhone), from the Department of Health, investigates the possibility of a virus in the city with Homicide Detective Mike Reilly (Stephen Dorff). However, they realize that all the victims have visited an Internet site called 'www.fear.com' forty-eight hours before dying. A further investigation shows that there is a ghost on the web killing its users. Meanwhile, Detective Mike Reilly is also investigating a murderer called Alistair Pratt, 'The Doctor' (Stephen Rea). This movie has good and bad points. The story is plagiarized from the excellent and original Japanese 'Ringu', but the American 'The Ring' was a copy and became a success. There are some flaws along the confused plot. But there are also interesting points. For example, the dark and rainy atmosphere recalls 'Seven'. There is a sort of contrast between the modern (computer, Internet, cars) and life in the 30's or 40's (old buildings, classic costumes and furniture), recalling a film-noir, with a beautiful photography and style. There are also some reasonable special effects. The cast is slightly above average, with Natascha McElhone, Stephen Rea and Stephen Dorff. Therefore I dare to say that it is a watchable movie and I do not agree with the User Rating. My vote is six.
Title (Brazil): 'MedoPontoCombr' ('FearDotCom')
Title (Brazil): 'MedoPontoCombr' ('FearDotCom')
At least the poster was cool looking
Agent1013 November 2002
My, my, my, what a sick and twisted world we live in for a film such as this to be made. After watching this film, I had to take a shower to wipe off the detritus that was emanating from the screen. What has Stephen Dorff done to his once promising career. This isn't a bad career move, this is jumping off a cliff. Was he angry because he didn't get a part for the Texas Chainsaw Massacre 6 or Ghoulies 7?
This film wasn't even remotely horrid, it was downright atrocious. Quite possibly the most scary film ever made, mainly because some idiot studio exec thought this might appeal to some audience, any audience. What were they shooting for? The crowd that recklessly spends their money because they don't care? I can only imagine how the creators of this film pitched this and still got some idiot to pick it up.
This film wasn't even remotely horrid, it was downright atrocious. Quite possibly the most scary film ever made, mainly because some idiot studio exec thought this might appeal to some audience, any audience. What were they shooting for? The crowd that recklessly spends their money because they don't care? I can only imagine how the creators of this film pitched this and still got some idiot to pick it up.
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
