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 Only, the videotape has been replaced by an internet website and the poor victims have only 2 days left to live after being exposed instead of 7.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.
350 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?
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.
***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.
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.
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.
Nonsensical rubbish given glossy finish
bob the moo1 September 2003
Investigating a spate of similar deaths that may be virus related, officer Mike Reilly and Department of Health's Terry Huston are left stumped by the connections in the similar deaths. However as the deaths continue, some video taped clues surface and guide them. They uncover a website that may be related to the deaths and also reminds Reilly of the cruel doctor Alistair Pratt. What CAN it all mean?
In an attempt to be fair to this film, I was in the gym when I watched this film and was jogging for the majority of the time. Maybe that means I wasn't concentrating and thus missed the good side of it, or I was too focused on it (to avoid the pain) and became nick-picky. Either way I'm sure my opinion of this film would be the same in either situation. that this film is polished nonsense.
The plot is so lacking a central focus point, a driver if you will, that at times it is as disjointed as some of the butchered bodies on display. Those strands that do exist are very loose and don't really hang convincingly well together. The end result is that there is no real tension to speak of certainly no fear. While I did think that the main idea of the website was good, it went nowhere of merit.
What was left was simply a lot of flashy MTV camera shots and cinematography to try and give the impression of weirdness or an impressive film. If the substance had been there in support these might have been more impressive, as it is they only serve to highlight how utterly hollow they are.
The cast are all pretty average. I only watched it because I saw Dorff's name in the credits but he did nothing to really speak of. Likewise McElhone easily slips into scream queen mode. Rea's evil doctor was OK but not expanded on at all or used well at any point. The support cast of victims all run round scared (or bleeding) as required no more no less.
Overall I was disappointed wit the film. It had an interesting, if not great concept to work from, but failed to build any sort of substance and comes off just looking like a long music video with gore.
In an attempt to be fair to this film, I was in the gym when I watched this film and was jogging for the majority of the time. Maybe that means I wasn't concentrating and thus missed the good side of it, or I was too focused on it (to avoid the pain) and became nick-picky. Either way I'm sure my opinion of this film would be the same in either situation. that this film is polished nonsense.
The plot is so lacking a central focus point, a driver if you will, that at times it is as disjointed as some of the butchered bodies on display. Those strands that do exist are very loose and don't really hang convincingly well together. The end result is that there is no real tension to speak of certainly no fear. While I did think that the main idea of the website was good, it went nowhere of merit.
What was left was simply a lot of flashy MTV camera shots and cinematography to try and give the impression of weirdness or an impressive film. If the substance had been there in support these might have been more impressive, as it is they only serve to highlight how utterly hollow they are.
The cast are all pretty average. I only watched it because I saw Dorff's name in the credits but he did nothing to really speak of. Likewise McElhone easily slips into scream queen mode. Rea's evil doctor was OK but not expanded on at all or used well at any point. The support cast of victims all run round scared (or bleeding) as required no more no less.
Overall I was disappointed wit the film. It had an interesting, if not great concept to work from, but failed to build any sort of substance and comes off just looking like a long music video with gore.
Decline of tne new millennium...
insomniac_rod20 December 2006
And I wanted to see this movie back in 2002! I'm glad, no, I'm proud that I didn't waste my money on this movie back in 2002 when it premiered on theaters.
This is one of the worst Horror movies from the new millennium and not even Mr. Stephen Dorff (known better for his B-movie roles) could save this from the trash can.
The plot had potential but it's poorly executed and makes "The Ring" look like a masterpiece.
The f/x are CGI mediocrity and there isn't any remarkable production value.
My advice is : forget about this movie. It's not worth your time, money, or anything. It's not even recommended to make fun about it.
This is one of the worst Horror movies from the new millennium and not even Mr. Stephen Dorff (known better for his B-movie roles) could save this from the trash can.
The plot had potential but it's poorly executed and makes "The Ring" look like a masterpiece.
The f/x are CGI mediocrity and there isn't any remarkable production value.
My advice is : forget about this movie. It's not worth your time, money, or anything. It's not even recommended to make fun about it.
The Audience Revolted!
mexmugger17 June 2004
I've sat through many a terrible film. Usually, I swallow some advil or Jack Daniels and soldier through like a good little movie buff. This film, however, was THE closest I've ever come to walking out. For those of familiar or unfamiliar with the plot, while investigating the ghostly visage of a little girl (dressed to the nines in her Sunday best, complete with accompanying bouncing ball) our protagonists track down the girl's mother. While interviewing this pinnacle of parenthood, the mother explains that her daughter was (1) a hemophiliac that (2) used to play, alone, dressed in her Sunday best (complete with her Wilson) at (3) the old, abandoned steel mill that was (4) conveniently located a mere mile away from the perfect suburban neighborhood. WHAT?!?! First, most female hemophiliacs don't survive past puberty (for hopefully obvious reasons). Second, what mother of a child in such a condition lets her daughter play in AN OLD ABANDONED STEEL MILL?!?!?! I've seen some mighty far-fetched plot contrivances in my day (e.g., the wolves in Day After Tomorrow comes immediately to mind) but this was terrible. I actually groaned. My displeasure was abated, however, by the rest of the audience (outside of me and 3 friends, the audience consisted of 4 other people -- opening night) revolted! That's right we no longer "watched" the movie as atomistic movie fans. Oh no. We banded together to fight back this cinematic horror MST3K style. So, for all those willing to sit through one of my Top 5 Worst Movies Ever, go for it. Just make sure you have plenty of friends around to mock the movie with. Its the only appropriate response to this piece of crap.
Your Fears Are Justified!
dromasca2 February 2003
This movie has one of the best titles I remember lately, but unfortunately there are not too much more good things to say about it. A good idea turns into a completely absurd story, and I challenge somebody (maybe the script author) to explain me the logic behind what happens on the screen. OK, one should not expect too much logic from a horror movie, but the rest is poor quality as well - bad acting, a lot of cheap violence, and very little real thrill. There is some hidden quality and good pace in the filming, but it gets lost because of the lack of coherence of the story. Avoid this film, unless you are one of these guys who never lose any horror movie. 5/10 on my personal scale.
It's a Mess Alright
TwistedContent11 January 2021
If You don't look at the ratings, "Feardotcom" looks and sounds like an interesting piece of modern horror set in the modern world, especially intriguing because it's 2002, when the internet was not yet the powerful force it is now. But, of course, give benefits to the voice of the people, because this is one hot mess, flawed on every level.
A New York City detective investigates mysterious deaths occurring 48 hours after users log onto a site named feardotcom. 'Nough said. Story-wise, "Feardotcom" reminded me of J-horror, finer examples like "Ringu", "Ju-On", "Pulse", etc., all starts with mysterious deaths, all seems dark and grimy, mystery needs to be find out, and there is almost always a scary (little) girl involved. "Feardotcom" has all of that, but to no success. A familiar plot is continuously sabotaged by a gloom-doom-overkill cinematography and darkly messy visual depiction of New York City, silly, often highly expositional, point-out-the-obvious dialogues, sub-par acting, eyebrow-raising and overcooked action sequences with odd editing solutions, and so and so forth. Worst of all, the film takes itself dead seriously, and possesses little to no wit, so the product turned rather preposterous. Stephen Dorff grunts his way through, Natascha McElhone delivers a funky performance & Stephen Rea is maybe a little creepily amusing as the over-the-top torturer. Whatever potential "Feardotcom" had, was buried early on. It does look better than it feels, it is an expensive movie afterall (40 million, what?!).
If you feel like You might watch this, be sure to gather some friends, grab a few beers or hit a doob, because it will be a bumpy ride. My rating: 3/10
A New York City detective investigates mysterious deaths occurring 48 hours after users log onto a site named feardotcom. 'Nough said. Story-wise, "Feardotcom" reminded me of J-horror, finer examples like "Ringu", "Ju-On", "Pulse", etc., all starts with mysterious deaths, all seems dark and grimy, mystery needs to be find out, and there is almost always a scary (little) girl involved. "Feardotcom" has all of that, but to no success. A familiar plot is continuously sabotaged by a gloom-doom-overkill cinematography and darkly messy visual depiction of New York City, silly, often highly expositional, point-out-the-obvious dialogues, sub-par acting, eyebrow-raising and overcooked action sequences with odd editing solutions, and so and so forth. Worst of all, the film takes itself dead seriously, and possesses little to no wit, so the product turned rather preposterous. Stephen Dorff grunts his way through, Natascha McElhone delivers a funky performance & Stephen Rea is maybe a little creepily amusing as the over-the-top torturer. Whatever potential "Feardotcom" had, was buried early on. It does look better than it feels, it is an expensive movie afterall (40 million, what?!).
If you feel like You might watch this, be sure to gather some friends, grab a few beers or hit a doob, because it will be a bumpy ride. My rating: 3/10
Ghost in the Machine
wes-connors21 June 2009
"A mad genius (Stephen Rea) has created a live-cam site that determines a person's deepest fear and then brings that fear to brutal life 48 hours later
unless someone finds a way to cut off the site at its source. An investigating detective (Stephen Dorff) and a city health inspector (Natascha McElhone) know the danger of logging on to the site, but they're determined to solve the mystery. They think they can endure the terror that awaits. But, that's where they might go dead wrong," according to the film's official synopsis.
Wretched horror, with too much focus on Mr. Rea's torturing mad scientist, and not enough time spent on the much more interesting "Jeannie Richardson" character, played (most of the time) by Sharon Stone-like Gesine Cukrowski. Ms. Cukrowski makes a beautiful and creepy villain. Director William Malone manages an eclectic cast, with notable "cameo" appearances from Matthias Schweighöfer (as punkish videographer Dieter Schrader) and a rarely seen Michael Sarrazin (as alcoholic writer Frank Bryant). Alas, the film isn't too frighteningly plotted.
**** FeardotCom (8/9/02) William Malone ~ Stephen Dorff, Natascha McElhone, Stephen Rea
Wretched horror, with too much focus on Mr. Rea's torturing mad scientist, and not enough time spent on the much more interesting "Jeannie Richardson" character, played (most of the time) by Sharon Stone-like Gesine Cukrowski. Ms. Cukrowski makes a beautiful and creepy villain. Director William Malone manages an eclectic cast, with notable "cameo" appearances from Matthias Schweighöfer (as punkish videographer Dieter Schrader) and a rarely seen Michael Sarrazin (as alcoholic writer Frank Bryant). Alas, the film isn't too frighteningly plotted.
**** FeardotCom (8/9/02) William Malone ~ Stephen Dorff, Natascha McElhone, Stephen Rea
_____, camera, action!?!
rampbjr28 June 2003
I've never been to a movie where I couldn't believe I was there. Scene after scene of this piece of garbage. Darkness after darkness. I've heard of playing piano in the dark but on your laptop in the dark? Maybe. Walk in a room and don't hit the lights? Maybe. But, when they were all playing poker, in the friggin dark! I got up and got my money back! What a waste of time, ride on the dot com bandwagon, flick.
http://feardotcom.com/ click if you dare .....
robfollower13 October 2020
A New York City detective investigates mysterious deaths occurring 48 hours after users log onto a site named feardotcom.
Fear Dot Com is hugely promising, due to great interaction with characters and very dark-toned, terrifying imagery. The cinematography for Fear Dot Com contains one of the darkest looks that has been seen for quite awhile. Even daytime sequences have a moody overtone that give off the feeling of a different world. Everything is very dark, and very blue. This adds to the surreal, sinister, melancholy atmosphere of the film.
Sort of a cross between Seven and The Ring, along with a dash of the soon to be popular 'torture porn' sub-genre, Fear Dot Com has a reputation as a really bad movie, which may be one reason why it's taken me until now to watch it, but within just a couple of minutes the movie didn't seem that bad at all and I was onboard. The storytelling is incredibly chaotic, and yet I quite enjoyed Fear Dot Com. Maybe some of that was due to me expecting the worst, but its surreal and dark atmosphere gripped me. The flick dealt some heavy freak out moments done with some fine dramatic no-holds-bared acting. A stand out moment from actress Amelia Curtis (Denise) as she descended into total and utter madness as she looses mind in epic fashion. This scene is worth the price of admission. Some very good macabre stuff in this film. Fear Dot Com makes you think, after the first time you've seen it, that you've seen a considerably more brutal film than you actually have, and director Malone, deserves credit for going down this trippy path.
With great sound, lighting and camera work that opens a door way to the surreal . Some very sick and disturbing images . Strong dramatic acting from Dorff and the lovely Natascha McElhoneand (Solaris 2002). Add for the horror buff Jeffrey Combs puts in one of his always fun appearances. Fear Dot Com poor reputation isn't to me really deserved. It was a trippy, dark and intense film. I found it to be freakishly entertaining. 8/10
Fear Dot Com is hugely promising, due to great interaction with characters and very dark-toned, terrifying imagery. The cinematography for Fear Dot Com contains one of the darkest looks that has been seen for quite awhile. Even daytime sequences have a moody overtone that give off the feeling of a different world. Everything is very dark, and very blue. This adds to the surreal, sinister, melancholy atmosphere of the film.
Sort of a cross between Seven and The Ring, along with a dash of the soon to be popular 'torture porn' sub-genre, Fear Dot Com has a reputation as a really bad movie, which may be one reason why it's taken me until now to watch it, but within just a couple of minutes the movie didn't seem that bad at all and I was onboard. The storytelling is incredibly chaotic, and yet I quite enjoyed Fear Dot Com. Maybe some of that was due to me expecting the worst, but its surreal and dark atmosphere gripped me. The flick dealt some heavy freak out moments done with some fine dramatic no-holds-bared acting. A stand out moment from actress Amelia Curtis (Denise) as she descended into total and utter madness as she looses mind in epic fashion. This scene is worth the price of admission. Some very good macabre stuff in this film. Fear Dot Com makes you think, after the first time you've seen it, that you've seen a considerably more brutal film than you actually have, and director Malone, deserves credit for going down this trippy path.
With great sound, lighting and camera work that opens a door way to the surreal . Some very sick and disturbing images . Strong dramatic acting from Dorff and the lovely Natascha McElhoneand (Solaris 2002). Add for the horror buff Jeffrey Combs puts in one of his always fun appearances. Fear Dot Com poor reputation isn't to me really deserved. It was a trippy, dark and intense film. I found it to be freakishly entertaining. 8/10
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
