- Critic Score
- Most active
- Publication
- Most clicked
-
50Strange, how good feardotcom is, and how bad. The screenplay is a mess, and yet the visuals are so creative this is one of the rare bad films you might actually want to see.
-
50There's potential here for a macabre cult favourite touching on themes of technology and the body-mind split, but the movie's progression into rambling incoherence gives new meaning to the phrase "fatal script error."
-
40Never quite realizes its potential to evoke the real horror of the Internet -- Yet, Malone has given the film a distinctive atmosphere and occasional flashes of his perverse sense of humor.
-
40If sudden loud noises, relentless strobe lights, digital hallucinations and mutilated corpses make you jump, and you feel that nothing more is required for a good time at the movies, welcome to Feardotcom.
-
38As scary and minor-chord heavy as FearDotCom can be, there's no big payoff, no logical resolution.
-
30There's a germ of an interesting idea here, but it's smothered by gloomy cinematography a la "Seven" (1995) and grating implausibilities, like the fact that everyone lives in the kind of cavernous, dankly art-directed dumps that only internet millionaires and trust fund twinkies can afford in the real New York.
-
25The story is a mess, some of the images offensive, the acting under par and the dialogue silly.
-
25A low-rent, slow-witted horror flick notable chiefly for its hilariously unsuccessful attempt to pass off Luxembourg City as New York City.
-
25The film squanders every opportunity (and international-coproduction cent) on by now imitative Nine Inch Nails-video-style visual Goth-goo, and, scarily, forgets to input a plot or script that makes any sense.
-
20I feel guilty and somehow unclean. And all I did was watch it.
-
20Would have made a hell of a short -- but falls flat on its hyperstylized face as a feature.
-
20Made with just enough craft to keep it from being the instantly dated camp howler its title promises, but it's quickly apparent that there's no thought or originality under its grim, familiar surface.
-
20Shameless exercise in high-tech sadism.
-
10This movie is plain stupid from the get go, but at least it looks good.
-
10The film, whose clumsy editing and dearth of establishing shots keep the viewer in an unintended state of confusion, is a corpse in its own right: It’s filled with the rotting ideas of far better movies.
-
10The story leapfrogs abruptly from scene to scene, and it makes such a mockery of narrative logic and continuity that the cast tends to look either baffled (Dorff) or as if they're trying to remain unrecognized.
-
10It is painful to watch an actor as skillful as Mr. Dorff reduced to delivering flat repetitive dialogue that would make any actor look foolish.
-
10A depraved, incoherent, instantly disposable piece of hackery.
-
0The film is a failure in just about every way, save for its acting, which is adequate.
-
For the most part, the movie serves up an incomprehensible collage of high-tech voyeurism sprinkled with every hackneyed creep-out trick in the book -- from eerie little ghost girls to melting walls and scurrying cockroaches.
prev
next
Page:
- 1
User score distribution:
-
Positive: 7 out of 22
-
Mixed: 1 out of 22
-
Negative: 14 out of 22
-
3
-
KeenanS8