Is it really that bad?
-
Thrashman88 — 18 years ago(November 22, 2007 10:09 PM)
Let's say it's a waste of talent. The movie "appears" to be something worth to watch when it begins and I must confess, it's got a moody atmosphere, but that's all the "good" you'll get. People compare it to "THE RING" and I beg to differ, since I thought "THE RING" (despite being a remake) was MILES and MILES better made and more interesting than this piece of junk.
But if you want to see a movie that makes this one look like THE GODFATHER, rent (if you dare), "THE UNTOLD", with Lance Henriksen. I think I could make a better movie than that one!!!
Stay Punk! -
ozvn818 — 18 years ago(January 24, 2008 09:18 AM)
This is the only movie that when I watched it at the Theatre people, in the end people actually started throwing trash at the screen and demanded a refund!!
No Lie!!! I swear!!!
Of course no one got a refund because they saw the whole movie.
Worst Movie!!!!
Believe me, and for that dumbass that said if you like the ring you'll like this movie..YOUR A DUMBASS!!! -
ladylucifer1 — 17 years ago(April 12, 2008 08:12 PM)
well we honestly tried to watch it 5 freekin timesevery time we tried we fell asleepit really is that horribleits a great premise for a movie but this movie just isnt great im sorryi did finally watch it on the 6th try and i feel as tho i wasted what like 90 minutes or something of my lifewill never watch it again however did you happen to watch your "free" crappy movie lol if so what did you think of it
-
metalliam — 17 years ago(May 01, 2008 05:40 PM)
Massively bad. No redeeming factors. Even watching it before seeing Ringu I thought it was a poor film, and having seen Ringu since you realise just how bad feardotcom actually is.
Use the CD as a coaster man. -
jmoira-1 — 17 years ago(October 30, 2008 09:35 PM)
I'm going with very badly done,
not inherently bad.
Not disagreeng with anyone, just a different take.
I suppose it really grinds people
because the film makers realllllly
insult their audience from the beginning
and treat us stupidly throughout.
THe core insult is thar we are supposed to accept
this is taking place in New York City????????
Total crap.
I found it impossible to believe it was luxembourg at that!!!
Hell, they couldn't photograph that beautiful city,
much less pass it off as someplace else.
It looked like some dark eastern european mountain town
at it's worst after a war.
So it major league sucks from a production value standpoint,
bad enough to destroy credibility.
They couldn't eeven shoot a sunny day,
much less clean up Michael sarrazin.
It all looked like the dirtiest place on earth.
BUT, at least the actors tried.
They stayed faithful in spite ofthe weak story.
So if you look past that,and can enjoy the grim
manifesto the story presents,
and embrace the horrific misery that the antagonist creates,
and try to solve the mystery, which was weak but interesting,
it's slightly bearable if only in that regard.
It's not better that a sitting for "Hostel" or "Saw"
but not a whole lot worse.
I never bothered with the sequels to either one.
Just my thoughts.
in 15 years this will become a "Freaky Cult Classic" anyway. -
JrnlofEddieDeezenStudies — 17 years ago(December 29, 2008 07:54 AM)
I love it.
- I enjoyed the story.
- I liked most of the performances.
- I like William Malone's style a lot. I liked his
House on Haunted Hill
remake a lot, too. He's as poetic and surrealistic as he is "logical". I like that. - The cinematography, production design and editing in this film are all Oscar-worthy, in my opinion. Seriously.
- It's got a great score, too.
- Natascha McElhone has always been just stunningly beautiful and entrancing to me. Even if I didn't like all that other stuff above, I'd enjoy watching the film just to see her.
Is everyone in this house a total nutzoid or is it just me?