| FEAR DOT COM (2002) |
| CAST: Stephen Dorff, Natascha McElhone, Stephen Rea, Amelia Shankley, Gesine Cukrowski, Jeffrey Combs, Michael Sarrazin, Nigel Terry DIRECTOR: William Malone SCREENPLAY: Josephine Coyle, from a story by Moshe Diamant Running Time: 98 Mins. Rating: R |
| Although it may be one of the more incomprehensible horror films to come along in recent times, "Fear Dot Com" still manages to work effectively when it comes to getting heavy chills from you, thanks to William Malone's above-average directing, which packs enough morbid imagery and general creepiness that it always kept my attention. For all the bashing this film had received by critics ("grim" and "unpleasant" were used most often), as long as you can turn off your brain and appreciate the eye candy here, those who aren't too critical will likely be pleasantly surprised with this film. The plot, which is something of a hybrid between "Ring," "In the Mouth of Madness" and "Videodrome," centers around a creepy, tempting website known as "feardotcom.com." This site has such a hypnotic power that after some concurring bleeding in the eyes and nose, you're killed two days after viewing it. A young, straight-forward detective (Stephen Dorff) is helped by a health examiner (Natascha McElhone) to investigate a drowning, which eventually links over to the feardotcom webpage and a psychopath our lead has been trying to track down for months known as "The Doctor" (Stephen Rea), who likes to degrade, torture and murder women over the internet. As the investigation gets deeper, they find themselves cut from reality and seek a way to solve this confusing puzzle they both get themselves caught in. The premise itself is a very cool one and I liked some of the ideas behind it. You can see where clever thought was put into the story and Malone's gloomy, dark look gives the film the right creepy atmosphere that makes it all fall into place. Unfortunately, after a rousing and unsettling first half to this thing, it clumsily rushes itself up to a lackluster, cliched finish that leaves you feeling cheated. I felt echoes of Malone's previous film; the clumsy remake of "The House on Haunted Hill" in 1999, where the studio had him and the production team rush to finish the film and the results were decidedly embarassing. This one, on the other hand, just fell short of the mark for an impressive buildup. . The MPAA supposedly had Malone and his editors chop the film roughly to keep an "R" rating intact and you have to wonder if most of the plot/character development got left on the cutting room floor as well. There's interesting characters who seem to come and go from the film with no real explanation and I found myself wanting to know about "The Doctor" character, who isn't given much depth in the film aside from giving calm monologues about pain while torturing women gruesomely (think "Dee Snider's StrangeLand" with Rea replacing the piercing-filled Snider) through internet webcams. Dorff is a worthy actor, even when he's stuck in a weak role, and does what he can with a character that doesn't really have any depth. His charm does comes through on occasion here and you wish he could've been given more to work with. The same does go with McElhone who comes off as a mixed bag. She's appealing in the first half, but as the film progresses, the dialogue she's given brings her down and starts to turn somewhat hammy, reduced to uttering "oh my god" so often that it becomes slightly laughable. Rea, who often plays low-key roles, does a change of pace here as "The Doctor." He seems like he's enjoying himself working with such a sick character and I relished the moments he showed up in here. Jeffrey Combs hams it up through a useless role as Dorff's hot tempered partner and adds a few laughs here, but you wish he would've had more to do aside from smoking cigarettes and whining. Another horror-vet makes an appearance here; Udo Kier, whose cameo in the opening scene is one of the film standout moments. Last, but not least, Nigel Terry has a great bit part in here as an alcoholic who might just know more than he seems. What makes the film truly click is the style that Malone gives it. He knows how to get good scares out of the audience and watching this film is something of a visceral experience for those who like their horror on the macabre side. From the little girl in white to the visions that rapture the unfortunates who view the website, there's plenty of effectively scary images here that would make Clive Barker proud. I would advise though that he faint of heart should skip out on this one. Although the more gruesome material that takes place is usually quick-cutted, there's some brutal scenes in this film that will likely upset those viewing this film (to the critics who bitched and moaned about the film on that aspect; what did you expect going in?). I wouldn't advise you to look too deep into this film, plotwise. When I analyzed the film with friends after watching the film, it made a little lesser sense than when viewing it and there's some scenes late in the film that were high on the "what-the-fuck" meter (ie - the sequence where McElhone visits the steel factory). Yet, on the other hand, if you want to see a horror film that's simply disturbing and a change of pace from your standard slasher film, I found it to be a worthwhile watch. You simply don't see mainstream horror films released these days with content quite so fucked up and for that aspect alone, I have to give praise to the filmmakers and Warner Bros. who didn't chicken out about its appeal to the public (unlike Universal, who got rid of Rob Zombie's "House of 1,000 Corpses" due to its "violent content"). In the meantime, lets hope Warner restores all that cut footage in a video/dvd release for the film so that we can see it the way Malone meant us to see it. Rating: *** 1/2 out of ***** Reviewed by Adam Eshack; (c) review date: 9/6/02 |