.com for Murder (2002) Poster

User Reviews

Add a Review
18 ReviewsOrdered By: Helpfulness
What a stinker!!!
michaela-bowden22 September 2004
I really enjoyed watching this movie but for absolutely every wrong reason imaginable. The movie stunk. The acting was cringe-worthy and the whole thing had a very low budget feel to it. If this movie had been advertised as a black comedy and the actors had hammed it up it may have fared better. The serial killer was by far the most enjoyable character to watch. His non-sensical poetry (Lotte, Lotte, Lotte, what the f*&#??) and ridiculous eye make-up were genuinely funny and the actor who portrays him is about as talented as a coma patient. After seeing this movie I couldn't instantly think of any movies in recent years that were this bad and that is a testament to just how awful this is. The director seems to have had quite a successful career, albeit low-key. I cannot understand how this ever got made and it baffles me when money is involved that something so obviously bad can actually be financed.

Having said all these nasty things there is a perverted pleasure in repeating atrocious lines and heckling the screen with a bunch of friends as you would a bad stand up comic.

A truly awful movie but as a one off viewing, a guilty pleasure nonetheless :-)
24 out of 27 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Is this guy kidding? One of THE worst.
12dudes4 May 2005
This movie is a laugh riot! There is nothing well done about it at all, though this other user suggests there is (probably the terrible actor who played the terrible character "Werther"!). This movie sucks. Suck. So bad. It's only scary if you don't know what a computer or the internet is. But then it still sucks. Seriously, NEVER see this movie. I am not exaggerating. NEVER. NEVER. NEVER. This is THE WORST movie ever. The performances are all terrible, the "villian" is just hilarious while he is inteded to be scary. I don't comment on movies, but I felt it would be necessary to let everyone know that this is the worst movie ever. And do not buy the DVD. Do not rent it. Do not watch it on TV. DO SOMETHING ELSE. This movie sucks so bad. I can't believe it has a 3.5/10 and a positive comment. Not one single human being who sees this movie could possibly like it. TERRIBLE. TERRIBLE. TERRIBLE.
60 out of 74 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
I'll watch anything once...
halderic9 January 2004
and boy did this movie test my resolve. This is a damn awful movie that is neither scary, creepy, or suspenseful. The dialogue is terrible and the acting is even worse. No one in this movie ever has the appropiate reaction to any situation. And the villian is just so bad he's not scary, he's laughable. You know you are in trouble when the best acting performance in your movie is by Huey Lewis. And is it just me or is it odd hearing Huey Lewis say the F* word. I guess it's not hip to be square anymore.

- halderic

(i imported this from the newsboard, since i think anyone ever looks over there)
18 out of 20 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Stunningly Awful.
Bilge Predator27 August 2010
Warning: Spoilers
Several other people have described very well the most egregious absurdities - there are a few personal pet peeves to add: The clumsy, disconnected bits of prose the killer spouted were apparently very...creative...translations of a few lines of Goethe. I know this because it is mentioned in the credits and early in the film there are two references to Goethe, which were cringe worthy: one of the lead characters pronounces his name wrong.

(On the same level, Ms. Kinski's character chides Roger Daltrey playfully for the use of a $2 word she does not understand: "anachronistic." Clearly Daltrey loves her for her intellect, which must explain why he drives away in the first five minutes or so and never looks back. Maybe he was doing someone a favor.) It is hard to imagine what the screenwriter had in mind with the use of technology and computers. The crux of the plot seemed to be the killer's talent and skill in the use of electronic gear and his capitalizing on that to be elusive, manipulative and dangerous. This is made plain right off the bat when the women are forced to watch a murder in real time on their own computer. The vulnerability of the targets becomes greater and greater because, although well aware the killer is controlling their equipment, they never take basic precautions such as turning the computer off. Nor do they make sure to give the FBI/Police their location by actually telling them the address although they are in frequent telephone voice communication and know the other systems are probably compromised.

They take no measures whatsoever to blunt the killer's edge or cut his direct line into their home; that simply is not believable of real human beings. I think it rather a shame as well - I thought that was how the duel between the protagonists would evolve. The women could fight back by not using gadgets, and cutting them off, (even though one was supposedly immobilized which would be sort or ironic - no "electric" wheelchair), against the lunatic serial killer who is helpless without gadgetry.

Instead the story became so ridiculously implausible that, for instance, it is seriously suggested that the wiring of a private residence could pass code but be capable, apparently by pressing an "Enter" key, of sending tens of thousands of volts of current through all metal surfaces....such as door handles and lock cylinders. And it's the Good Guys that have their home set up this way - not the psychotic killer.

Oh, and when our Goethe-loving killer is flung several dozen yards by such a shock, (or its being cut off - just press "del"), he lands in a swimming pool where he proceeds to continue sparking like a short circuited car battery. Naturally, since everything electrical is his soul mate and ally, he not only is still alive but his CCD Night Vision Goggles and other sensitive electronic gee-gaws are undamaged as well. (Try running 22kV through anything with solid state components and see what happens.)

It just goes on and on....Ms. Kinski, inhabiting a home with more servos and controllers than Bill Gates' apparently keeps an instamatic camera available, complete with flash cubes, (remember them? they would turn a side when the film was advanced). The CCD goggles referred to have the oddest mechanism to protect the wearer's vision; sensibly, and realistically, they have a limiter so that a bright light such as an instamtic flash cube (that flashes 5 times with only 4 bulbs) isn't amplified. But the goggles in the film WILL amplify a bright light if it's bright enough - like lightning, apparently something no night vision goggle designer would think of - which is the maniac's undoing.

A suitably Frankenstinian, mytho-poetic, Gothic ending in keeping with the textured characterization developed by the use of a darkly romantic evocation of Goethe. The brilliant interpretation of Die Leiden des jungen Werthers that has given the world "tick-tock" as representative of the overwhelming sound of eternity is clearly a force to be reckoned with.

I, for one, will never again hear "tick-tock" without a chill.
7 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
One of the truly worst movies ever made
ZOMBlE22 May 2008
Warning: Spoilers
Sad and pathetic that two people felt necessary to leave ten-star reviews on this board. Trust me when I say that ".Com For Murder" is one of the worst films in the history of bad films. More than an almost plagiaristic ripoff of Hitchcock (and Kubrick) but also just offensive to the audience.

One scene for instance, as to just how STUPID this movie is... the killer cuts Nicolette Sheridon's wrist, and tells her "you will die in exactly twenty minutes." Does Nicolette raise her arm to slow the bleeding? Does she attempt to bandage the wound? Nope, she just sits there like a blonde Barbie doll for NINETEEN MINUTES while the killer terrorizes her friend, the camera cutting to a clock to remind the viewer she only has so many minutes left. Then her friend gets to her just in time and bandages the wrist, and TWO MINUTES LATER the killer pulls off the bandage and the countdown begins again, from the top. "In twenty minutes you'll be dead, haha." This is the last (hopefully the last) of a long list of turds from director Nico Mastorakis, the Greek's answer to Edward D. Wood. Frankly, at least Mr. Wood's movies were so bad you could laugh at them. Not so with ".Com For Murder," which is simply an insult to the viewer.
5 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
when music stars go bad
movieman_kev20 December 2004
Roger Daltrey of The Who, has to leave town. So he lets his snoop untrusting wheelchair-bound wife alone with her sister. Of course the wife acts like a pre-teen girl & starts a fight with a psycho hacker who wants to kill them. It's up to Huey Lewis of Huey Lewis fame to save her before it's too late. When one watches a Nico Mastorakis film one doesn't expect a logical story or likable characters or any semblance of a good movie. Those that watch Mastorakis's films are pretty much sexists who like to test their endurance of crap. This film is no different in that respect.

My Grade: D-

Where i saw it: Showtime on demand
17 out of 25 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Terrible movie.
amber-5513 December 2003
Kill it!!! This movie sucked. It wasn't worth my time or the time of my friends. I am disgusted that people would actually allow this film to be shown with as terrible as it was. There was hardly any dialog worth listening to and the special effects weren't that special. Oh please do not forget the fact that the things the guy did with his pc were pretty unbelievable and unrealistic. All I have to say about this movie is that it is total s***.
10 out of 18 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Not good...but certainly not bad enough to merit it being on IMDb's Bottom 100 list.
MartinHafer25 March 2010
Warning: Spoilers
This is a film that could have been a lot better had the writing been better. After all, the idea of a psycho who uses the internet to stalk people or kill is pretty cool (such as in Karen Rose's book, "I Can See You"). But, ".Com for Murder" just isn't up to the task.

The film stars a handicapped lady who, it turns out later in the film, isn't particularly handicapped. Like magic, she is able to walk and move about late in the film--just one of the dopey things you'll see in this silly film. Anyway, back to the plot. Her husband (in a tiny role by Roger Daltry) is apparently involved on a web site that is for cheaters and sex addicts. When he leaves, the wife and her sister go online and accidentally get sucked into the sick world of a serial killer who really, really likes his work--and is a freaking computer genius. Much of what he and the very computer savvy wife do in the film is possible--some of it definitely is not (they should have done their homework). Can the police arrive in time to save the two women before the killer murders them both? Well, possibly not, as the cops in the film are awfully dumb. It's a shame, really, as I liked Huey Lewis' acting and dialog--but what cop, when he thinks a serial killer is lose, would just sit back and wait!? Yes, any semi-competent cop would immediately respond. And, when it turns out that the killer has hacked into the police computer and sends them to the wrong part of town, does he have other police respond to the women's plight?!? No, he drives the 20-30 minutes and doesn't have backup respond immediately!! Duh...

Additional stupid moments include a scene where the killer slashes one lady's wrists while her other hand is handcuffed to a railing. Why, during all the time she is bleeding, doesn't sh press her bleeding wrist to her leg or put it between her legs to slow the bleeding?! And, speaking of bleeding, why does the blood flow so slowly?! And, why is the serial killer able to withstand a bazillion volts yet magically come back to life minutes later?! And, why does the lady in a wheelchair manage to WALK ABOUT so easily later in the film!?!? Okay, it is a bad movie. And, there isn't much to recommend it. However, with so many, many movies out there, this bad film isn't among the 100 very worst--or possibly 1000 worst. It's bad, but the basic story idea isn't and there are a few genuinely tense moments--buried within the dumb moments and overly gruesome killings early in the movie. Overall, it's cheap and looks like it was made direct to video or perhaps to be featured on Spike TV (it's THAT bad).
3 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Pearl O'Hanlon25 May 2013
I WANT MY LIFE BACK!!! I cannot believe that we just spent 90 minutes of my life watching that. OK, so the acting was all in all pretty atrocious, the plot was almost non-existent and the effects were terrible. I get what the director/writer was going for, something scary and futuristic. This movie was made around the time that the internet and particularly social networking were starting to become really really big business. Therefore this movie aims to play on peoples fears of the unknown, of the faceless people that you deal with everyday on the internet, and the fear that some of them are not altogether sane.

But this film was done in such an appalling way that not only did the whole story kind of fall flat, but for me it didn't even fill me with a sense or suspense or anxiety. I was bored by it. This film is listed on IMDb as a horror film, but unless you were a person of nervous disposition, in the house by yourself, during a thunder storm, without a duvet to hide under, could you actually consider this horrific in any way. And as a horror movie veteran, I was, I will say it again, BORED!

Anyone who has watched enough horror movies will know how this film will play out from the beginning to the end. There are no major shocks in it and quite frankly, it had the feel of a really REALLY low budget Indie film, without having the charm of actually being an Indie film.

Only watch this if you really really have nothing better to watch, or like us, just like to severely criticise bad horror films.

1 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Hard to categorize
jamesess19 February 2004
I have avoided commenting on this movie for quite a while. I purchased this movie when it came out on DVD because I am a fan of B movies. This particular movie sat in the can for quite a while. I knew that this was supposed to be big movie for Omega pictures so I expected a big push for theaters. The rumored cast that I first heard about was identical to this with only the part of Worther being different; played by Robert Downey Jr. Downy unfortunately had some troubles about this time and instead of recasting a big name actor it was decided to go with a new face. Jeffrey Dean was given this part. He did have a small part before this in a movie called Snitch (angry boyfriend-not reflected on IMDB). I do believe that this movie would have been different if Downy was cast as the bad guy but then it would have lost the Rear Window feel and focused on the bad guy instead of the heroine.

I originally never bought the idea of the Rear Window reference that was pushed by Omega but as a fan of Rear Window I do now see some similarities.

This movie is definitely better than one thinks the first time through. Jeffery Dean gives a very good performance for his first big role. He reminds me of Juaquin Pheonix in looks and mannerisms. He controls his lines and emotions well. The rest of the cast seems to be bored in this thriller. Huey Lewis gives nothing close to his performance in Duets and everyone else seems to float through this like it is just a quick job.

This movie could have been finished off in less time and the ending is less than thrilling but it is worth seeing for the story and the performance of an up and coming actor with a lot to give. I hope to see Jeff in many more movies in the near future. He deserves to be recognized for carrying his weight with bigger names in a movie where the actors make the story.

It is probably a good thing that this movie went to video instead of theaters but it is a nice change from the usual generic formulas that we are used to seeing. Some thought went into the story and the characters.

There is something to watch here and it isn't a bad movie in any way. If you aren't expecting an instant classic then you may enjoy watching this movie and you may be glad when you see Jeffrey Dean in a great performance later in his career. He has the look and the talent to be around for a long time.
4 out of 11 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
An error has occured. Please try again.

See also

Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews