feardotcom - what the hell?
#1
DVD Talk Hall of Fame
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2001
Posts: 7,784
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
feardotcom - what the hell?
yeah im late but me and some friends rented it last night FOR A LAUGH...and thats what we got. wtf was this crap?
did ANYONE like it? was ANYONE scared? did ANYONE get it?
what were stephen dorff and that girls deepest fears? elevators? dizzyness? wtf?
did ANYONE like it? was ANYONE scared? did ANYONE get it?
what were stephen dorff and that girls deepest fears? elevators? dizzyness? wtf?
#2
Moderator
Figured I'd resurrect this thread after 5 months in the cellar...
I'm with you, I thought this film was a total mess. It was on HBO last night and I figured I'd watch it, because I remembered reading the following from Ebert's review when this movie hit theatres in August 2002:
"The last 20 minutes are, I might as well say it, brilliant. Not in terms of what happens, but in terms of how it happens, and how it looks as it happens. The movie has tended toward the monochromatic all along, but now it abandons all pretense of admitting the color spectrum, and slides into the kind of tinting used in silent films: Browns alternate with blues, mostly.
I give the total movie two stars, but there are some four-star elements that deserve a better movie. You have to know how to look for them, but they're there."
I did not find a single 4-star element in this film (let alone a 2-star one), so I have no idea what movie Ebert was watching. I give it 1 star for being kind enough to not go on for longer than 90 minutes.
I'm with you, I thought this film was a total mess. It was on HBO last night and I figured I'd watch it, because I remembered reading the following from Ebert's review when this movie hit theatres in August 2002:
"The last 20 minutes are, I might as well say it, brilliant. Not in terms of what happens, but in terms of how it happens, and how it looks as it happens. The movie has tended toward the monochromatic all along, but now it abandons all pretense of admitting the color spectrum, and slides into the kind of tinting used in silent films: Browns alternate with blues, mostly.
I give the total movie two stars, but there are some four-star elements that deserve a better movie. You have to know how to look for them, but they're there."
I did not find a single 4-star element in this film (let alone a 2-star one), so I have no idea what movie Ebert was watching. I give it 1 star for being kind enough to not go on for longer than 90 minutes.
#3
DVD Talk Hall of Fame
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: Somewhere out there... YES THERE!!!
Posts: 7,936
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by Geofferson
Figured I'd resurrect this thread after 5 months in the cellar...
I'm with you, I thought this film was a total mess. It was on HBO last night and I figured I'd watch it, because I remembered reading the following from Ebert's review when this movie hit theatres in August 2002:
"The last 20 minutes are, I might as well say it, brilliant. Not in terms of what happens, but in terms of how it happens, and how it looks as it happens. The movie has tended toward the monochromatic all along, but now it abandons all pretense of admitting the color spectrum, and slides into the kind of tinting used in silent films: Browns alternate with blues, mostly.
I give the total movie two stars, but there are some four-star elements that deserve a better movie. You have to know how to look for them, but they're there."
I did not find a single 4-star element in this film (let alone a 2-star one), so I have no idea what movie Ebert was watching. I give it 1 star for being kind enough to not go on for longer than 90 minutes.
Figured I'd resurrect this thread after 5 months in the cellar...
I'm with you, I thought this film was a total mess. It was on HBO last night and I figured I'd watch it, because I remembered reading the following from Ebert's review when this movie hit theatres in August 2002:
"The last 20 minutes are, I might as well say it, brilliant. Not in terms of what happens, but in terms of how it happens, and how it looks as it happens. The movie has tended toward the monochromatic all along, but now it abandons all pretense of admitting the color spectrum, and slides into the kind of tinting used in silent films: Browns alternate with blues, mostly.
I give the total movie two stars, but there are some four-star elements that deserve a better movie. You have to know how to look for them, but they're there."
I did not find a single 4-star element in this film (let alone a 2-star one), so I have no idea what movie Ebert was watching. I give it 1 star for being kind enough to not go on for longer than 90 minutes.
#4
DVD Talk Limited Edition
Join Date: Feb 1999
Location: Salt Lake City, Utah - USA
Posts: 5,195
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by Geofferson
...I did not find a single 4-star element in this film (let alone a 2-star one), so I have no idea what movie Ebert was watching.
...I did not find a single 4-star element in this film (let alone a 2-star one), so I have no idea what movie Ebert was watching.
. . . . . .
#8
DVD Talk Special Edition
Join Date: May 2000
Posts: 1,083
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I also strated watching this on HBO and could not watch more than half an hour or so before turning it off. From it obviously not really being filmed in NY (what the hell was up with that train station in the beginning?) to its eastern european stars other than Dorff trying US accents the movie seems to be set all in the dark where nothing is intelligible and it just plodded along, overloading on style, trying to look like SEVEN more than anything else to me. Some bad moments, all from watching half the movie--The first victim in the apartment they find, its sunny outside when they arrive at the building, its raining when they enter the building. And for the lady's boss, where the hell is he, i thought he was in the office, but next he appears to be walking to his car in an abandobned factory. What the hell?