Horror.com (2000) Online

Take a bad 'B' Rated horror movie plus 1 part cheezy Porn Flick. Toss in bad acting, unrealistic situations, shoddy acting, and pathetic plot. Add a dash of bad actors. Mix well until audience is sick. Cover with promise of sex and nudity and disappoint anyone who reads the back cover of video. Complete with Plot Holes big enough to drive a Mack Truck through.

Imagine a horror film stripped of any filmmaking quality, going back to the basics: sex and death, or, more accurately, eye candy (although, strangely enough, the movie too often shies away from showing any "real" nudity) and blood. That should give you a good idea of what "Voyeur.com" is like. You can complain all you want about the awful dialogue ("Hey, dude, we have to be cool, you know? Are you cool?"), the non-existent acting, the huge plot holes (the character who turns out to be the killer can't possibly be the killer, because at an earlier moment we had seen him/her being somewhere else TWO SECONDS before a murder occured); there's no point. The picture is obviously beneath any possible criticism as a "normal" film, but if you take it as something like a film school graduation project, it becomes somewhat palatable and amusing. Check out the Anthony Perkins-lookalike who plays the "creepy" gardener; a ludicrous red herring if I ever saw one. (*1/2)

Let me start this off by saying when i rented this movie i knew it was going to be terrible. You see me and my friends have a hobby of renting the most ridiculous horror movie we can find, because they are usually funnier than conventional comedies. But believe me, when we rented this we got way more than we bargained for.

Voyuer.com is bad in all the standard ways; acting the quality of a 3rd grade play, dialog seemingly written by either a porn director or a monkey with bottle of vodka and a typewriter, blood substitutes ranging from strawberry kool-aid to motor oil (yep, i said motor oil),camera work similar to my drunk uncles home movies. I could go on but it would be monotonous. If you've seen any of these movies then you know all the normal things that turn an awful movie into a mind-numbingly awful movie.

But what makes this movie stand out is the fact that the filmmakers truly innovated in the category of terrible. They did this by almost completely disregarding any kind of continuity and assuming that the majority of the people watching the movie would have been just punched the the eye and would have an eye patch over the other.

Early in the movie it becomes clear that none of the actresses playing the main roles were willing to expose themselves. As a solution to this problem the "filmmakers" found one woman who was willing to get naked and just used shots of her when any of the other characters were supposed to be nude. This leaves even the most un-observant viewers with questions like,"What happened to her nail polish?" or "Wasn't she just a lot tanner?" or "Didn't she just have nipple rings?" My personal favorite moment is the unintentional reference to Monty Python. This happens when the killer is shown running down the same hallway upwards of 15 times.

To sum this up, I will just say that as a person who has an appreciation for cinema, I was appalled. If you have two working eyes or a fully functional brain STAY AWAY FROM THIS MOVIE.

So far – four years on - this new millennium has been somewhat lacking in new and exciting innovations. Sure, there have been upgrades; the internet has become a lot more accessible and special effects and video game graphics are now so realistic it's almost scary. But as for breathtaking brand spanking inventions, sorry, but there's been nothing, nixies and nada of note. However there's one thing that has taken the United Kingdom by storm (and presumably the rest of the Western world, if you believe what you read in the tabloids), and that's Reality Television. Nowadays, couch potatoes are given the choice between watching struggling used-to-bees begging desperately for the hope of re-igniting their ailing career status on 'I'm a Celebrity', or viewing the degrading antics of sad, hopeless (and probably extremely lonely) individuals trying to grab an allotment of Andy Warhol's ever-quoted prediction on 'Big Brother'. I'm sure that TV executives must be rubbing their hands in collective glee as they conjure up new and equally senseless reasons to pack a house full of brash personalities and camera equipment. I for one have never fully experienced this sweeping phenomenon, simply because, what with work, a social life AND taking the effort to watch and review countless cheesy horror flicks, I'm seriously lacking in the spare time department. But for the slasher genre - which is always the first to capitalize on turning popular pastimes into bloodbaths - the potential was obvious from the moment the first young hopeful chucked his home movie in a jiffy bag, in an attempt to grab himself a week's free room and board for the 'entertainment' of home audiences across the globe. I mean, let's think about it for a moment: a group of mindless dummies get locked in a house with a psychotic killer - Hoorah!

First off the slasher/reality firing line was Kolobus, which to be fair, packed just about enough flair to keep its head above water. As per usual, it didn't have the strongest cast on the planet, but it succeeded by mixing an intriguing mystery with some enjoyable gore and death sequences. Of course this is the slasher genre, so it would be a cardinal sin if such flair went un-imitated. So here I present you with your second (and for the moment, last) chance to see the results of a maniac that will do anything to grab his 15 minutes, including offering viewers the 'pleasure' of witnessing his best Jason Voorhees impersonation - live on web cam…

It kicks off with poorly focused and shaky shots of a Los Angeles highway. Our narrator is an archetypal young shy heroine, with dreams of becoming 'a big Hollywood star'. Looking like a shamefully bankrupt man's version of Jodie Foster with a cleavage that would cause a motorway pile-up, her persona is obviously portrayed to fit the 'surviving girl' cliché quite comfortably. She's on her way to an audition somewhere in Los Angeles, which is unlike any acting job she's ever heard of before, and apparently she got suspicious when they asked her to wear something tight! Tsk. Cut to a feisty young model, who has more than a passing (and deliberate) resemblance to Drew Barrymore. She's posing for a randy photographer, who in the best gentlemanly tradition is drowning her in wine to relieve her of her underwear. By this early point in the movie, I must admit that I was feeling a little bit uneasy as to what I'd let myself in for. Quentin Tarrantino often references his idols in hidden quotes or sequences during his movies. These have included everything from Mario Bava to Elvis Presley. However director Miles Feldman is boasting his love for the disastrous Sylvester Stallone Bore-a-thon – Cliffhanger - by proudly advertising an unmissable movie poster on the wall in all its visual glory. Hmmm, if Stallone action flicks are this helmer's idea of cinematic inspiration, I've probably let myself in for a BIG disappointment (once again) with this one.

As if you hadn't already guessed, this photo shoot has a private audience in the form of a masked killer roaming the hallways, and he's carrying a big old bread knife just for good measure! (Nice mask by the way.) The session is interrupted by the phone ringing, and Alan heads off to answer it, leaving the reluctant model half-naked on his bed. The mystery caller threatens the cameraman by telling him that he is his worst nightmare, and out of the corner of his photographic eye, he sees a black shape rush past the window. Unwisely he heads into the back yard to investigate and is rewarded for his curiosity with a violent tracheotomy. The phone starts ringing again, so this time the frustrated Nancy picks up the receiver. It looks as if this psycho has got the Scream trilogy on his DVD shelf, because he asks the starlet if she'd like to play a little game. (Natch!) Things head in the direction of a bizarre soft porn flick, as the phantom phone-fiend invites the youngster to masturbate, while he talks about a magic unicorn in a field of daises? (No I'm not making this up; whatever gets you through the night, honey!) Whilst she gets carried away thinking of mythical horses with a horn (or the horn, erm) the maniac turns up and splatters her with the aforementioned dagger!

Meanwhile, Mary arrives at the audition, and we get to meet the five other erogenous hopefuls, all with silicone implants as a lame replacement for brain cells (and acting ability). First there's Heidi the saucy Hungarian, whose accent does more air miles than a Boeing 747, and then we've got Sarah, the sport loving female-jock who runs ten, yes TEN miles a day! (Not only does she sprint a decade a day, but she reckons that she can do it in under two hours!!) Ricci is a lesbian exhibitionist with a cackle that sounds like a hyena on acid, whilst Jennifer is the junky actress with a face that's scarily familiar of the Wicked Witch of the West. Lisa Box hasn't really got a personal trait, but she's blonde and big-breasted, so I guess it doesn't really matter. Finally we come to Mary, our sure-to-be heroine, who has problems pretending to be up for the sexual antics that are expected of each of the applicants. You see the point of this website is put beautifully by one of the hot-blooded temptresses, when she says, 'This is for all the geek boys out there who can't find any girls, to get off (with?)!' Charming. Mary confirms her virginal innocence, when she replies, 'That's gross.' The interviews are hosted by the creators of Voyeur.com, Frank and Alex, and are notable only for bringing the film's biggest laugh-out-loud cheese marathon. Each grinning - made-up to the eyeballs - trollop is asked degrading questions such as, 'Are you willing to have sex with multiple partners?' To which they reply things like, 'Look guys, I'm not shy about this stuff!' The point of these auditions is actually beyond me, because EVERY single applicant is invited to move in the following day. I mean, that's not an audition, surely that's basic recruitment?

The next morning, they arrive in their droves, booming more front than the world's biggest beach with the tide out. Obviously, it doesn't take too long for them to begin stripping off for showers, lesbian encounters and even to take a televised wee-wee! The first shower scene is hilarious, for the simple fact that it's PATENTLY obvious that they're using a body 'double' for the nudity. Obvious because, the two women have totally different complexions, bra sizes and most importantly, one of them is wearing black nail varnish, which mysteriously disappears when the shot returns to the character's face. Huh? The girls head off to the mini-mart to purchase some groceries, leaving the jock in the gym and the bimbo soaping in the shower. At the shop, they bump into another pair of immensely bad actors, who decide to tag along on the promise of an orgy with the five lusty females. In order to remind us that we've rented a slasher movie and not Emmanuelle goes on-line, the hooded killer returns and begins hacking his way through the strumpets one by one, utilizing zilcho gore, suspense or even the slightest sniff of redemption!

At least the cast (including the comically named Adam 'Weiner') looks honestly like they actually believed they were auditioning for a porno flick. Either that or the monthly payment for their silicone was due, so they took the first job that they were offered, even if it happened to be a nonsensical slasher with the cinematic value of a cardboard box. Yep, we're back in the realms of the unbelievable, where talent and potential take a backseat over an un-describable amount of creamy crapola. As with the myriad of Scream clones, we're supposed to be guessing who it is that's wearing that authentic, but blatantly homemade mask. Could it be the stammering gardener? The whacky pair of wannabe pornographers, or one of the feisty 'models'? Well, let's put it this way, if you don't work it out by the ten minute mark, you need to be questioning the capacity of your IQ, and wondering whether you're even smart enough to boil an egg on your lonesome. Voyeur.com is dross of the highest order, which tries to seduce you with its level of exploitation and misogyny, but falls flat on its implants on each and every count. Script, direction, acting, pace – each cinematic element is fundamentally merit-less. In fact, it is so bad that you'll believe that you yourself could make a better movie, using only a camcorder and a sachet of ketchup. And more to the point, you'd probably be right with that assumption.

This was released in the UK on the Film 2000 label (gulp) as Big Brother.com, obviously to cash in on Channel 4's inexplicably successful trend. To be honest, I'd rather suffer 90 minutes of the real thing than have to view this rubbish again, and for me, that's truly saying something. I often wonder when reviewing this kind of stinker, what the production team actually made of it upon completion? Did they watch it back with pride and boast to all their mates of their involvement in such a 'memorable' experience? Does it sit gloriously on the shelves of their parents' homes, as a constant reminder of how 'talented' their children have become since those fond memories of childhood? Thinking up answers for that amusing conundrum actually gave me a lot more satisfaction than sitting through this schlock did, I can tell ya! Hopefully, I've given you enough of an insight to steer well clear and save yourself the rental price of this slimy toad. Always remember, if you're that hard-up for things to watch, there's always Reality Television on the other channel. Tsk

This is a evil, ugly film. Not only do the makers think we're stupid having one body double for seven girls. (like we couldn't tell). But the moral is sexual morals or die. This is a piece of dung and should be burned!!!

Hmm I was like kidding on the headline....this movie just sucks and sucks and sucks. We couldn't even get any nudity in the picture, a little thong was all we were shown. The movie is just stupid and I hated every second of it. I must admit that the second the movie started I was longing for it to finish 1/10

Typing in the real director's name, Miles Feldman revealed only a couple of movies & Voyeur.Com wasn't one of them. Here in the UK This terrible home made movie goes by the name of BigBrother.Com, no doubt to cash in on the "real" Big Brother show. AND they stock it at Blockbuster video too. Shame on them! Shame on everyone involved in this heap of S**t too! If anything, the film previewed a movie called Camp Blood (also stocked at Blockbuster) & so I'm kinda greatful in a way cause now I've been saved £3. So wots the movie about? Three lads invite a bunch of teenage bimbos over to a house equipped with webcams. Queue the odd shower, pee scene, & lots of brainless banter. Some stalker comes along & bumps everyone off with a knife. That's it. Only because it's a homemade movie, they couldn't afford any make up fx. This garbage gives "proper" slasher movies (Slumber 3, Sorority house et all) a really bad name - & if you hated those, blimey what will you make of this? 1 outta 10!

*SPOILER ALERT* *SPOILER ALERT*

Oh man, what a letdown. This should have been an easy slam dunk. Any video box that promises, "…nine luscious ladies romping together in a house, while 20 video cameras capture their every move…" gets my vote. Surely something worthwhile should happen when you log onto "Voyeur.com". Bad news. Their website needs a lot of work.

So nine luscious ladies check into a house run by two horny dot-com entrepreneurs. They want the women to do something interesting so that they can make some dough. So what's missing from this picture? How about doing something interesting? A masked killer shows up to slice and dice the women but no one really cares until the very end.

"Voyeur.com" is shot on super cheap video and it looks even cheaper. Its ultra low budget eventually betrays it as it becomes apparent that the filmmakers couldn't afford any nudity from their stars. All of the naked breast shots are from some random girl and they're all from the neck down. They used the same body double for almost every scene. How lame is that? I thought these girls were supposed to be exhibitionists. Where's the exhibition? It's on a different website.

You can forget about the horror scenes saving this one. All we have here is fully clothed wild girls getting their throats slit by some loser in a black overcoat. "Voyeur.com" had a great concept but the actual movie couldn't live up to its high sleaze potential.

at least they tried...surprisingly funny & honest actors in an otherwise retarded production. Is this the future of DV? Let's hope not, but hey, at least they gave it a shot. Hey, how many of your friends' cheap flicks made it international and into the big chain vid stores? A for effort, C- for fare. (But wait a minute, how come the chains are picking this thing up???!)

I have to say, the concept was ok, the movie itself was bad. It was almost like watching a very bad version of Scream. It would have been a lot better if they would have put some thought into the plot. Took some time and made it a real stalker movie. I would not advise anyone to rent this movie, wait to see it on USA or something. This is probably the first channel that will run it.

Maybe I should get into show business. I could have written a better plot to this movie.

Two young entrepreneurs open up a voyeuristic Internet site. One by one the models are being killed off. Reason? None.

In a generic slasher like this there needs to be some entertaining kills and a decent amount of blood. The movie opens up with a throat stabbing that's pretty bloody and promising, but after that all of the kills are exactly the same and not graphic at all. There's 3 stomach stabbings, 3 throats slit, and a LAME decapitation. Every single kill is exactly the same.

There's a constant voice over through the entire movie that gives away who the killer is. It's done extremely poorly. The audio is muffled and they kicked in cheesy rock music every time there was about to be some nudity. I felt like I was watching a soft core Playboy video half of the time. I'm still not ever sure what I just watched.

As far as acting goes, Jena Romano really wasn't so bad as the shy main character. Other than that, most everyone was on the same acting level. Two of the other girls in the house were completely terrible, but the script was awful...so I guess it was just a combination. It would be a waste of time to talk about any actors though...they will never be in another movie.

Final Thoughts: I don't know what in the hell I just watched. Soft core porn, bad acting, lame kills, NO PLOT WHATSOEVER, and ripping off Scream is not the way to go about making a good movie. The opening scene was such a blatant ripoff of Scream it wasn't even funny. The phone call with the voice and the questions... lame. The killer even used a similar voice changer. The one thing I learned from this movie is that washed up 30 year old women like to blow bubbles and strip together. What a pile of crap.

Frank (Travis Shakespeare) and Alex (Adam Weiner) are going to do it the old fashioned way - with babes. They buy a house, hire a techie - Randy, (Ryan Boone) - and put digital cameras everywhere.

Their auditions net a bevy of rowdy exhibitionists. Heidi (Vanessa Nachtman), Jennifer (Keri- Anne Telford), Lisa (Shannon Hutchinson), Sarah (Laurie Searle), Ricci (Tanya Richardson) and Mary (Jena Romano) are all ready for what they expect to be a thrilling, sexy job. But hours before their on-line premiere, something goes wrong - deadly wrong. A mysterious stalker enters the house and no one is safe. Will they survive the night or will they be road kill on the information superhightway?

One night, one killer, nine targets an 20 video cameras add up to more terror you can imagine.

-----

Nice Movie