.com for Murder (2002)

It is a performances centric movie

If you don't like this, we can't be friends.

An Exercise In Nonsense

The plot isn't so bad, but the pace of storytelling is too slow which makes people bored. Certain moments are so obvious and unnecessary for the main plot. I would've fast-forwarded those moments if it was an online streaming. The ending looks like implying a sequel, not sure if this movie will get one

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.

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.

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.

=========== Possible minor spoilers ahead ========== I generally like all of the films of Nico Mastorakis. I waited to get .com For Murder after seeing so many negative votes. I shouldn't have, because I really enjoyed this film as much as any of his other projects. You have to remember that Mastorakis co-wrote the screenplay, both produced and directed the film, edited the entire film on Avid himself, filmed most (if not all) of the DV sequences, and worked closely with the composer...among various other jobs for the film.Yes, the "computer screens" and the "technical gizmos" in the film look striking and somewhat avantgarde...and in a sense, quite fake today. I have a feeling though that they won't look so fake some years down the road, and that was the main intention. They were meant to look visually off the norm from what you'd normally see in a techo movie. He did the same thing for the early cyber-thriller "Blind Date" from 1984. Some of the advanced technology portrayed in that film actually came into reality just recently. .com For Murder is very much an homage to a Hitchcock thriller, specifically "Rear Window" as Mr. Mastorakis himself has stated. It's a relatively simple thriller with a few plot twists which one would expect. If nothing else this film has visually stunning cinematography with effective lighting and a vast array of color schemes. The visual style is very much in the same vein as "In The Cold Of The Night" also directed by Mastorakis in 1991. The futuristic house used in the movie is very odd just to look at, made of steel/glass/concrete, with all the necessary computerized gizmos of a futuristic abode. I can only imagine the headaches of the director of photography when lighting the house for film.The movie has a great cast in my opinion. Two pop stars and two beautiful female leads. The psychotic hacker-killer who quotes Goethe was an odd but interesting touch. I never really understood the significance of the "ring" around his eye though. It was also nice to see Kim Valentine in a movie again after so many years! .com For Murder is definitely a movie you'll enjoy more if you easily suspend your disbelief. If you can't then you probably just won't like the movie, which is understandable since it's not for everyone. This film obviously has some minor mistakes and isn't exactly oscar material. Just remember it's only a movie, not a biography of current technology and surely not a textbook for a realistic internet.Oddly I never saw .com For Murder on any rental shelves. I probably wouldn't even know about it to this day if it wasn't for seeing it on the internet, which is ironic. I finally ended up just purchasing it when the DVD price went down lower. It's surely a must purchase for any Mastorakis fan. The DVD includes a 36+ minute behind-the-scenes feature, and unedited interviews with Roger Daltrey (20 minutes) and Huey Lewis (8 minutes).