Dot.Kill (2005)

People are voting emotionally.

This story has more twists and turns than a second-rate soap opera.

The acting in this movie is really good.

All of these films share one commonality, that being a kind of emotional center that humanizes a cast of monsters.

At at glance, I noticed the reviewers mostly gave this movie a higher ranking than the hoi polloi. While this isn't the best movie you could watch, I don't think it belongs below a 5 rating.Speaking broadly about movies and TV shows that feature net related activity, the bigger budget movies go with computer effects that defy any reality (think "Jurassic Park" and the line by a child "ooh! this is Unix. I know this.") while less self-obsessed low budget films are stuck with using stuff the rest of us actually use from day to day... and are therefore more realistic.This isn't academy award material, but it's not as bad as the couple pathetic reviewers make it out to be. Any reviewer who gives a 1-2 star rating for a properly produced film should be doomed to watch "Manos" or Justin Bieber movies for life. Netflix popped it up as an average selection for me and it was some good filler time while I got some work done. It beat the heck out of old "X-File reruns."

First of all, it got one brilliant factor. It's where the killer is the partner. Very unpredictable I must admit.Another, yet half-brilliant, factor. The characterization of the lead. It's unusual, catchy, and sad. However with no serious shadows or dramatic justification. I mean yes Armand brought some of the Assante magic to it, made it believable and special. But for instance why he was dying ?? The answer of this question could be something high and meaningful, like being poisoned by the modern civilization (that created such a maniac and advanced killer as well), or maybe he's dying because the ethics are anyway. Well, sure any answer would have completed it as whole brilliant.The real bad factor is the killer's motive. It's bad because it's nonexistent. They succeeded to make him unpredictable, but forgot anything else. As if it's enough motive to chuckle crazily in front of a computer!Another, yet slight, bad factor. Which's Armand Assante's dark contact lens. They forced the guy to put them to look weary. But that was pretty exposed. You can see them clear when he was lying on the couch of the dancer. The fake black points in them were moving as his eyes. It was unnecessary and cheap move; just like his endless cough too!So as you see, the brilliance wasn't that much available. Nonetheless still it is "something else" amongst the other V crap that looks meaningless and senseless in comparison. And generally it is a good attempt to make what's different in the new genre of catch-the-serial-killer that became in fashion since (The Silence of the Lambs – 1991). But why it stopped at being just an attempt?? Anyway, the weak links will be stronger, and the brilliant factors more complete, 3 years later in (Untraceable) which seems, somewhat, like a refined remake. I believe the only love to kill in here is the movie's love to kill itself !

Dot.Kill is unfortunately not a very original film. It suffers from taking to many ideas from other films from the past 10 years. It is no surprise as this is just one of many films like this that is simply a product of its time. Of course, if you are into this type of thing you might find some enjoyment as Armand Assante gives a solid performance as usual. But even he couldn't carry the film as a whole on his back.Assante plays a detective named Charlie. Charlie is a sick man who appears to be dying and as a result is heavily addicted to morphine. The story unfolds with a serial killer murdering people through the internet and posting it in real time for millions of people to see. As the case starts to unravel, Charlie becomes sicker and sicker.Basically, this movie is a cross between Seven and Fear.Com and that's not a good thing. There is nothing supernatural about the movie like Fear.Com but the whole thing with posting the murders online is a similar concept. And the relation to Seven is the direction the movie attempts to take. But let's face it, Seven was a hundred times better then this or any other movie that came out in the genre for the past 15 years.I will admit that the first 30 minutes of the movie was a bit intriguing as Assante is a fun actor to watch in just about anything he is in, but, the movie loses its muster halfway through and things become predictable and boring. The ending is rather anticlimactic, I might add.Overall, it wasn't a good movie but it really wasn't a bad movie either. I think the only reason to watch the movie is if you are a Armand Assante fan. 6/10

It's watchable and sure keeps you attached to it when viewing it. It's a movie which can be seen from two viewpoints:-1- The (dramatical) story of the main character, his live and whats happening to him. -2- Who's doing all the killing, showing it live on the internet and how will they get them or him/her and who's behind this all?However there are many inconsistencies in the story and logic errors. That's ashame, if they weren't there I would rated it an 7 or even 8.They are not all too disturbing if you just continue watching and don't make a big deal about these, but I can imagine some people would be irritated by them. I wasn't cause I just viewed it without too much thinking and all together it's very watchable.OK, no special effects, please see Star Wars 3 or something. OK, no well thought out Drama. OK, no real action.But altogether better than many other movies.....Give it a try if you have the time.