Overrated and overhyped

hyped garbage

It’s an especially fun movie from a director and cast who are clearly having a good time allowing themselves to let loose.

It's hard to see any effort in the film. There's no comedy to speak of, no real drama and, worst of all.

you know, i really liked this movie.i thought it was suspenseful and exciting,with some twists i didn't see coming.i also didn't see the ending coming either,which, for me,is a good thing in a movie.there are a number of suspects in the movie and it really keeps you guessing.i also like Kim Delaney a lot.i think she's a pretty decent actress.i'm still not sure why she was let go from CSI:Miami,but that's another story.she plays the lead in this movie,a thriller writer named Kate Saunders.Kate begins receiving these strange e-mails from someone calling himself Thrillkill.Thrillkill has apparently been inspired by a villain in one of Kate's novels.his messages even claim he was created by Kate.Thrillkil begins killing women in exactly the same way as the villain in Kate's novels.i won't say anymore about the plot.lets just say what follows is suspense and excitement,and some twists.i liked "Closer and Closer" quite a bit.for me,it's a strong 8/10

OK.. at the time of writing, 65 people voted for this movie, bringing it to a 5 out of 10 rating. My guess is that only the film crew voted. So I'm here to bring some justice to it all.Never has a movie provoked the audience's intelligence more than this one. Given, I laughed out loud quite a bit - but the movie/story absolutely didn't want me to.I've seen a LOT of bad movies. A LOT. But man, this one blows them all away.Speaking '96 computers, ridiculous acting, and wheelchair chases - and we have young Tarantinos who can't get their ideas financed. Yup, life's a cruel joke.

I couldn't help but laugh when I saw what the public could be made to think was email back in 1996. Apparently email is an interactive discussion (similar to a chat) with lame voice synthesis reading every comment out loud. And some of the other "tech" aspects are also laugh-out-loud funny. I'd swear the "high tech" communications centre she has actually has a few Commodore 64 monitors in it. Almost like watching the movie Hackers nowadays, I guess.Despite the fact that for most of the movie the lead actress carries off the illusion of being disabled, the final part of the movie has an unexplained use of her legs which somehow I can't ignore. I mean, why include something so stupid? Anyway, to sum up: the plot is pretty predictable, the acting bad, the killer quite guessable. But it can be amusing in a Mystery Science Theatre 3000 kind of way I guess.

This film is nothing special at all. The story reminded me of COPYCAT amongst others. It's pretty predictable and the acting is very standard. Something to see only if you've got nothing better to do. 5/10