Dot.Kill (2005)

What makes it different from others?

Thanks for the memories!

Great visuals, story delivers no surprises

Fun premise, good actors, bad writing. This film seemed to have potential at the beginning but it quickly devolves into a trite action film. Ultimately it's very boring.

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 !

I saw dot.kill on Showtime the other night; and, while I thought the title was totally lame, I watched it because is starred Armand Assante.His filmography is hit or miss for me; but, I have to give him credit on this one. His passion within the role really makes this film. He was absolutely convincing as a detective who's health, family life, and career are crumbling.Charlie is an old-school detective who relies on instinct, not high-tech. He is alternately hard-core, abrasive (particularly to co-workers and his son), and tender (towards a former addict, whom he saved from a life on the streets).The twist at the end, as to the identity of the killer was great, even though it really wasn't hard to guess, with the heavy foreshadowing used by the director.It could have been better; but, a pretty good movie nonetheless.

So, this evening my boyfriend and I decided to spend the night relaxing at home and rented this movie off our COMCAST on DEMAND.Yes, the movie, which would be better described as 'fecal matter', cost us a whopping $3.99 too damn much.Aside from having little or no suspense, bad acting, and weak effects, the only thing really missing from making this a complete waste of time and money was the flashing neon arrow hovering over the 'handicapped killer' in the scenes of which he rolled past.I would like to know what teenage youth group wrote this piece of 'work'? Or perhaps who gave a monkey a type writer? My 3 year old nephew could keep a secret longer than this film took to reveal the killer.Go ahead, waste your money, waste your time, hell this movie is a complete and total waste and if that is what you have in mind for 'having a good time' then this is the perfect movie for you.