Voyeur.com

2000 "The Site Everyone's Dying To See."
Voyeur.com
2.1| 1h35m| R| en| More Info
Released: 17 October 2000 Released
Producted By: Rojak Films
Country: United States of America
Budget: 0
Revenue: 0
Official Website: http://rojakfilms.com/voyeur.htm
Synopsis

Two young entrepreneurs open up a voyeuristic Internet site.

... View More
Stream Online

The movie is currently not available onine

Director

Producted By

Rojak Films

Trailers & Images

  • Top Credited Cast
  • |
  • Crew

Reviews

xposipx 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.
DieselJester-1 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.
lordzedd-2 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!!!
gridoon 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)