Solidrariol Am I Missing Something?

Beystiman It's fun, it's light, [but] it has a hard time when its tries to get heavy.

Nessieldwi Very interesting film. Was caught on the premise when seeing the trailer but unsure as to what the outcome would be for the showing. As it turns out, it was a very good film.

Kidskycom It's funny watching the elements come together in this complicated scam. On one hand, the set-up isn't quite as complex as it seems, but there's an easy sense of fun in every exchange.

MrOllie I watched this film a few nights ago and found it OK, but nothing special. Alexandra Paul plays Stacy a lawyer, who gets a phone call telling her that her sister has been murdered. She then returns to the area where she had been raised and where her sister was killed and keeps meeting various people who she knew in her past. Stacy later finds out that her sister had been advertising herself on Adult Dating sites, therefore, with the help of her friend Lauren, she decides to do the same thing to see if she can find out who the killer is. A dangerous game to play. If you have a couple of hours to spare then give it a look, but do not expect too much.

MattyGibbs I thought this sounded an interesting idea but any hopes I had for this movie quickly evaporated within the first horrendously amateur opening scene. Unfortunately it didn't improve, having a horrible 1980's vibe to it throughout. There is some rank bad acting in this epitomised by the lead Alexandra Paul who is simply dreadful and whose strangely muscular arms shown throughout the film are off putting. The rest of the cast don't fare any better with wooden stilted performance after performance. The dialogue at times is just downright laughable. The subject matter of sex sites is seedy but I suppose it highlights some of the dangers the sad losers who use them face. Murder.Com just doesn't ring true on any level and if the acting and script aren't bad enough you also have to put up with a truly dreadful soundtrack. I was hoping at least for a decent ending but sadly you don't even get this, just an ending as lame as the rest of the film.Murder.com is low budget but really there is no excuse for producing a movies as bad as this. I don't normally like giving films 1/10, and solely on the basis I at least managed to sit through it all, I'll give it a generous 2/10.Avoid with all your might.

Claudio Carvalho In Miami, the successful lawyer Stacy (Alexandra Paul) and her colleague and friend Lauren (Robyn Lively) are enjoying a party promoted by the company where they work when Stacy receives a call from her hometown Venice telling that her sister Kate (Ellyn Daniels) was murdered. Stacy heads to Venice and meets her former high school mate Bobby (David Chokachi) in charge of the investigation of the case but without any lead. Stacy meets Kate's employer Roger (David Moretti) trying to get some information about her sister since they were distant and without contact for a long time. While in Kate's house, she finds an external HD hidden in her Teddy Bear and she discovers that Kate was a user of a site that promoted encounters for kinky sex; together she finds the address book of her sister with a couple of names. Stacy joins the site and schedules to meet with the guys listed in the address book sure that one of them might be the killer of her sister.I watched "Murder.com" because I like the elegant actress Alexandra Paul, but unfortunately the plot of this movie is implausible, predictable and has a corny conclusion. Why a successful lawyer would risk her position exposing in a perverted site to investigate the death of her practically unknown sister? The police was investigating and she could have given the HD to Bobby. The conclusion is also awful since the independent profile of Stacy, who left Venice due to the lack of opportunities in a small town, does not fit with a housewife. Last but not the least; David Moretti is miscast since he is shorter than Alexandra Paul and in the climax of the story, she is visibly in a hole to look shorter than Roger. My vote is four.Title (Brazil): Not Available

bish11741 With 22 votes, 19 of them giving a wonderful 10/10 and the other three trying to redress the balance with 1/10, there is some vote-rigging going on here. This is NOT a 10/10 movie... (not even by the wildest stretch of the imagination) maybe the system needs to be fixed, because posting an overall rating based on such obvious manipulation of a relatively low sampling will make people waste their time (and money)... and only serve to devalue IMDb's reputation.The movie itself is a pot-boiler. It's OK if you've got time on your hands. It's not going to win any awards or go any way to enhance the reputations of the cast and crew... but it's OK if you've got nothing better planned (like cleaning the grout in the shower). To put the voting in perspective, Netflix voters gave it a 3.3/5 for about the same number of voters... the only critic review listed gave it 1/5 ...Allowing the system to be gamed devalues the whole rating system. Automatically flagging patterns like this is such an easy thing to do, and is absolutely not a difficult code implementation... any code monkey worth his salt will knock it out in ten minutes.Clean house please. Bish