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.

*SPOILER ALERT* *SPOILER ALERT* Oh man, what a letdown. This should have been an easy slam dunk. Any video box that promises, "…nine luscious ladies romping together in a house, while 20 video cameras capture their every move…" gets my vote. Surely something worthwhile should happen when you log onto "Voyeur.com". Bad news. Their website needs a lot of work.So nine luscious ladies check into a house run by two horny dot-com entrepreneurs. They want the women to do something interesting so that they can make some dough. So what's missing from this picture? How about doing something interesting? A masked killer shows up to slice and dice the women but no one really cares until the very end."Voyeur.com" is shot on super cheap video and it looks even cheaper. Its ultra low budget eventually betrays it as it becomes apparent that the filmmakers couldn't afford any nudity from their stars. All of the naked breast shots are from some random girl and they're all from the neck down. They used the same body double for almost every scene. How lame is that? I thought these girls were supposed to be exhibitionists. Where's the exhibition? It's on a different website.You can forget about the horror scenes saving this one. All we have here is fully clothed wild girls getting their throats slit by some loser in a black overcoat. "Voyeur.com" had a great concept but the actual movie couldn't live up to its high sleaze potential.

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)

Frank (Travis Shakespeare) and Alex (Adam Weiner) are going to do it the old fashioned way - with babes. They buy a house, hire a techie - Randy, (Ryan Boone) - and put digital cameras everywhere.Their auditions net a bevy of rowdy exhibitionists. Heidi (Vanessa Nachtman), Jennifer (Keri- Anne Telford), Lisa (Shannon Hutchinson), Sarah (Laurie Searle), Ricci (Tanya Richardson) and Mary (Jena Romano) are all ready for what they expect to be a thrilling, sexy job. But hours before their on-line premiere, something goes wrong - deadly wrong. A mysterious stalker enters the house and no one is safe. Will they survive the night or will they be road kill on the information superhightway?One night, one killer, nine targets an 20 video cameras add up to more terror you can imagine.-----Nice Movie