3 Blind Mice (2003)  from Johnny Web (Uncle Scoopy; Greg Wroblewski)

London. A guy witnesses a live murder on a web cam. Overcome by panic, he tries to call the police, but during the call he realizes that he has no idea who the victim really is, or where she lives, so his call has been futile. He hangs up without identifying himself. The police trace those emergency calls, of course, so they show up at his house, knowing he is either their only witness or the killer.

This idea might have germinated a great movie. This garbled straight-to-vid effort is not that movie.

In fact, it is difficult to find anything positive to say about it. The negatives are easy to spot:

  • The cinematography seems to have been done by the same guy who did the Rob Lowe sex tape. Half of it is dark and indecipherable. The other half consists of screen grabs of grainy web cams.
  • The storyline is about as coherent as in the film the stowaways made on Gilligan's Island. The stowaways, however, did a better job of editing.
  • The action scenes are bungled. Characters fall out of frame; dialogue is garbled; bullets hit body parts in close-up so that the identity of the victim can't be determined; a large, violent, armed man has difficulty escaping from an unarmed Edward Furlong.
  • The technology pictured in the film does not exist. The magic cam, which can follow characters no matter where they go, is the same imaginary technology George Burns used to watch Connie Stevens on "Wendy and Me." People watch other people from a 45 degree overhead angle no matter where they go. If a character walks along a Paris boulevard, somebody will be watching him on a web cam just ahead of him and just above his head, as if he had stayed in his apartment. Sometimes they even have sound. One must wonder where, exactly, that camera is positioned. Maybe on a satellite with a really good zoom lens. That's only one example of the technological misconceptions. The characters have dial-up connections, for example, that work about a thousand times faster than broadband. They connect to fully-loaded web sites as quickly as you and I can get a new channel with the TV remote. Wireless web cams are placed just about everywhere in London, and they all run on super-batteries with an infinite life.
  • The characters have to behave stupidly in service of the illogical plot. Edward Furlong was in London at the time the woman was being murdered in Amsterdam. The police can determine he was on his desktop PC at the time, because they confiscated his hard drive and can monitor many of his activities during the previous night, just as they could from your hard drive or mine. The computer keeps track of when e-mails are sent, when files are saved or deleted, and so forth. Even streaming video would leave records in temporary files. Because the police always accuse the protagonist in plots like this, thus requiring him to prove his innocence, the police accuse him of the logistically impossible murder, and want to hold him until a sympathetic female cyber-detective has "a gut feeling" that he's innocent. The saddest part is that the coppers really believe that he did it! This might have made for a compelling (if clichéd) plot line - IF he hadn't left a trail of evidence so obvious that any fairly technical eighth grader could easily have determined that he really was at his desk in London, just from his hard drive alone.
  • The continuity is non-existent. For example, one e-mail message says, "She knows that man I met in the Jaguar." When the character reads it in close-up, it says, "She knows that man I met in the Rolls."


  • Some of the acting is below the level of a decent summer stock company. Apparently they could not find an American actor to play Furlong's brother, so they cast a Londoner who does the worst American accent since Monty Python's Graham Chapman. (And Chapman was doing it poorly on purpose, for comic effect.) The brother sounds like a Bulgarian who learned how to speak English in a lower-class Dublin neighborhood. I was wondering how such a thing could have happened in a professional film until I noticed that the director was French. Obviously he couldn't hear the problem, any more than I would know whether a German speaker was really Bavarian or a man from Saxony mocking a Bavarian accent.
  • Because of the editing, technical, scripting, acting, and continuity errors, the audience is left dumbfounded by the plot in general, but that level of confusion wasn't quite high enough for the film's creators. After every situation seems to have been resolved, or at least to the best of our ability to comprehend the labyrinthine goings-on, the script tacks on two more of those "endings after the ending" with additional plot twists which are even more anfractuous than the main plot, and which are left unresolved and unexplained as the credits roll.
  • The Region 1 DVD has a full screen transfer of the film. Period.

In other words, you don't want to watch this DVD. You don't even want to watch it for Emilia Fox's nudity, which is spoiled by the cinematography because it's either too dark or pictured on a web-cam enlargement.

It is rated a dismal, but still incomprehensibly high, 4.3 at IMDb. I would have expected it to be around 3.0, based on films of similar quality. It's not quite bad enough to join the exclusive neighborhood of the all-time Bottom 100, but resides in an apartment close enough to use their school system.



  • no features
  • no widescreen



Emilia Fox shows her bum and her breasts in very dim light. She also shows her pubic area in grainy webcam action.

One other woman is seen topless on a webcam.

The Critics Vote ...

  • No major print reviews online


The People Vote ...

The meaning of the IMDb score: 7.5 usually indicates a level of excellence equivalent to about three and a half stars from the critics. 6.0 usually indicates lukewarm watchability, comparable to approximately two and a half stars from the critics. The fives are generally not worthwhile unless they are really your kind of material, equivalent to about a two star rating from the critics, or a C- from our system. Films rated below five are generally awful even if you like that kind of film - this score is roughly equivalent to one and a half stars from the critics or a D on our scale. (Possibly even less, depending on just how far below five the rating is.

Our own guideline:

  • A means the movie is so good it will appeal to you even if you hate the genre.
  • B means the movie is not good enough to win you over if you hate the genre, but is good enough to do so if you have an open mind about this type of film. Any film rated B- or better is recommended for just about anyone. In order to rate at least a B-, a film should be both a critical and commercial success. Exceptions: (1) We will occasionally rate a film B- with good popular acceptance and bad reviews, if we believe the critics have severely underrated a film. (2) We may also assign a B- or better to a well-reviewed film which did not do well at the box office if we feel that the fault lay in the marketing of the film, and that the film might have been a hit if people had known about it. (Like, for example, The Waterdance.)
  • C+ means it has no crossover appeal, but will be considered excellent by people who enjoy this kind of movie. If this is your kind of movie, a C+ and an A are indistinguishable to you.
  • C means it is competent, but uninspired genre fare. People who like this kind of movie will think it satisfactory. Others probably will not.
  • C- indicates that it we found it to be a poor movie, but genre addicts find it watchable. Any film rated C- or better is recommended for fans of that type of film, but films with this rating should be approached with caution by mainstream audiences, who may find them incompetent or repulsive or both. If this is NOT your kind of movie, a C- and an E are indistinguishable to you.
  • D means you'll hate it even if you like the genre. We don't score films below C- that often, because we like movies and we think that most of them have at least a solid niche audience. Now that you know that, you should have serious reservations about any movie below C-. Films rated below C- generally have both bad reviews and poor popular acceptance.
  • E means that you'll hate it even if you love the genre.
  • F means that the film is not only unappealing across-the-board, but technically inept as well.


Based on this description, this film is an F.  Utter rubbish, as they say in the U.K. Not a single redeeming element. (Although Emilia's nudity would be excellent if it were shown properly.)

Return to the Movie House home page