|Page 2 of 22:||           |
|Index||215 reviews in total|
I watched this movie by accident but i am glad i did. it is not a well known movie but i think it is great. the plot is stupid and unbelieveable but it is really enjoyable. i am not a big fan of Johnny Lee Miller but even in this he is good. it also is the first time i saw Angelina Jolie who in this is good. in all good performances all round and good movie
Obviously this movie is not an academy award winner. So it's going to
score or not score points solely based on entertainment value.
Here's why I rate it a 7...
* The music - a great soundtrack, if you enjoy the era and genre ( Prodigy being one of the coolest bands featured) * The characters - They are all fun - especially Cereal Killer and the phone phreak guy * A pretty hot Angelina Jolie * The dialog - Some of it is pretty amusing, if you don't take the movie seriously * The overall presentation - I enjoy the signs of the time; grunge music posters, early virtual reality, etc; I enjoy the attempts at portraying what goes on inside of a computer even though it's totally wrong * I enjoy the attempt of the movie to be technical. Especially amusing is the discussion of Kate's laptop..."It has a killer refresh rate", lol; You kind of have to laugh at such things; They get some things right though. Like calling the compiler design book the Dragon book...it was named that when I was in college
Obviously weak is the portrayal of computers and hacking. As a computer professional, I can still live with it. Movies rarely get any of this stuff right, so you just put up with these things.
The plot is quite weak. But what do you expect? It suffices as a vehicle for the situations, dialog and music.
Where do i start.
Well i can tell you where, the plot is believable. Until the CGI comes in. Anyone with a vagfue knopwledge of computers knows that if you are a hacker you do not use such graphics on the screen when hacking, the most you use is a beautiful green on black or black on white this is just because.
The phone "Phreaking" absolutely brilliant and true. in america at one point a cereal gave away a whistle which mimmiced the tone of a call so that long distance calls could be made, it lost the company millions.
The set for "Gibson" computer where does that come from. No computer is run like that anywhere in the world. It did make me want to gag half the time and have a good old fingers down the throat moment. I didn't.
The direction, set and costume design and CGI was all hollywood. No hackers dress like that. No hackers are cool, no hackers creep out at night to talk about other hacks. Why when you can do it from your room in front of your screen. It is also at that time the "Witching Hour"/
If you want something with a little more substance read The Blue Nowhere, if you have no knowledge of computers go see hackers.
A fun but not frisky 4 outta 10
First of all: The movie does not rate "Hackers" as bad guys, but then again,
neither does the good, old "Wargames" feat M. Broderick. One positive
The movie depicts a computer environment far from what is reality, and what makes is even worse is the *frantic* use of technical computer terms. Like RAM or Pentium i.e.
As to my knowledge the crew made a decent background survey on the "Hacker community", prior to writing the script. What is unbelievable to me, is how much they failed. Even "The Net", feat. Sandra Bullock, has a better grasp on reality. This movie just has to become a "Cult" movie for all those who doesn't know a computer from a Toaster.
I remember watching Hackers on television and possibly on video when I
was younger and being somewhat impressed. Not from the actual film
itself, but from the fact that Hollywood would take the sidekicks of
every other "action" film and give them their own film. It was
refreshing, even if the overall feature did not settle well. It showed
that Hollywood was willing to take a step forward in the world of
creativity, and for a few films it brooded well. Now in 2005, I watch
this film again, and am completely devastated by the results. Now, when
I watch this film, I see clichéd characters, an uninvolved plot,
complete disregard for the law, and extremely cheap computer graphics,
which heavily stamped a date on this feature. Is this what hacking is
all about? Is hacking about fighting evil hackers with virus', about
growing out-dated over time, and about finding that one Goth girl that
has a boyfriend and making her your own? That is what Hackers
demonstrated to me, so why shouldn't I believe it?
Director Ian Softley really went outside of his tent when creating this film. Going from the feature Backbeat, about music's cultural icons, to this just doesn't well compute. He had this great opportunity to bring an unknown culture into a mainstream light, but instead he teeny-bopped it out of reality. He transforms these unsociable, outcast geniuses into superheroes, armed with nothing more than keyboards, high libidos, teen music, and an overabundance of clichés. If I were a member of the hacker community I would be outraged about this film. It is like making a movie about Superman wearing a Batman costume, two different cultures were intertwining incorrectly and nobody was there to stop it. We needed The Matrix, but all we got was American Pie. To help remedy this situation, we needed three distinct changes. We needed stronger actors to accompany their characters, a tighter story that dove deeper into the hacker culture, and we needed stronger CGI, which wouldn't date this early 90s film.
Jonny Lee Miller was decent, Angelina carried her own, Jesse Bradford was wasted, but overall the most hurtful part of these characters was that they never quite "gelled" together. I never quite saw these main characters working together after this. I never saw them remaining friends or pursuing their computer degrees further. We opened with only enough information for us to feel sympathy for Miller and literally left with no care in the world what would happen to these characters after the credit sequence. This is not strong film-making. I like to end films with a sensation that life outside the camera will continue in a linear course, but with Hackers that sensation never erupted. I think some of this has to do with Matthew Lillard who just floundered his performance (almost to the clichéd "T") and decayed nearly every scene he was involved with. The only attribute he was able to succeed with was annoying, and I don't think that is what Softley was shooting for. These characters were painful to watch and thankfully were able to rebound after this film, sans Matthew Lillard.
The story. Without detailing too much, the story was unoriginal. It felt as if we took a general action film, erased the main heroes, and instead substituted this band of hipster hackers as our heroines. Which means, a very clichéd story equipped with our very own over-acting villain, "The Plague". What was his role in this film outside of telling Penn Jillette what to do, and sleeping with Lorraine Bracco? His spoken words were hideous and painful to the ear, coupled with his one-dimensional character really left us with a villain that never quite covered the "evil" ground. Neither him nor Bracco felt "evil". Instead, from the moment we met them we knew what would be their fate. There was nothing that Softley could have done to avoid this outside of making better casting decisions, a stronger story, and a decent climax.
Finally, I would like to say that this film felt like the mid-90s. No matter how you look at it, the choice for graphics in this film completely dates the picture. If you think you are going to gather up your computer friends for a rousing night of micro-brews and this feature, you will find yourself definitely alone by the end of the evening. Softley's use of random letters, images, and computer-enhanced something-or-others, didn't even feel like computers. I remember playing computer games back in the 80s that made more sense than this. I felt cheapened after seeing these terminally poor graphics and wondered if this film was used to push computer companies into a better era. Either way, Softley's CGI use in this film was hysterically bad, causing a ripple of cheapness to cascade through this film.
Overall, I wasn't happy with my future viewing of this film. Perhaps I should have left this film go in the 90s, but watching it today I felt cheap and robbed. Softley's inaccurate portrayal of this hacker culture only brewed a deeper dislike of Hollywood and their ability to capitalize on this unknown world. The cast was atrocious (Matthew Lillard), the story can be seen in dozens of other action-genre films, and the central focus of this film, the computer graphics, were apparently designed by Wal-Mart. Hackers is a disgraceful mess of a film that should be locked in the film vault never to be released again.
Grade: * out of *****
If you were expecting an intellectual treatise on the life of 'hackers' or
'security compromise specialists' or whatever...you've bought the wrong
ticket. Turn off your brain, folks. This is the (trite, overdone) story of
the brilliant wizkid, a hacker in this case, who just can't stay away from
old habits. Closing in on his 18th birthday, Johnny Lee Miller ends up
making new friends with the local roving gang of hackers and battling the
nefarious corporate nemisis-former-hacker who's out to take everyone's
Bottom line: the script is unimaginative, the characters have almost no depth, the technology is completely, totally, 100% made-up (long live MovieOS!). Jonny Lee Miller isn't too bad, Angelina Jolie can be as bad as she wants to be ('cause she looks so good)...the rest of the cast is just kinda there, picking up another rent check.
As many have already stated, recognize this movie for what it is (psuedo-intellectual, wanna-be-techie pulp) and try and enjoy it. Think too hard, and you'll burst into flames. 'Year's Top Ten?' '95 was a bad movie year, was it?
This film is a perfect demonstration that pretty young things and slick
camera work can do nothing to retrieve a hollow, disjointed, plot less
script. A real disappointment.
A young Angelina Jolie is dusky, cute and pouty, as only she can be. Jonny Lee Miller - born in my neck of the woods - is sullen and pouty. Matthew Lillard - possibly the most prolific of the principal actors - is plain bizarre. The set design and photography make at times for a near comic-book experience, which suited the material perfectly. And yet none of this saves the film from dreadful writing.
No story, pointless (and meaningless) technodrivel, lots of pretty graphics, and a bunch of kids strutting around in some bizarre costume designer's idea of "cyber trendy", and absolutely no substance. So much potential wasted. Frankly you'd be better off watching War Games. At least that had a story...
Granted, I'm tainted, but as someone who works in IT they could not
have come up with more HOKEY computer lingo/scenarios/special effects
if they tried. Oh, wait.....they did use the word "Unix" once or twice,
and I think I actually heard "kernel," and didn't "Crash Overdrive" say
something about "/usr/bin" once? To that, I say, "/dev/null," the real
take away from this tragic insult to real live uber-geeks.
And the stooopid banter between Bracco and everyone else? You've GOT to be kidding me.
I guess realism wasn't an objective; instead, it was to showcase 20 year old (pre-surgery) Jolie-booty.
What a waste of 107 minutes...
Hackers is one of the coolest movies ever. There are great characters, costumes, and computers. There is the evil guy (who is incredibly cool) who rides around on a skateboard, the main good hackers who all have souped up mac laptops with mad crazy cool graphics on them, and the crazy japanese people as well as the people that don't really fit into the hacking world. Hackers is very much fun to watch and anyone who didn't like this movie may be lacking in taste in awesome movies or a sense of humor or both. Incredible fun fun!
This film is not only lacking realism. It doesn't come up with either
storyline or acceptable dialogues and is an insult to everyone who has a
bare understanding of computer fundamentals.
Luckily, over the last years, Hollywood has made the right decision to bring a little more realism into computer-related movies. However, this film is not worth seeing, I would recommend everyone to spend the runtime with anything else - perhaps cooking.
|Page 2 of 22:||           |
|Plot summary||Plot synopsis||Ratings|
|Newsgroup reviews||External reviews||Parents Guide|
|Official site||Plot keywords||Main details|
|Your user reviews||Your vote history|