|Page 5 of 23:||              |
|Index||224 reviews in total|
Cliché is the key word here. The computers that have no basis in reality, except for a few screen shots from Macintoshes; the "kooky" hacker types who wear Battlestar Galactica-inspired jackets and New-Wavey clothes; the evil villain and his secret-service style minions; the edgy attraction (are they gonna get together by the end?) between the two main characters, etc. Stylistically, it doesn't even seem relevant to mid-90's hacker culture at all. One wonders if there was any research involved in the script. The computer operating systems are more like Tron then what they really should be, which is a bunch of Windows or Unix machines with boring information displayed in a pedestrian and boring manner on regular CRT's. The plot is very predictable and lacks any suspense. You know how it's going to turn out. This would have made an OK made-for-television flick.
hackers see this film and are annoyed with how easy it makes hacking
seem. It annoys them because they think that people who see it think
that hacking is as easy as it is in the film. In reality this is not
the case and hackers either feel under appreciated by the majority of
people or wish that hacking is indeed as easy as shown in the film.
I think that this film is OK but i also think that it should not glorify hacking and could cause misconceptions about the hacker mindset and values. The villain in the film was also stereotypical and quite average.
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...
*** This review may contain spoilers ***
This is, without doubt, the worst film I have ever seen. It is terribly atrociously boring, and honestly the first time in my entire life I have fallen asleep while watching a movie. The acting was terrible, in particular the completely over-acted part of Angelina Jolie, who tried to be the distant, cool chick but was just a rude, conceited pain the the ass. Matthew Lillard was his usual self, yet I couldn't even chuckle at him since the film was so bad. Possibly I am not technology-and-gadget-minded enough, and this film is very obviously intended for computer geeks, because I did not know what the point of any of it was. Absurdly unrealistic and completely drawn out and eventless, not to mention predictable as all hell. (Just for the record, I fell asleep approximately 3/4 through but I guarantee without watching that Jolie showed her "nice" side and hit it off with the irritating lead actor and cyber-enemy). Just a hunch. Computer geeks and teenage boys might like this film, or people that might associate it with childhood nostalgia. Anyone else... I can't express enough how not to watch it.
I think this is a movie that can only be described as mediocre. It's not embarrassingly bad, but it's far from great. First, it's good points: energy, hackers make intriguing subjects, and fairly interesting, likable protagonists. It's bad points: a "Superman"-like plot master-minded by a supremely cheesy villain. The effects got annoying after a while, and there was plenty of "information" about computers that was not accurate. I"m not sorry I saw it, but I wish someone would make a movie that would be a correct portrayal of hackers. Then again, computer technology goes so fast that such a movie would likely be very dated before its release.
More like a very young Angelina Jolie stars in hackers, a tale of a bunch of
kids who hack into systems and networks for fun.
It does drag on a bit, but there's some good performances, a perfectly respectable script and some good directing. Unlike other computer films, this isn't full of too much BS and some of the technical stuff is believable -- nice change!
*** This review may contain spoilers ***
Yes, Hackers rests comfortably on a throne of mediocrity. Its time and
place etched into the American cultural psyche: 1995. The Information
Superhighway was making its way into the lexicon, digital graphics were
revolutionizing film-making (specifically compositing, and very soon
outright fabrication would be feasible [3D]), and the media started
talking about how computers would eventually replace TV's.
And riding this wave of media buzzwords, cultural trend, and just plain mythologyyes, some of this film is quite simply falsewas the film Hackers. A veritable "magic carpet ride" into the a cultural mythology that vaguely resembled the reality of the information age. This film was very topical and current; watching this is partially like opening a time capsule from 1995. In fact, if there are any -actual- time capsules from 1995 to be opened in 2045 (or whatever), I hope they include this film. They probably should include a projector too, and an explanation of what celluloid is and how to thread it... but I digress.
But, I have to look at it on its own merit.
So, here are the cons: The characters are one-dimensional and clichéand I mean, bad. It's style hasn't aged particularly welllike I said it was riding a cultural wave that partially imaginary. Its villain is dopey and unhateable. Its plot is strangely slow. You would expect the film to move faster than it doesit really doesn't get started until about 30 minutes in. Most of what it is doing before then is showboating and character development; however as I said the characters are horrifyingly clichéd and watching them develop narratively was uninteresting. Factual errors galore. They've been picked apart down to the letter, no need to rehash. Ubiquitous montage and b- roll sequences to burn screen timeand every last one of them tacky as all hell.
Here are the pros: It captured the imagination of a nation at the time and, to some extent, contributed to the "nerds are cool" attitude. I personally would have been thrilled to grow up when nerds were coolbut I'm happy to take a few arse-kickings for the team. It has a definite spunkiness to it and the young characters represent essentially the new (at the time) techno rebels. The plot is relatively solid, once it gets going. And, it's fun. It may not be great, but it's fun.
The soundtrack is a slightly mixed bag, it has a few atrocities but is mostly solid (UNDERWORLD).
12 years later, this film is definitely showing its age. It certainly is not terrible, and has some good qualities to it. But it certainly is no masterpiece. You can choose to take the bad with the good and enjoy it, or you can choose not to suspend your disbelief and get irritated with it.
A young boy is arrested by the U.S. Secret Service for writing a
computer virus and is banned from using a computer until his 18th
birthday. Years later, he and his new-found friends discover a plot to
unleash a dangerous computer virus, but they must use their computer
skills to find the evidence while being pursued by the Secret Service
and the evil computer genius behind the virus.
I grew up in the 1980s and 1990s and was involved in computer culture. I was never a "hacker" but I understood what "phreaking" and other hacking-related activities were. We knew what "war driving" was. The stuff depicted in this film was unrealistic then and remains unrealistic today (for the most part).
It serves as an interesting nostalgia piece, if anyone can be nostalgic for the 90s. Also, this has to be one of Angelina Jolie's breakout roles. Who knew in 1995 that she would go on to be a celebrated director and something of Hollywood royalty?
*** This review may contain spoilers ***
I swear, this movie really excites you because you get to learn all the
hacking methods they used to get into computers. Now, I'm pretty sure
the codes and computers back then looked to be completely rubbish but
really, they had a lot of potential. Nowadays, I say hacking is easily
accessible because we use a lot of technology. Don't worry,I'm not a
hacker myself but in the movie, it's just mind-blowing to look at the
equipment to use and how they can instantly hack with no problems! Man,
you probably need to make an effort with your brain in order to do that
Angelina Jolie looks really different with short hair but she hasn't changed a bit. Johnny Lee Miller made me satisfied this time, I'm still not that fond of him in Sherlock. However he would do better in other things then that terrible show.
This film is well done, you better believe it!
"Hackers" is exactly as the name implies. However, much of the film
makes it appear hackers can target credit cards, alter traffic light
systems, and issue arrest warrants at will. Certainly, hackers have
done things on a large scale, such as the recent hacking of Sony
Pictures Studio and Target stores. If hackers really had the ability to
do all the things implied by the film, we wouldn't be able to function
in the mechanized world as it is.
The film begins when Dade Murphy (Jonny Lee Miller), age 11, engaged one of the most successful and damaging computer hacks in the history of internet infiltration, crashing 1500+ systems. He's sentenced to probation, his parents fined $10,000's, and he's forbidden to use a computer until age 18. Fast-forward 7 years. Now he's at a high school in New York where he meets fellow computer hackers Kate Libby, a.k.a. Acid Burn (Angelina Jolie), Ramόn Sánchez (Renoly Santiago), Joey Pardella (Jesse Bradford) and Lord Nikon (Laurence Mason). At first they see hacking as a kind of game, looking to one-up each other.
Dade and Kate then decide to have a competition: who can do the best hacking of one of the poor schmucks from the FBI who has been targeting hackers, Agent William "Dick" Gill. The stakes: if she loses, she has to go on a date with him and wear a dress, or if he loses, he has to become her slave. So they begin the competition, a kind of virtual football match, in true hacking style. They invalidate his credit card, put up a porn ad in his name and give out his business phone number where NY gays and transvestites can call him. They even pull the worst trick: they indicate in his file that he's deceased.
It's all good fun until the youngest of the hackers, Joey, breaks into "The Gibson", an Ellingson Mineral Company supercomputer. He notices there's a strange virus in the system and downloads some of it, putting it on a partially downloaded 3.5" floppy disk (remember those?). The FBI at the behest of their systems security analyst Eugene Belford, a.k.a. The Plague (Fisher Stevens), tracks down Joey and arrests him, but not before he hides the disk. Later, Belford and the FBI storm into Joey's house, and the systems security analyst Belford threatens Dade to give them the information they want, which is hidden on the disk. Dade declines saying he doesn't play well with others, to which Belford takes out his frustration on a piece of music equipment in Dade's bedroom. The hackers then discover a virus, which was not written by the hackers, is going to wreak havoc with the company via large cargo ships at sea. They realize the blame will most likely be put on them.
While this is certainly not the best film of this type, it's a good one. Some of the visuals are stunning, and interestingly, the movie doesn't come off dated even though it was produced a couple of decades before this writing. The characters are rather interesting, depicting Generation X types who hack into computer systems, not for a living, but for fun. And I liked Fisher Stevens as the former hacker turned security analyst who understands hacker culture. This film was made from the point of view of young computer geeks of Generation X. The older generation, Boomers and Silent in other words, come off rather stilted and nondescript, which I agree is a good depiction, being a Generation X'er myself.
|Page 5 of 23:||              |
|Plot summary||Plot synopsis||Ratings|
|External reviews||Parents Guide||Official site|
|Plot keywords||Main details||Your user reviews|
|Your vote history|