laurierobey Some of the technology may have changed, but this is still one of the most accurate hacker movies I've ever seen. There are some movies that I go back to watch repeatedly, and this is one of them.The writing is very well done. The movie rightfully illustrates the still huge vulnerabilities of social engineering. The ersatz NSA character's line about how his agency is not chartered for domestic surveillance...oh, the irony!The cast is excellent, and the soundtrack is original and enhances the moods of the scenes.Direction and editing are well-done too. Hence my 10-star rating.

SnoopyStyle In 1969, Marty Brice and Cosmo hack into some Republican bank accounts. Cosmo gets arrested and Marty goes on the run. In present day, Marty (Robert Redford) has a new name in Bishop. His crew ex-CIA Donald Crease (Sidney Poitier), blind Irwin 'Whistler' Emery (David Strathairn), conspiracy nut Darren 'Mother' Roskow (Dan Aykroyd) and young hacker Carl Arbogast (River Phoenix) test security systems. The NSA hires them to steal a black box in exchange for clearing their records. They discover the box is a master decryption device and the NSA men are fake. Cosmo (Ben Kingsley) returns into Marty's life with a truly villainous plan for the box.Redford and Poitier are two veterans doing a lighter movie. It throws me for a loop. The feel is light fun. It probably needs a real comic to bring out some of the joking around. The Mother role could be played for more ridiculous fun. The twist is fine and the final caper is good. Since it's going for the comedic, it could have been wackier.

pearlgearl-772-761306 The movie is deeper than would be expected from a "spy"-type movie; it seems "cute" and "lighthearted". Hardly anybody gets killed, the characters are even endearing, and it seems to be nearly a spoof. The underlying theme, however, is one of balance--the establishment has "too much" and others have "not enough", an injustice Marty, and especially Cosmo, intend to right. The writers work that theme into the dialogue by balancing sentences and statements; "I cannot kill my friend. Kill my friend." The loss of trust is hinted at in lighting tricks, as well--hiding faces in shadow at specific moments.The writers deserve a HUGE pat on the back for their realistic and sympathetic portrayal of a blind man. I would love to nominate David Strathearn as an "honorary blind man". He is shown reading Braille, although Braille literacy is quite low, unfortunately. That funny device with the "dancing dots" seen during the scenes where he is using a computer is a Braille display--still in use today by those who prefer Braille to an audible screen reader, which may not have been around in '92, either. While he is never seen using a cane or a dog, the circumstances in which he is seen walking would not lend themselves to cane travel. In their office, he would get around just fine without a cane; he knows where everything is. In Liz's apartment, it's just too cluttered with all their equipment to make a cane realistic. Instead, he walks slowly, touches walls etc. and gets around just fine. His blindness, is, indeed, even an asset to the team early on--when he realizes the black box is in the fake answering machine case. The sighted people see the answering machine and trust what their vision tells them without question; it takes the blind guy to go beyond the "picture" and use his other senses to figure out the truth.

vincentlynch-moonoi I think describing this as a comedy, which some do, in inaccurate...although the description I did like was a "lighthearted thriller". The makers of the film could have gone for a comedy...but that would have lost my interest almost immediately. And, they could have gone for a totally serious theme of a man going undercover to clear his own record (which, of course, has been done before). Instead, while it is (in my view) a drama, there were quite a few times I found myself smiling.The problem with this film can be summed up with one line about halfway through the movie -- "You won't know who to trust." And as you go through this film, you won't know who the good guys are or who the bad guys are...or who to trust. That makes it just a little confusing. And then, to make it all seem so high tech (which now, a decade later, doesn't seem so high tech at all), everything gets overly complicated...and all this high tech stuff is being done by actors who seem too old for all that stuff. Redford was 56 and Sidney Poitier was 65.However, this is a great cast! But, Robert Redford, playing a man who has been wanted for a federal crime most of his life, seems a bit too old for the plot, as does Sidney Poitier (who seems to have a lot of lines, but it hardly seems like acting...a shame considering what a fine actor he is. Ben Kingsley has a good role as the bad guy, but not a lot of screen time. David Strathairn has perhaps the most interesting and fun role as a high-techie who is blind...and has to drive a truck. Dan Aykroyd has a key -- but unmemorable -- role. Same for River Phoenix...thank goodness it was not the only role of his career. Mary McDonnell is fine as the woman drawn into the heist.To me, this is a very flawed film, but a watchable one with some fun. Recommended for one viewing.