This film both follows the hacking adventures of famous hacker Adrian Lamo, and uses them as a microcosm for the macrocosm of struggles faced by emerging trends of thought - from the criminal to the philosophical. . You can read more in Google, Youtube, Wiki
This film both follows the hacking adventures of famous hacker Adrian Lamo, and uses them as a microcosm for the macrocosm of struggles faced by emerging trends of thought - from the criminal to the philosophical.
You may also like
Hackers Wanted torrent reviews
Max N (mx) wrote: What is the point in this film?
Rodrigo T (au) wrote: Ai caramba... O que voc faz quando gosta de um filme, mesmo sabendo que ele tem um monte de problemas? Recomenda ou no recomenda?
Tyler R (ag) wrote: This movie was terrible. It was boring and the plot was stupid and unbelievable. Horrible acting and very forgettable.
Valria V (us) wrote: It lacked the "drug" of a camcorder!
Harry G (it) wrote: For what was until recently the biggest budget Russian film of all time, it is a suitably grand and opulent affair, and (a cynic would say) a conscious attempt by the nationalist post-Soviet Russia to rehabilitate what 'heroes' could be found in the leadership of the White Army (who were largely reactionary aristocrats, albeit patriotic ones). This message of strong, duty bound, Russia is backed up with the sort of huge Orthodox overtones that have come to dominate the conservative right in Russia. Technically though, the story is decent, as are the scenes of battle, though every now and then the CGI team bite off a bit more than they can chew and that does rankle a bit. - Those CGI battleships just aren't as convincing as a model would have been! - The real problem is that it's too long and too melodramatic. One can tell that the makers were betting as much on selling this as a 'grand Russian film made by Russians' as they were 'a good film', and this means they coasted a bit when it came to script editing. The end result is an acceptable but forgettable Russian effort at a war-drama, which has enough atmosphere to keep history buffs interested and enough of a drawn out romance to engage those who aren't paying attention to the Czechoslovak Legion's uniforms.
Daniel L (au) wrote: I find it absolutely hilarious.
Amanda L (de) wrote: Great movie and nicely paced.
William C (au) wrote: This is one of my favorite Star Wars movies of all time. I thought Hayden Christensen gets a bad rap from most fans. He did a good job as Anakin and it is proven in this movie. The ending is the perfect finale for Anakins story.
Steve P (kr) wrote: NOTE: This film was recommended to me by Matthew Craker for "Steve Pulaski Sees It."Despite still functioning in as a comedy with "maximum antics and minimum laughter," a label I like to put on comedies that have a lot going on but little of it turns into serviceable, humorous comedy, Clifford is still a film that's pretty original. Levied by its strong central performance by Martin Short, who's grating and as insufferable as he should be, and with the scale almost effectively balanced out by an initially mellow and progressively fiery Charles Grodin, the film walks a fine line between chaos and restraint in its narrative. You get to appreciate certain cinematic graces like this overtime, especially when you're trying to salvage something out of a film you sort of can't wait to get through watching.Clifford is miles from being a good film, but it is an occasionally fun and charming film, with glimmers of joy eking through its almost entirely unlikable premise. The film revolves around its titular character, played by Martin Short at his most chaotic; a destructive, menacing, and spoiled brat of a ten-year-old who carries around his toy dinosaur everywhere he goes and dreams of going to the themepark Dinosaur World in California. While on a flight to Hawaii with his parents, the plane makes an emergency landing in Los Angeles because of Clifford's rowdy behavior, leaving his mother and father stranded without a way to get to his father's important conference.His father decides to dump Clifford off with his Uncle Martin and his fiancee Sarah (Charles Grodin and Mary Steenburgen) at their home in Los Angeles while both him and his wife catch another flight to Hawaii. Initially, this seems like a dream for Martin, for his wife has been wanting to see how he interacts with kids since she wants kids of their home. However, Clifford isn't your average kid by any means. He's the kind that you cannot leave unattended for more than five minutes or else your home, your possessions, and your life will be in shambles.Clifford winds up making life a living hell for Uncle Martin, going as far as to ruin an important business meeting, in addition to embarrassing him in front of clients among other things, all while Sarah doesn't believe a boy so innocuous could ever be up to no good. If nothing else, the film itself is a testament to the real comedic talent and energy of Martin Short, who, at 44 at the time this film was made, plays a convincing ten-year-old menace, with no social tact or grace whatsoever. His rambunctious nature as a performer contrasts beautifully with a more reserved Charles Grodin, the recipient of the chaos, in such a way that the two work off of one another in an admirable manner that often insights some good conversational banter.The problem is getting a scene where it's solely the two actors and no other intrusions in the way of situational humor or other presences occur. The defining scene between the two is when Martin scolds Clifford for making his life a living hell and embarrassing him at the aforementioned luncheon. The scene is one of the few where there is literally nothing besides Grodin, Short, and the matter at hand (if you don't count Clifford's toy dinosaur), and because of it, the screenwriters have time to regain their composure and march on accordingly before diving into more ridiculous antics.With that, Clifford is, at the very least, an interesting film, despite boasting the "maximum antics, minimum laughter" idea of their being a lot going on narratively, but little occurring in a comedic sense. Cut out Short's energetic performance and Grodin's restraint and what you have remaining is a film that has difficultly standing on its own two legs thanks to a feeble and overall redundant premise that, like the character, breeds little more than contempt by the time it's over.Starring: Martin Short, Charles Grodin, Mary Steenburgen, Richard Kind, and Jennifer Savidge. Directed by: Paul Flaherty.
Mark W (fr) wrote: Although Mean Streets wasn't Martin Scorsese's directorial debut it can often feel like it was. He'd already done Who's That Knocking at My Door in 1968 and Boxcar Bertha in 1972 but this was the film that not only began his illustrious collaborations with Robert DeNiro but it was his first film to delve into the gangster sub-genre and displayed all the embryonic, stylistic trademarks that he has now become synonymous with. Quite simply, Mean Streets showcased the talents of Scorsese and fully confirmed the arrival of one of the greatest American directors while becoming hugely influential on future films and filmmakers alike. Charlie (Harvey Keitel) is a small time criminal trying to work his way up the local mafia food chain. However, his religious beliefs continually cause him to question his choices in life and as his conscience gets the better of him, so too does his misjudged loyalty to his low-life friends.Some may find the style and fashion of this early 70's classic as dated but Scorsese's flamboyant skills and style are far from it. This was a young, relatively inexperienced director who was way ahead of his time and displayed approaches to filmmaking that are now taken for granted. That said, when you look back at Mean Streets and consider just how early Scorsese delivered this, it still packs a punch and is, without doubt, one of the best and most impressive films from the decade.Following on the heals of Francis Ford Coppola's sweeping crime classic The Godfather in 1972, Scorsese took us to a more personal, working class criminal environment. It feels raw, even claustrophobic, when compared to Coppola's epic proportions. The characters in Scorsese's tale are more real and easier to identify with. They're not throwing elaborately expensive weddings or severing horse's heads to send messages, they're just trying to get by, day to day, and turn a coin from whatever petty criminal activity comes their way. At it's core, it's anchored by two excellent performances: Keitel shoulders the brunt of the film's narrative as Charlie; basically a good guy who has chosen a life of crime that leaves him in a tortured state due to his religious upbringing and near constant state of catholic guilt. He struggles with the choices he makes in life and struggles even more with those of his self-destructive friend, Johnny Boy, played with real electric verve by a young DeNiro. Even though Keitel delivers a solid lead performance, it's DeNiro's recklessness that really stands out. There's not a moment where he doesn't command your attention with his maniacal and random fits of rage and immaturity.As this proved to be the moment that Scorsese came to everyone's attention, it done the same for DeNiro. His improvisation and natural ability does, in front of the camera, what Scorsese was doing behind it. Both of their work seems to mirror and compliment one another and this became the birthing of one of cinema's greatest, long term, partnerships.Mark Walker
Leon B (ru) wrote: Harry Brown is one of them movies that would take half of the movie to kick in. It is sometimes good to watch a movie like that so it can break into a better dialogue between Harry, who is played by Michael Caine and the police officers that are not bothered with the reports about the estate, until Harry takes matters into his own hands. I would seriously recommend if you are into action and vigilante movies.
Bradley P (it) wrote: An interesting POW film that is more of a character study which is uneven in pacing at times. Hart's War still remains interesting and emotionally touching thanks to a standout performance from Terrence Howard.
Cash00716 (ca) wrote: It was okay. Good acting and editing, but had inaccuracies.
Hisham B (ru) wrote: Stallone is the best and only JUDGE DREDD. Fun entertaining movie.