When I had the opportunity to see a pre-screening of The Net 2.0 I jumped at the chance, and boy am I glad that I did.
The Net 2.0 is the blockbuster sequel to the 1995 film, The Net with Sandra Bullock. A movie I confess I never saw. It was not a smash hit in any sense of the word, and what makes this movie even more interesting is that The Net 2.0 is made by the son of the original.
The Net 2.0 I can happily say really delivers in a big way. A beautifully crafted, mind bending thriller. Quickly paced movie about a woman caught in the web of identity theft.
Nikki Deloach is Hope Cassidy, a Systems Analyst who takes a huge job in Istanbul when her life begins to feel predictable and boring. Her boyfriend chooses not to tag along, so she heads off alone. The last thing he asks her is, "Do you know what you're getting yourself into?" The Net 2.0 is full of foreshadowing and intrigue. A roller-coaster that will make you question everything you once took for granted, and yet as a movie it is simply a treat.
Nikki Deloach is just as unassuming and innocent as Kate Hudson from The Skeleton Key, a dynamic which makes one not only empathize but feel protective of the main character making one really connect with what is happening on screen. Nikki really carries the film masterfully.
The perils of identity theft are not campfire ghost stories, is not science fiction but a reality, and in today's high speed wireless hyper distributed future, all we are is just bits and bytes of information moving across the sky.
She has lost everything. She has no one but herself, and she's fighting to discover the truth before they take even that away from her! The Net 2.0 really delivers. The pacing, atmosphere building, camera-work, all done masterfully to the viewer's enjoyment. You really feel drawn in. A little gimmicky at times with the effects, but overall thoroughly enjoyable.
I couldn't rate the movie, but I'm giving this one a solid 8.
In a way you're praising me for a professional sounding review, so thankyou for that.
Secondly, no I'm not paid by the filmmaker, and no I'm not one of the desperate anythings of this flick.
I know it is shocking that someone could enjoy a movie that you do not, but interesting thing:
I live in a world where that happens ALL THE TIME.
See, we're not the same, yup. You and me, not the same.
Okay, so I liked the movie. I love tons of movies.
I am a complicated person just like you. I have the uncanny ability to appreciate many diverse leaps of creative exchange.
Casablanca, It Happened One Night, Goonies, Star wars, The Ring, Battle Royale, Bringing up Baby, Glitter, yes a man who likes Casablanca and Star Wars can like a extreme film like Battle Royale and a fairly simple film like Glitter, rated in the bottom 100 on IMDB.
See, I don't care that so many people hate a movie. If I relate with the story, the character, something about the film that turns me on in a sense, who cares what you or anyone thinks?
In closing, maybe perhaps you could start enjoying movies for yourself instead of being a sheep who can only enjoy movies they are told are enjoyable.
The fact that you liked "Glitter" and use smiley-faces like a 10 year old is proof enough that you are completely immature. You can't enjoy this OR Glitter on any kind of intelligent level, nor can you enjoy it on a completely fun, mindless way. They are badly acted, badly written, and badly directed. There is no redeeming quality whatsoever. I defy you to iterate some good points of any part of this movie. Even the setting is wasted.
If you read my posting closely, you would realize I said:
I defy you to iterate some good points of any part of this movie. Even the setting is wasted.
You never addressed it, probably because it's impossible to find anything. And yes, liking 'Glitter'and pushing an inordinate amount of silly icons that add nothing to a discussion is a defninte sign of maturity (or lack thereof). There are plenty of stupid movies you can like on various levels - ironic, silly, or guilty pleasure - Glitter doesn't fall into any of those categories.
Dammit I so hate this kind of fights. I liked the movie a lot (I saw it in school and I really really liked it, the ideea is very interesting, just to show how linked to computers we are, and how much we can be manipulated). Basically, this woman had her existence inside a database, what was outside was ambiguous at best. Databases can be modified, you know :P
What? You didn't address any points either. So what if the movie's "idea" was interesting? The execution was HORRIBLE. You may have the best idea in the world; if it's executed poorly, it's not going to matter, is it?
The movie isn't as amazing as you describe, however it is good.
Those with even the slightest bit of tech knowledge can, and wil,l poke holes in what is being portrayed on screen. But then, we can do that with most movies ;)
To give you points at this time so long after seeing it would be a mistake, and going and watching it again would give me a completely different experience which would result in a unique review.
When I write a review I don't expect to be attacked for my views, but I suppose that's par for the course, eh?
Maybe I'll watch it and come back with some substantial proof of why I like this movie, either way it'll always be one reviewers opinion against another viewer's perspective.
I'm not here to disvalidate your views, how about granting me the same courtesy?
I think there must be a reason why the director put the jerky scenes even when Hope was just walking, no matter how you call it a gratuitious gimmick. And indeed I think it's appropriate- the jerky camera actually shows that she's being watched and her actions being recorded every second everywhere. Sure there're lots of loopholes regarding technologies in the movie, but why not see things more objectively and not let the loopholes affect our judgment of the movie's other aspects.
Plus, different people have their own take on the same thing, not to say it's a movie, something which can touch a human's mind in a million different ways. I think we all should be respected and not be judged by our own reviews and opinions.
PSST ! "...the jerky camera actually shows that she's being watched and her actions being recorded every second everywhere"
The punkboy slam mouth had no clue of that, were talking really low low low IQ and movie viewing skills, so thanks for pointing that out and shaming said moron properly.
Isn't it interesting how the haters came in, slammed you, slammed the movie by saying it sucked, then demanded you come up with some eloquent flowing and specific accolades, since the PUNKS yappered up and claimed "You didn't back up what you said" .. Uhh, gee, they shrieked like a 2 year older "IT SUCKED!!!!!"
THEN THEY BABBLED hatefully " You suck too!!!!!!"
Then they arrogantly and idiotically demanded you back it all up with a giantic why it's good review, claimed you can't, but your lead - when compared to their insane less than a paragraph and merely a butthead sentence, already far outperformed their idiotic braindead no point but their "attitude" spewposts in terms of analyzing the movie properly for quality.
I'd say they need to whine some more so I can laugh at their stupidity and moron demands, when their own "review face" in the mirror looks like a cleft lipped spineless retard on dope.
How do they work that all around in their own mind anyway ? Is it that 3rd grade game, "I asked you first?" not so disguised - really a demand for you to accept their idiocy, and work to validate their own stupidity ? Yes, I believe so. Since they demand something, they ought to have offered an in depth reasoned pagelong analysis as to why this particular film wasn't a good one. I just don't believe that attacking you by claiming " IT SUCKS AND YOU'RE INSANE!??%4#%%^ YOU $%#$%$%" then demanding some more great writing like your leadin' post is credible of them (it's unreasoned punk skum behavior), nor fair for you.
See that's really it, you write so much better than they do, they get mad, and lash out - but they really want to read more good postings like your lead post. They can't write well, dying for someone with writing talent but they can't beg, they have to play punkboy to hope to get it while still pretending to save face, but they're too dumb to even know that is their actual motive. It's sad, really, now that I've cracked their skulls wide open.
But honestly, I can understand why they would think I was a publicist, I do write reviews, but I do them objectively, and yes I wrote this review in a "professional" manner that comes off sounding like I'm a publicist for the movie, or I was paid to write it, since I really let me feelings on the film flow through the review.
But I must adamantly deny these allegations, as I am no publicist for the movie, or it's makers, nor was I paid to write a positive review.
Nor would I if offered, well... maybe if it paid me a lot but that never happens in the real world does it?
Much to my chagrin.
Anywho, I enjoyed reading your reply.
Have a good one, and don't let the bastards grind you down.
www.kittysafe.net I feel like an angel baby swaddled in a cocoon of cloud candy.
Wow, I'll guess the reviewer would be in the entertainment field. He either knows the producers of this sad waste of what-could-have-been movie, is related to them, or went to school with them...you get the idea. How carefully he writes that he "wasn't paid" to acclaim this film, or isn't a "publicist." Or a "movie critic."
When he gained entry into a difficult field through these connections, he started out young, as a "go-pher-it." After all, he couldn't just jump in and direct (unless he's Sofia Coppola--but we know Daddy was always on-set), being that he hadn't gotten his free on-the-job-training yet.
By now, years later, he's umm...television writing, or maybe directing. He may even act on occasion. Or is now producing, like his mentor(s).
He cannot be a casual poster simply because his REVIEW of "The Net 2.0" is TOO SUSPICIOUS. I'm 99% sure he's just doing favors for "Uncle" Irving or "Cousin" Henry, etc.. After all, they (and/or his friends and/or relatives, who are connected in some way to them) gave him his entire career!
However, the original poster/reviewer will DENY this. After all, who wants their true IDENTITY revealed? Perhaps that's why he liked The Net 2.0.?
What was that line (from a movie actually deserving of good reviews), "The Sweet Swell of Success?" Oh, yes: "It's a publicist's JOB to lie!"