All interviews in this documentary were shot over a long weekend at a 1984 hacker conference by the Whole Earth Catalog editors Stewart Brand and Kevin Kelley in Sausalito, California. The ... . You can read more in Google, Youtube, Wiki
Hackers: Wizards of the Electronic Age
All interviews in this documentary were shot over a long weekend at a 1984 hacker conference by the Whole Earth Catalog editors Stewart Brand and Kevin Kelley in Sausalito, California. The ...
You may also like
Hackers: Wizards of the Electronic Age torrent reviews
WS W (ru) wrote: Bad taste for sure but kinda guilty pleasure.
Dino L (gb) wrote: An amazing story of a mysterious musician whose music gave inspiration to a whole nation and their search to find him.
Harry W (au) wrote: I expected that with Mega Shark vs. Giant Octopus everything would be crap and boring but I hoped that the humourous small elements would be somewhat entertaining.I appreciate the premise in Mega Shark vs. Giant Octopus, because the idea of the intentionally cheap visual effects and plot of a fight between a Mega Shark and a Giant Octopus is an original idea which is tongue-in-cheek hilarious for The Asylum to tackle.The problem is that for a film titled Mega Shark vs. Giant Octopus, the titular two characters make very little appearance in lieu of comedically unconvincing terrible atmosphere which attempts to convince us that serious scientific study is going on which really its just a bunch of poorly unconvincing dialogue and shoddy acting which is fairly laughable. But it does make the film easy to watch, although its only really worth half watching so that you can do something else to keep yourself entertained while this boring and hilariously poorly scripted comedy-disaster film.And when it comes to the visual effects, well, if you look really closely you can see that the Mega Shark and Giant Octopus are fake, as well as other things.Mega Shark vs. Giant Octopus could have been a lot better if the titular two characters had more than 60 seconds of screentime within the first hour and if the fight wasn't the same footage again and again from alternate angles, because really nobodies gonna wanna see Mega Shark vs. Giant Octopus for its actors instead of the actual f*cking Mega Shark and Giant Octopus destroying stuff and fighting. That's the ultimate downfall of this film and its ridiculous.So frankly I could have lived through the poor acting, script and atmosphere because its rather humourous, but I cannot survive about 3 minutes of footage of the titular Mega Shark and Giant Octopus stretched over 89 minutes.
Mike T (gb) wrote: It had a frightening, horrific tone that was pretty intense sci-fi. It was very unique for the year 2009. It had a lot of thrills and suspense, and was better than the Total Recall remake. It was a decent movie, if you like movies that capture tone and give some thought-provoking pretense with a splash of humor - other than that it was kind of violent and almost worthy to be viewed only by mental patients and sick people. It was a pretty, visual, spectacular movie worthy of multiple viewings. Just another excellent movie with some pretty spectacular thrills and turns. Just a gem.
Kevin F (au) wrote: The End is a Mess... Two Herbies ? Whatever...
John M (us) wrote: Better get ready for of the best one one shots you'll ever see.
Dan H (ru) wrote: A silly, goofy, and fun film
Darya B (gb) wrote: the dream of sofia is the best part, although the guy who cuts his cheek is pretty scary. i also love the way medem shows the sea in his movies.
Little B (au) wrote: There are some really funny scenes but on average you don't laugh often. Good the irony towards cinema.
Les E (fr) wrote: Everything was just OK except that I had no interest in the story or the characters.
Quincy J (it) wrote: One of the better ones coming from Kevin smith. I feel it was not meant to scare or thrill. Its more of a reminder of a reality that still exists today. In other words don't get too comfortable..
Brian B (ca) wrote: Oh my, 28% critics? For real? Were you smoking crystal meth during the movie?? Stop being racist. Ok the truth now, the movie is five stars hands down! An amazing all star cast! Ti truly played the role of a former friend turned scornful, jealous, ruthless, and back stabbing! You really want to see him get it in the end! If you like movies like HEAT with DeNiro, you should go bonkers over this! Let's go!
Harry W (kr) wrote: With such a hugely talented cast lined up, Sneakers offered too many big names to pass up.With a big-name cast and a thievery plot, Sneakers is clearly a contemporary attempt to resurrect the glory of the caper genre which has not been notorious for decades. However, Sneakers also attempts to go very legitimate in its path and reduce the humour to a minimum. There are still some jokes in parts thanks to the charms of the cast, but Sneakers is a film with minimal comedic edge since it desires to be a very legitimate film. Unfortunately, it ends up in a conservative state as a result.Sneakers was not the fun experience I was expecting. Though it makes an effort to be a caper film, Sneakers also makes the effort to be a part of the conspiracy thriller genre. As a result it evokes slight memories to star Robert Redford's past in the espionage thriller Three Days of the Condor (1975). However, it doesn't follow the same practical path that Three Days of the Condor did since it spends the majority of its focus on the characters talking out all the theoretical details of their scheme. Sneakers is therefore not much of a practical film, but one more concerned in finding thrills within logistics and conspiracies. This means that the dialogue is very much a lot of little things contributing to building a bigger picture without managing to craft sufficient drama in the process. The story manages to keep moving through all this, but it does it at a dull pace without ever taking a second to do anything with the characters.Sneakers has a script which is too machine to capitalize on the talents of the cast. They are talented at what they achieve in the film, but there is a lack of humanity in the experience due to the story's insistence on depicting everything through talking and implications without actually putting them up on the screen. Sneakers has a great story implied in its subtext, but what it actually brings to the surface proves to be a tedious and mind-numbing collection of conversations which get so caught up in conspiracy jargon that it becomes easy to lose interest and focus very fast. It never has any surprises after that because once Sneakers establishes its path it meanders its way through it from start to finish with a lack of dramatic satisfaction as a result. I walked away from the film having learned nothing except being reminded of how talented Sidney Poitier is as an actor, and I couldn't help but feel like a lot of talented actors put their time into a film which was not up to the standard of their talents.In terms of style, the cinematography is able to constantly give viewers of Sneakers a claustrophobic feeling. Most of the shots occur within rather small spaces and occur very close up to emphasize the tension of the small spaced surrounding the characters. However, it is rendered rather mute by the fact that the lighting in Sneakers is a major technical flaw. With so much of the film taking place at night or within confined rooms, there is minimal lighting that ultimately makes its way onto the screen and causes the film to be essentially a massive blur of shadow. It's possible to see what is happening if you look closely enough, but doing so is far from an enjoyable experience and certainly does not give the film the effective atmosphere that it truly desires. To transcend a script this boring, Sneakers would have to stop getting distracted by its many characters and subplots. It would also need to use more engaging character interactions and music if it wanted to build the atmosphere it aspires to, but the fact that it gets bogged down with such poor lighting is simply a rookie mistake on behalf of director Phil Alden Robinson. Quite frankly, an ensemble film with a large collection of talented names that condemns the cast into spending the entire film talking a lot of theoretical language which is not ultimately put into all that much practical use. But this doesn't prevent them from bringing in solid efforts.Sidney Poitier is the best actor in Sneakers. The legendary actor proves that he has still lost none of his charisma after all these years because Sneakers proves his ability to transcend a big-name cast with a performance that stands above all others. Despite the very machine nature of the film's plot, Sidney Poitier is the most humane aspect of the feature due to his ability to find raw tension in every scene. The intended atmosphere of the film is grasped by the tenacious dramatic charisma of Sidney Poitier who flows along with the story so easily that every second he is on screen is nothing short of a treat.Robert Redford is a natural skill as well. With an organic edge of sophistication to him and a natural ability to work in an ensemble, Robert Redford is able to keep his dramatic spirit consistently alive while bouncing off all his surrounding actors. Robert Redford captures the intended level of tension and keeps it active in the role while managing to ensure he has a tenacious understanding of all the science behind the film. He is swift with his line delivery and always to the point yet restrained enough not to push the dramatic limits on his character, effectively bringing natural charisma into his part.River Phoenix has always been a well-respected lead actor, but Sneakers is an opportunity for him to work with an ensemble cast. Unfortunately, this means that his talents are reduced to minimal screen time and his charms are largely underutilized even though they are clearly distinctive. There is insufficient screen time given to Dan Akroyd as well who really brings in an intelligent supporting effort.So Sneakers has a skilful cast led by the enormously talented Sidney Poitier, but with repetitive imagery, an abundance of talking and a shortage of characterization, it is far from compelling enough grasp viewers.
Gareth O (au) wrote: Pretty awful stuff... Tacky costumes, naff acting and an almost incomprehensible plot combine to produce this organic waste product of a movie!