User Reviews (233)

Add a Review

  • For once, a movie about computers where computers look real. The display on the monitors isn't just some 3D animation that seems to serve no purpose. You can recognize interfaces, or at least can imagine that on a real computer monitor. The code on screen looks real (it's either C++ or Java or some kind of C derivative), even though it probably doesn't do what they pretend it does; they don't show it long enough to figure out what it's suppose to do anyway.

    Just some things I noticed: All IPs are 10.x.x.x, which is a range reserved for local networks, it should not be accessible remotely, thus would not be usable for a global system such as Synapse. But that is probably done on purpose, just like they do for phone numbers in the movies, all starting in 555-XXXX.

    The networks seem to be freaking fast. In particular, for the data transmitted through the satellites with just about zero latency.

    The CD burner is quite fast, it can burn a CD in just 20 seconds.

    The server which Synapse is being distributed from seems to be very effective, taking millions of hits within hours. In particular, considering that they have never seen that many hits.

    Beside the technical details presented, good movie, good action, good plot twists.
  • I didn't expect much from AntiTrust, but I was surprised. The story was fast-paced and exciting, it never really slowed-down. When the movie was over I felt satisfied, it had a lot of what I look for in a movie. It requires you to think about what is happening, even if sometimes it gets un-realistic with plot twists. Good things aside, AntiTrust had its share of problems. There was some techy-talk that went on too long, whenever something bad was discovered by Milo(Ryan however you spell his last name) the camera would zoom in and then shake around, and it got a little un-realistic in the finale. All-in-all AntiTrust was good, but I just found-out it opened it 12th place. It deserves better.
  • Warning: Spoilers
    A lot of people are bagging on the movie as having been technically inaccurate in some way. Truth is, they got more things right than they got wrong.

    It's not a bad movie, really. It's also not really a blockbuster - not enough special effects, and the drama aspects ... well, they don't really *pop*. Still, it's a solid middle-of-the-pack effort.

    Yes there are good looking geeks, and yes there are geeks with hot girlfriends (and sometimes, the geek *is* the hot girlfriend!). Enough with the stereotypes already, guys.

    The plot holes are really the girlfriend's sudden change of heart, and the other girl's equally sudden role reversal. Also, the Tim Robbins 'surprise me' approach wouldn't work too well in real life; his goons would get caught too often.

    But here's the big spoiler: the idea that a couple of guys in a back room, peering over the shoulders of garage hackers everywhere, would be able to differentiate brilliant source code from typical spaghetti code is ... well, it's the biggest error in the movie, and after reading five pages of comments I am surprised no one else spotted this. Source code is mind-numbingly dull to read, even when the reader is another coder. The primary way to tell what works is to compile and run it, and without an army of code-savvy typists reading inputting that code as they read it from video feeds, there just wouldn't be any way to tell the good stuff from the bad.

    Secondly, and I just realized this one, fiber-optic video feeds from every hacker garage on the planet would require a pretty large team of operatives to set up and maintain. So their payroll alone generates a paper trail a mile wide; not to mention the trail generated by all the broadband subscriptions that would be required.

    Still, if you are willing to suspend disbelief for an hour and a half, this isn't a bad movie. The Microsoft hatred is slathered on a bit thick, but that's true in most geek hangouts already, so there's nothing new there. The girls are hot, the dialog isn't bad, the general plot is alright. Milo's trick at the end is a good one. The geekery isn't overwhelming to a non-geek, and isn't wrong enough to set off (many) alarm bells for real geeks.

    I'd watch it again.
  • When I first saw the preview for Anti-Trust, I thought 2 things. 1) It was a not-so-disguised movie about Microsoft. 2) It was probably "The Net 2." It looked like another computer-based movie that would be as realistic as "Hackers," but with a more obvious plot. From the first 30 seconds of the preview you can pretty much tell that the open-source sidekick is marked for death and Bill Gates...I mean Gary Winston was a criminal mastermind who will do anything to get ahead in business. I'd happy to say that while the first half of the movie went without any surprises, there are enough plot twists in the 2nd half to keep you guessing who's on who's side. Tim Robbins and Ryan Philippe both give good performances, and nobody seems out of place talking about technology. It's not the best movie I've seen this year, but it definately blew away my expectations.
  • moot-312 January 2001
    Antitrust is a halfway decent movie, but not that great. There are a lot of very predictible elements. but there is one interesting plot twist, near the end of the movie. Ryan Phillipe is good at playing the uber-nerd, Clair Forlani is good for another pretty face, and compliments Ryan pretty well as his girlfriend but that is about all this movie has going for it.
  • I expected a lot more from this movie, especially with a highly respected actor (Tim Robbins) starring as one of the main characters (Gary Winston).

    The "geeky" stuff, like the hacking of the satellites, (typing in an IP address wont give you access to a computer) the code in the intro (HTML code, come on, thats not going to impress the geeks) and a lot of other small things simply dont work, and i hate to say, but i saw the conspiracy coming from a mile away...

    Its not all that bad though, i enjoyed the funny references to microsoft and.NET, but i doubt it will still be enjoyable in, say 2 years.
  • The evil boss of a vast computer empire (who happens to look just

    like Bill Gates) enlists the services of a teenage super-techie Milo

    Hoffman (Ryan Phillippe) to help him in his final step towards

    world domination. But Milo is not so much of a nerd that he would

    fail to notice the underhand things going on.

    Aside from the opening premise, this is a techno conspiracy

    thriller pretty much along the lines of "The Net", including the "let

    the whole world know" ending. But Phillipe's character doesn't

    have the charisma that Sandra Bullock did in her film.

    It's enjoyable enough but fails to live up to its potential. We are

    given tantalising glimpses of back-stories that might explain why

    some of the minor characters go along with the conspiracy.

    Unfortunately, these come mainly from computer screen read-outs

    (not the most inspiring way of providing exposition) and then get

    virtually ignored anyway. Most of the twists are signalled well in

    advance and some of the dialogue is extremely clumsy.

    I'm still trying to work out what purpose Rachel Leigh Cook's

    character served. Despite second billing, she does little more than

    make an occasional "rabbit-in-the headlights" face. Maybe her

    decent scenes ended up on the cutting-room floor.

    The film really hits its stride towards the end when it switches to a

    straightforward race against time. Not a great movie but

    reasonable enough light entertainment.
  • Kurva1003 June 2002
    LoL i kinda got into this film a bit maybe im a cyber geek and it knocked at my door :) ...

    The film was good its a interesting story to say the least, However it did drag along a little here and there, but just not enough to make it a bad thing .

    The concept of big brother is something that can tape into most peoples mind quite easily !!!

    LoL feel like becoming a pc programmer :) 6.5-10
  • This is an incredibly bad film. It fails in just about every possible area, from script to "technology" to acting to directing. I have a theory about films like this. There is an old saying that you can never underestimate the intelligence of the public. Movies like this are obviously created by people who live and breath that mantra. As they are making it, I'm sure many people are sitting around screaming that this makes not sense, but they just say it doesn't have to. And yet another bad film gets made.

    I object most vehemently to three major elements of this film:

    1. The geek stereotype! This film is the most insulting presentation of Computer Scientists that I have ever seen. It is obvious that no geek could every have a girlfriend that looks that good and girlfriends in general are rare at a software company. None of them have a life. They all dress badly. One is referred to as "stinker". Not one programmer in this film is presented as a professional. Any concept of a software project management structure is ignored.

    2. The technology. You can't look at a screen of code and tell what an entire program will do. Huge systems are not written by one person. The system does not know when you have "finished" a module and inform you that you are done. You can't access a satellite by its IP address. You can't take over all of the worlds communications with any company's satellite network. I could go on and on. They are bound to have had consultants on that film or at least the local systems staff who would tell them this was all dumb.

    3. Information wants to be free. This is practically a mantra in the film and was clearly planted to try to get the open-source people to watch the film. So, are they releasing this film without a copyright? They sure preached at me enough. And, this mantra is portrayed as the fundamental belief of the open-source community. In reality, most open-source advocates believe that they have an obligation to release what they have done, but don't believe they have some right to other peoples work. This matra gets preached in the movie without a shred of debate or discussion. It's stupid.

    This film also avoided dealing with real issues such as antitrust violations, cloning source you have add access to, buying out competition, and other issues that would have make this an interesting film in the same vein as Wall Street. Instead, it turns into the standard "giant conspiracy" story with lots and lots of gun-toting bad guys. You can tell they took the cast, tossed them into a bin, and pulled out the names of who would get to be the few good guys. It's a tried and not so true plot line and it's just plain dull. They buy this script in a store and just fill in the blanks.

    Don't waste your time.
  • While Antitrust is definitely dated, I was surprised with how authentic the computer stuff was. They weren't using laughably fake graphics and animations on the monitors (*cough*The Net*cough*), they were actually showing regular, old, boring code on the screen. The story isn't great - it's a lesser version of The Firm - but this is a fun little thriller I enjoyed watching.
  • I, a longtime computer user ("geek" if you prefer), watched this on TV last night and immediately regretted it afterward. Possibly the film could have been better after several script rewrites, but I doubt it. I wonder if the writers were aware of how bad the script was; looking back, Gary Winston's line, "Show some creativity!" (spoken to the company's lawyers), strikes me as ironically appropriate if applied to the movie as a whole. The plot seems a crude and obvious attempt to dramatize the battle between closed-source and open-source software, plainly ripping off the Microsoft antitrust case and adding a conspiratorial element that is highly derivative of Grisham's "The Firm." Creativity is not the only thing the movie is missing -- it also lacks plot coherence, convincing acting, realism of the computer and security systems, non-distracting camera effects... I could go on, but won't because it's not worth the time and energy.
  • OK, make no mistake, this movie was made to convey a message. If criticised in terms of, say, similarity to "the Firm", or "yet another cyber thriller", then you really missed the point. The message is pretty blunt, and guaranteed to anger a certain large corporation. (This is not an anti-corporate movie, it is anti- a ~particular~ corporation, and if you can't guess which one, maybe you should go back to exploring the Kalahari or whatever you've been doing for the last ten years.) This corporation has been known to spend extraordinary resources on PR (including, for example, bribing journalists and college professors), so almost certainly some of the comments on this message board will be produced by that corporation and should be read in that light.

    Second, while murder is a bit over the top, pretty well all the other crimes committed by the large corporation in this movie are things of which the real corporation has been seriously accused, been found to be planning, or in some cases, convicted; yet in every case managing to escape with fines or compensation payments much smaller than the profits they made from the crime. That is why we hate them so much, and why this movie was made. It's also obvious why the motif of murder was added: some of the technical details of why their actions are pure evil are difficult for a non-techie to understand, so to make the movie accessible to a wider audience, they added a more blatant crime (plus pyrotechnic special effects, a tense chase scene, love interest, etc).

    Thirdly, it is not a futuristic movie, it is present day; nothing in this movie is more than about 1 or 2 years in the future, at most, and most of it is happening now or happened several years ago.

    Fourthly, technical realism: while some of the tech stuff is rubbish (hey, it's a movie!), the effort put into realism is dramatically good compared to information technology in any other movie I have ever seen. When we see IP's, they are actual IPs, but martian (I guess they don't want geeks going home and whois-ing them!), the code is all real code: some HTML, some C++, real scripting, but mostly VB (a language the certain large corporation is known to use a lot). The algorithms they discuss improving are even algorithms the product would really require! Not only that, the product is frighteningly similar to the large corporation's actual current development path!

    So, if you walked away from this movie thinking "just for geeks" or "totally unrealistic", you need to give yourself a good hard slap, wake up and see what is really going on in the world around you. This movie was about as unrealistic and irrelevant as "All the President's Men".

    Oh, by the way, I better say that all the above comments are only my personal opinions, in case they try to sue me, because they do do stuff like that.
  • Antitrust is a 2001 thriller film written by Howard Franklin and directed by Peter Howitt. The film stars Ryan Phillippe, Tim Robbins, Rachael Leigh Cook, and Claire Forlani.

    When Milo (Ryan Phillippe) graduates from college and lands his dream job writing software at a multi-billion dollar computer company, he couldn't be more thrilled. The company's magnetic founder (Tim Robbins) that he worshiped as a child is now his personal mentor. As he settles into his new position, Milo uncovers some dark secrets about the firm and soon learns that he can't trust anyone but himself in the high stakes world of computer technology.

    I thoroughly enjoyed this film. It relies on a highly credible set-up with a psychological cat-and-mouse game that keeps you guessing along with Milo. Because the film is intended to be fun for computer- illiterates as well as techno-geeks, it's more successful than other efforts to bring digital-age technology to the familiar thriller formula.

    It doesn't measure up to the best of the thriller films, but still provides a fair share of nail-biting moments and nifty double-crosses and twists.
  • Warning: Spoilers
    To be honest when I stuck this on one evening, it was to just put something on in the background. I actually found myself keeping track of what was going on, but not through paying much attention to the storyline. It was by guessing what was happening as it tends to follow pretty much the same storyline as The Firm (The John Grisham one, not the cockney git one). Basically, computer dude gets his dream job and is getting along great guns with Bill Gates until he finds out he's evil so he goes about trying to expose his crimes and bring him down.

    It's horribly predictable all throughout. I was cooking during the first twenty minutes, but my mate had been watching it from the start. I did not miss out on anything in the storyline. I kind of assumed who everyone was and what had already happened. Very obvious that Ryan Phillipe's mate is going to get killed when he tells him it's good to hear from him again, even though he is working for their enemy.

    The best part of the film was noticing that the three main henchmen who carry out the murders and stuff on behalf of the Bill Gates type character (Tim Robbins) are called Schmeichel, Sheringham and Solskjaer. Seriously, that was the most entertaining part.

    I would say, as usual, that watch it with a pinch of salt and a few beers and it'll be a good laugh, but it's not. This is a film trying to be good and for that reason I did not enjoy it. If it at least starting taking the mick out of itself, I would've had a good laugh.

    The two birds are pretty hot, but I cant help but feel disappointed that he doesn't get off with either of them. The quality of this film could have been vastly improved if there were some breasts on display. A major disappointment.

    I was astonished to see that the average rating for this piece of work was 6/10. I am currently in the middle of watching the Tourist whilst watching this and it only got 5.9/10, and it has Timothy Dalton in it! (Something that immediately warrants a 10/10 rating in my book - he certainly is tenacious)
  • Warning: Spoilers
    This is one of the few movies about computers, programming and those that make it happen that actually demonstrates that at least a little research was done by the writer/s. Not only is the script filled with real technical lingo (IP addresses, LZ compression, etc), but it actually uses it all in the correct context. (For examples of correct lingo in incorrect usage, see films like 'Jurassic Park'). So in that sense at least, the writer did their job.

    Alas, in other areas they let the team down.

    I like the basic premise. Tim Robbins (Gary Winston) as an evil Bill Gates (Gary Winston = William Gates, GW=WG) is certainly an idea that appeals to me (as a an anti-Microsofter from way back). There are even a number of little in-jokes through the plot that pick out the Gates-Microsoft connection (the artwork screens in Winston's house, a character called Redmond, the Dept of Justice accusations, etc). And it was so nice to see so many computers on screen, and not one Windows window anywhere.

    Into all of this comes Ryan Phillipe as a hotshot programmer - who, as far as I can see, never actually programs anything. He stares at a lot of code on screens, and types in some pseudo-unix commands, but I can't recall him actually coding anything. As a geek he looks the part, and certainly has the introvert/social inept bit down pat. But even geeks have other emotions.

    And how the hell does a guy like him get a girl like Claire Forlani?? Surely that must have sent alarm bells ringing for him early on? Yes, even allowing for the plot twist half way through, guys like him just don't get girls like her - because they're rarely out of the garage.

    Rachel Leigh Cook - stunning, and wasted. There was so much more scope for her in this. And the final twist with her character at the end just was not believable.

    I'm glad to finally see a movie in which computers and computer programming are an essential device actually treat them with some accuracy. It's fantastic to have a fantasy in which an evil Bill Gates actually gets whats coming to him.

    All it needed was a little more character injected into the three main young characters and it would have worked perfectly.
  • It's no secret that I'm against the kind of monopoly that a certain well knoen company from Redmond has, hence this film of course attracted my attention. It's rather well made when it comes to the computer scenes. Those parts feel pretty real. But when they argue for Open Source they tend to miss the real point fatally. But let's not go in to that any deeper here...

    The story is somewhat flawed. It's about an actual problem but unfortunately they blow it out of proportions. Of course, without the murders it whould not make much of a thrill. So I guess the story get ok after all.

    Yeah, I know this is a comment made from a geeks point of view but even though I sometimes see things as a cinematic, it's really not that time of the day here at the moment. (4:45 in the morning (or should I say evening?))
  • A great film

    It has a lot of computer related jokes one liners and details that the average non-geek wouldn't understand, therefore it is much more appealing to us geeks. The story is real good, and the ending is incredible. Very good cinimatography and some genius shots. Acting wasn't bad at all.

    BUT

    The plot was revealed a little too fast. It was obvious was was going to happen.
  • Somebody apparently decided to see if they could make a movie as good as Hackers. They even took several basic plot elements from Hackers. And they even spent some time at Slashdot learning why Microsoft is evil and hyping that tedious story. The Bill Gates analog character is this thin: replace the word "innovative" with the word "creative".

    But it didn't happen -- because the scriptwriters were instructed to stuff the movie full of devices older than James Bond. Worse, to play on your paranoia, they left out the humor. The movie is above average in one way: you can't be stupid if you want to keep up with how all the old devices are woven together. But then your careful attention is repaid with predictability at every step of the game.

    An old Holly wood story: talented cast turns in some wonderful performances, but can't overcome the uncreative scriptwriting. So, unlike Hackers, this is just another movie... trying to pry your bucks loose with fresh talent and up-to-date news pasted over the oldest cardboard in the business.
  • Like an earth with two moons, the world in which we live has evolved toward a schizophrenic level of dual realities, one sensory based, tangible; the other a reality of the mind that can be found in the dimension we know as cyberspace. And maintaining the latter has become big business in the former: Providing software that changes the parameters of that reality on a daily-- even hourly-- basis. It's a big, and moreover, a binary industry, a business in which (according to this film) you are either a `one' or a `zero,' and it's therefore imperative to stay ahead of the competition at any cost. Which is exactly the position explored by director Peter Howitt in `AntiTrust,' a thriller that puts something of a paranoid perspective on the world born of the microchip.

    Based in the Pacific Northwest, N.U.R.V. (Never Underestimate Radical Vision), the empire of software magnate Gary Winston (Tim Robbins), is on the verge of achieving a quantum leap forward in the realm of global communications. Their `Synapse' satellite system, once operational, will make global communications through any medium a reality. All they need is one more all important piece of the puzzle to implement it, and toward that end Winston has recruited Milo Hoffman (Ryan Phillippe), a young computer genius, one of maybe twenty programmers in the world who can accomplish the task before the targeted date set by Winston to launch Synapse.

    The carrot on the stick that Winston dangles in front of Milo is too tempting to refuse, so Milo abandons his plan of starting up his own company, in which he would have been partners with his best friend, Teddy (Yee Jee Tso), to accept the position-- and the challenge-- at N.U.R.V. Very quickly, however, this apparently perfect world into which Milo has entered begins to implode on him, beginning with the tragic death of Teddy, apparently the victim of what looks to be a racially motivated hate crime. But then something happens which causes Milo to question the truth about Teddy's murder, as well as the methods Gary Winston employs to keep N.U.R.V. at the top of the charts. And he is determined to find the answers at any cost; whatever it takes, he will know the truth before it's over.

    With this film, Howitt succeeds in putting a fresh face on the concept of the `computer nerd,' and though overall it may be a bit to slick for it's own good, he does provide some thrills with it and manages to maintain enough tension and suspense throughout to keep it interesting. As pure entertainment it works, but it's not one into which you want to delve too deeply; just sit back and enjoy the ride. If you do insist on looking closely, you'll discover a plot that is something of a cut-and-paste job, into which an element is injected purely to move the story in a certain direction, and it does, but at the cost of compromising the film's credibility somewhat. There is an `All is not what it seems' aspect to it that is fairly obvious from the outset, but Howitt fails to mine it's potential to the fullest, and it leaves you wondering how much better this would've been in the hands of a Hitchcock or Mamet (and, granted, that's pretty exclusive territory). Howitt does well enough, but he's still playing at `Triple A' level, not quite ready for the `Show.' What he does have going for him are the performances of his personable and very watchable stars, Robbins and Phillippe.

    The character of Gary Winston is Bill Gates, roman a clef, and is well served by Robbins' portrayal of what could be called Gates' fictional evil twin. Robbins sells the character with his natural, charismatic personality and makes the image of Winston as a leader and motivator believable. And he adds some nice, personal touches-- his penchant for potato chips, for example-- that fleshes out the character and gives you the whole package rather than just a surface-will-suffice representation. Though with a completely different character, Robbins has been down this road before, in `Arlington Road,' and now, in creating Winston, proves beyond any doubt his adeptness at playing to the dark side and making it real.

    Phillippe, too, gives an engaging performance as Milo, lending an air of introspection to his character that really brings him to life. It's an earnest portrayal and very well presented. Phillippe has a genuine quality that makes him stand out, even as he did as part of the ensemble cast of `Playing By Heart,' in 1998, in which he shared the screen with the likes of Sean Connery, Angelina Jolie, Dennis Quaid and Ellen Burstyn. His performance here, in fact-- along with Robbins-- is a big part of what makes this film so agreeable. He's a fine young actor who has already demonstrated he has what it takes to carry a film on his own, and he's definitely one to keep an eye on as his career develops.

    As Alice, the woman in Milo's life, Claire Forlani looks elegant and has an ingratiating quality that draws the eye to her, and her character, though less than detailed, is believable. Rachael Leigh Cook, on the other hand, is attractive, but her character, Lisa, lacks definition, and what you get is something of a `Cliff's Notes' version of who she is. With both characters, Howitt seems to have had trouble getting a handle on how best to present them, especially Cook, who ultimately serves as little more than window dressing.

    The supporting cast includes Douglas McFerran (Bob), Richard Roundtree (Barton), Tygh Runyan (Banks) and Tyler Labine (doing a Jack Black take on his character, Redmond). `AntiTrust' may not equal the paranoia induced by `Enemy of the State,' but it does raise some questions about where technology is taking us, and more importantly, who is in the driver's seat. It's a cautionary tale, good for some thrills; but again, just don't look too deep. 6/10.
  • Jargon, Jargon, blah... lifestyle change... blah... 'alienation/disillusionment'... blah... 'Gen X'... blah...

    I could easily go on; this is 'identikit to its very core - so much so I'm convinced that there must be a program lurking somewhere specifically concerned with how to make movies as formulaic as this!

    Philippe is the 'hero', which on reflection is ideal because he's the perfect 'blank canvas' for an endeavour so nondescript. His idea of 'urgent' acting seems from this to be: TALK-VERY-FAST! Robbins takes a bow as the villain to give the project nothing more than it deserves - a hammy performance. Even the director seems to run out of ideas halfway through, overusing close-ups to inject a false sense of drama.

    It's very sad that the closest it comes to achieving its ambitions is playing like a teenybopper version of "The Firm", when it's perhaps easier to stake a claim for it being a mild ripoff of "Hackers". How desperate do you have to be to find yourself plagiarising a film that wasn't all that 'seminal' in the first place?!
  • Warning: Spoilers
    Okay, I recently discovered Rachael Leigh Cook in a movie and so decided to have a look at some of her other movies, interested in what else she had done.

    Since I am technically a geek (I am currently finishing a degree in electronics), I was glad to see at least some sort of realistic programming and hacking type stuff (too many movie glorify hacking etc by having pretty screens when realistically it is all in DOS like command interfaces).

    This movie left me wanting something else, not enough depth of the characters, I was really upset by the fact Rachael Leigh Cook was not used to her full potential and her character was lacking depth. She was wasted in this movie, a huge shame.

    *Spoiler* As for the girlfriend (alice I think) *SHOCK* being a geek myself and watching people recoil slightly when you tell them you are doing electronics I know this is unlikely!

    The comments about Bill Gates Home were funny, I am not one of those "I hate windows etc" but it did raise a smile. *End Spoiler*

    ****OVERALL**** I felt this movie had such potential and it did make me think about my good old programming days when I was younger......it just wasn't well executed, talented actors/actresses were picked but the director (maybe) did not use them to their full potential!

    It is worth a look, I have literally just watched it and I am a little upset in a way, just because it started pushing the right buttons but left me feeling empty since for me it never reached a climax as all movies should.

    p.s. HTML code in the movie is interesting, I guess you can praise them for actually using a proper programming language! Although for the geeks out there some C/C++ or Java might have made the whole thing realistic for me!

    Thanks for reading, Julian
  • Warning: Spoilers
    The ending of this movie almost made me laugh out loud. It is by far about the most unrealistic ending I have ever seen in a movie. In the real world, it wouldn't be the character of Tim Robbins who got arrested, but the character portrayed by Ryan Phillippe.

    The illegal broadcast, combined with the illegal distributing of the software that made that broadcast possible, would ensure a lifetime in a jail cell for Milo and his friends, instead of being treated like heroes as happens in this movie Basically, If you hate companies that make money, and wish to make heroes out of people who can't abide by the law, then this movie is something for you.

    However, if you actually have a working brain in your head, you won't need to bother with this film, which in the end is nothing more then a very unrealistic propaganda film for open source software
  • This movie is interesting on a surface level. It has lots of action and suspense to engage even passive viewers. Antitrust contains lots of ideas that are specific to the software industry however. The most significant theme of this movie is not one that seeks to implicate major corporations in illegal activities; it is instead one that blatantly discusses the idea of open source code sharing. For those of you who do not know what this is, it is the free sharing of computer programing code. This movie is designed to entertain though. It makes corporate software companies look like organized crime rings. This is simply Hollywood's appeal to its audiences.This is a good movie for all audiences; however a Linux user would particularly enjoy it.
  • Warning: Spoilers
    As the subject line says there may be spoilers in this comment.

    I saw the movie just last night, and I thought it kicked ass in places and was really corny in other places. Part of the corniness factor was because a lot of it was filmed right here in Vancouver, BC, Canada where I live :) The "NURV HQ" outside shot, for example, is just Simon Fraser University, where I once attended classes :)

    As to other aspects of it being filmed in Vancouver and environs, you have to be aware of relatively minor differences in road construction to really be able to tell :)

    What I appreciated about the movie is that it wasn't laden with buzzwords, unlike Hackers, and the director and producer(s) tried to ensure the technical accuracy of the terminology and commands used, for the most part.

    The other corny part about this movie is that Ryan Philippe, although a definite "cute face" for the movie, doesn't really seem to be cast right. He sounds almost as though he can't say the complex words properly that his character has to rattle off with ease. Other than that, everybody else seems to be appropriately cast, and the movie works well even with Ryan Philippe's somewhat inconsistent volubility.
  • Apparently, this movie is written by some "wannabe" computer-crime writer and/or director. This movie got the most simple and predictable plot of thriller movies. Made for people with no computer knowledge (thus cannot judge what's right from wrong) and people who has extreme prejudice against corporate software giants (such as Microsoft).

    When you rule out the amateur technical details contained in this movie, what you get is...it's not even worth explaining here. It is totally crap.

    If you want some real technical thriller, watch something like Enemy of the State, Thirteenth Floor, Jake 2.0 or The Matrix. This movie is as bad as Sword Fish.

    1/10 (avoid at all costs or watch it only so you can review it)
An error has occured. Please try again.