I.T. (2016) User Reviews (90)

Mildly good, nothing special to be remembered for.

[alexanderbahchevanov1 · 6/10 · 9 September 2016]

I never came to the theater with great expectations of this one. It just follows an already known path and delivers nothing special to be remembered for. The acting is on a similar level, maybe the antagonist stood out a bit more than the others, but not by a huge margin.

The plot was linear and did not offer very much to begin with. It had some illogical things happening too. Felt rushed to me. The ending was unsatisfying and did not provide much to complete the movie.

Something was missing between the first act of the movie and the second act - the transition was not smooth. The story of the antagonist was given out so lamely that it made exhale more air than usual... It could've been done better. Everything could have been done better, might've ended with an okay movie to spend some time on.

Unsettling movie. 6/10 (I mainly rate movies from 5 to 10 so this is really low for me)

Weak

[subxerogravity · 5/10 · 27 September 2016]

It sounds interesting enough: Pierce Brosnan plays an airline tycoon who accidentally befriends the wrong dude, namely one of his IT guys, Patrick who becomes obsessed with becoming a part of his life (or rather obsessed with getting into his daughter Kaitlyn's), and when he tries to get rid off him, this guy turns their smart house against them, and shows them the absolute horrors of what it means to be online all the time.

It's a story that I've seen million times before, and despite this possibly being the first time I've seen the story done in this era of all smart phones having a camera and everyone on social media (but I'm sure there exist a another movie that has done that before this one), the story itself is predictable and unimaginative enough that it overshadows the updated concept.

Pierce Brosnan is very good in a really bad movie. I'm not sure what that really means. Usually when an actor is driving a crap vehicle, it only showcases what a great driver the actor can be, but in this case the vehicle was too crappy to actually do that. It evens out for both somewhere in the middle.

Not the worse movie in the world, just a very weak attempt at an old cliché.

And that is that.

[deathhawk · 4/10 · 21 September 2016]

Well this one is a leaf in the forest, if you've seen one, you've seen them all. Sure there are a few things that set this movie aside from the many others that are pretty much just like it, but not enough to care. It's worth checking out if it's on late night cable and you haven't seen it yet. But I wouldn't go out of my way to watch this. Overall it's not bad, it's filmed decently enough, the acting isn't junk, there is some story here, but it's all cut from the same predictable cloth as with many movies like it. So like I said check it out if nothing else is on and you can't sleep, won't be the worst movie you've ever seen, but won't make it into your top 20 either, well maybe if you like the same old. It gets a 4.5 out of 10.

Needed tighter writing; many of the details were implausible or wrong

[lowrisk · 3/10 · 21 September 2016]

Could have been a good movie. But a movie with a crime plot, cyber and law subplots shouldn't get all the details wrong. Errors included citing the wrong constitutional amendments and using the wrong law enforcement agencies. Although the acting was pretty good, the characters actions were counter-intuitive, thus creating distance between the characters and the audience. As a result, the movie quickly grew implausible and therefore tedious. They needed better technical consultants and tighter writing. Perhaps a little research before finalizing the script would have uncovered the errors. We deserve better.

Another 'New Acquaintance Turned Maniac' Thriller

[JasonDanielBaker · 23 September 2016]

Luxury airline tycoon Mike Regan (Pierce Brosnan) launches an app which is the private jet equivalent of Uber. His multimedia presentation to woo investors is sidetracked by glitches which are quickly fixed by Ed Porter (James Frecheville) - a mysterious recently hired IT guy.

Regan is eager to show his appreciation to this new employee and invites Ed over to his estate and introduces him to his wife (Anna Friel) and daughter. While there Ed fixes the wifi, updates the home security system and even the GPS in Mike's car cementing his status as Mike's favorite IT guy.

Ed, who doesn't pick up on social cues readily if at all, thinks he and Mike are friends and envisions not only regular social visits with the Regans but also romance with Mike's 17 year old daughter. Numerous faux pas by Ed result not only in his being rudely shunned by Mike but by his dismissal from his job.

Ed, who has made a convincing act of normalcy is in fact a heavy drug user with serious mental health issues. He takes the impasse very personally and uses the access he had to Regan's business home to hack in and cause trouble. The angrier Mike gets the more he menaces Ed who responds by making the attacks more severe.

There is nothing special about any aspect of this film. It is a reinterpretation of the 'New Acquaintance Turned Maniac' thriller Hollywood has been doing for decades. It isn't even a good one of those.

The characters never develop into being multidimensional. The story is as predictable and facile as the ending.

Cautionary tale

[reviews1958 · 7/10 · 24 December 2016]

I find it curious those that state this is the same formula of person doesn't turn out who you think they are that's been done so many times in Hollywood. I disagree. (I personally think the age of the person writing the review should be included so as to tell the maturity level of the reviewer so that one knows when reading their review just how much to put in to the value of said review).

I found this movie quite good. One reviewer said they didn't like Brosnan's accent. Really? Check fact it for yourself...it's his native tongue. He's Irish. That was my first hint of the level of maturity of some of the reviewers. Someone who doesn't know the actors enough to even know where they are from. Top that off with not even looking his bio up before critiquing his "accent" in their review. (Sad to think that this is journalist current trends - who needs to check anything out before writing about it). Take it from me, bypass the 5 star or less reviews and watch the movie.

The story is a cautionary tale. Not for the persons in their 50's and older. The caution is for the immature viewers thinking this was far fetched and it might possibly could happen. Oh, it can. It has happened and will continue to happen. I bet there is not one reviewer who marked this movie at 5 or less that thinks something like this could ever happen to them because they are smarter then the average psycho. Think again and think long and hard about it. The easiest prey are those who think it will never happen to them and do no safeguarding. You know the type, they walk around with their face in a smartphone, never paying attention to who's watching them.

I feel sorry for those who don't heed the warning this movie sends. Is there Hollywood fluff in this movie? Why yes, there is. How else could you market a movie that didn't have the bells and whistles? There always has to be the bells and whistles so that those who keep their faces glued to their smartphones get their wiz bang entertainment factor. Heaven knows there can't be a total cerebral content movie because that wouldn't satisfy the "Peanut Gallery" (don't know what that is, well if you don't then you are part of this group and it doesn't mean you have a very high IQ).

For those who are mature enough to understand the message this movie sends, well I am more then sure you will enjoy it like I did. I thought all of the actors did a very good job but most of all Mr. Brosnan and James Frecheville. Frecheville portrayed the psychopath that can scare without any violence for the majority of the movie. Enjoy. I know I did.

Really, really bad film

[douglasellice · 3/10 · 15 December 2016]

This is the worst movie I've sat all the way through in years. I can't even explain to myself why I didn't bail halfway through. I should be ashamed of myself. Someday I'm going to wish I could have those two hours of my life back.

No essential plot point is in any way slightly believable.

1) Just happen to have in my pocket the tools to hack your new car? WHILE YOU WATCH ME? Check.

2) Watch naked residents in house through touchscreens that show everyone that I've hacked their screens? Check.

3) Smash all those screens and NOW my house is secure? Check.

4) Break into bad guy's lair and, in just a minute or two, find his carefully-hidden tools? Check.

5) Abandon my multi-million dollar corporation so I can work alongside the mysterious spook who can solve all my problems? Check.

6) Encounter block-headed police who, for no reason at all, don't believe me despite my high profile in the community and easily-verifiable credibility, but DO believe the bad guy? Check.

7) Somehow overpower the armed bad guy who totally has the drop on me and has taken my family hostage? Check.

You know what rhymes with "check"?

Dreck.

This movie will make you think twice about how you use technology. A tense and updated version of Fear. I really enjoyed this.

[cosmo_tiger · 7/10 · 1 November 2016]

"Privacy isn't a right, it's a privilege." Mike Regan (Brosnan) is a very successful businessman with a loving family. He is just about to make his company go public. When a glitch occurs that threatens everything an I.T. temp named Ed (Frecheville) steps up and saves the day. He and Mike begin a friendship and business partnership, but when Ed starts to overstep things change. Ed takes offense and threatens not only Mike's business but his family as well. This is a movie I wanted to watch because I really like Pierce Brosnan. The more I watched the more I liked the movie itself. The movie is tense and realistic, especially in today's connected world. This movie will make you think twice about how you use technology. That being said, this was almost just a remake of the movie Fear. I liked that one too but they are very similar in tone and feel. Overall, a tense and updated version of Fear, if you liked that one you will love this. I really enjoyed this and recommend it. I give it a B+.

Too unbelievable

[max_allan · 2/10 · 4 December 2016]

The unbelievability of this film made it annoying. An IT guy hacks your smart house so you smash up the IT and live in a broken house with no heating/air con, no coffee, no showers and no lights? Why not just cut out that stage, go stay in a hotel for a week and call in the people who installed it? At almost every stage, after the IT guy has gone crazy, the decisions taken by his victims are totally unlikely. The Founder of a million dollar company is probably not going to have the skills to commit burglary, so why does he try? Why, when he's got the advice of a professional does the professional do such a bad job of advising him? Make the victim go more than 40 seconds away from his house while you're breaking in maybe...

Making a film totally real would be boring, making a film totally unrealistic does not make it good.

Maintains Decent Amount of Suspense If One Doesn't Take It All Too Seriously

[larrys3 · 6/10 · 23 November 2016]

Pierce Brosnan stars here as Mike Regan, owner of an aviation company that needs a proposed public offering to be successful so it can stay afloat financially. During a presentation of a key company mobile app that will enable people to hire private and corporate jets, Mike is impressed with the tech skills of a temp employed there, and wants to hire him full-time.

However, it will soon become apparent that the temp (James Frecheville) is a most disturbed lunatic, and is intent on ruining Mike's personal and business life, as well of that of Mike's wife (Anna Friel) and daughter (Stefanie Scott). All of the lead actors here give solid performances, and the fine actor Michael Nyqvist is excellent in a supporting role.

All in all, there's a decent amount of tension and suspense maintained in the film, but it is marred somewhat by some highly incredulous plot elements and what I thought was a rather ridiculous ending. For me, it all added up to a fairly decent watch if one doesn't take it all too seriously.

Acting killed the movie and plot could have been better

[saipranayreddy666 · 4/10 · 22 December 2016]

Acting was really bad.I personally like Pierce B Brosnan don't get me wrong.He might have acted in some of the great movies of all time.But,He didn't do justice for this character.James Frecheville was excellent in his role.But,Actors playing Regan's wife and Daughter were awful actors in their own right.This might be due to the direction of the movie.

You know this could happen in real life as well.But, if you are a millionaire and your company is worth millions of dollars then why in the name of god will you get a guy like Ed to fix your home's internet.This is just an example of how mundane the plot was.With a plot like this you can create an epic thriller movie.Which might be like a cat and mouse game.So,I cannot say anything other than I am disappointed buy the movie.

My whole family loves this movie!

[filmcritic333 · 10/10 · 1 December 2020]

We all thought the plot was interesting and the acting was great! This movie starts out creepy and gets more intense. The ending is satisfying so don't listen to the few negative review on here, just watch it yourself and make up your own mind. Pierce Brosnan is an amazing actor - you know that's true or he wouldn't have been cast in all those James Bond films. This is an entertaining suspense movie! Check it out, you will be pleasantly surprised.

Bizarre movie -- which might make it worth watching

[rrider92131 · 6/10 · 5 April 2017]

This is a bizarre movie -- for reasons few will notice. It's a thriller about a wealthy man who founded and is CEO of a big private jet manufacturing company. Quite rich, Brosnan gets entangled with a deranged computer hacker working as an I.T. temp in his company. It's perhaps a mediocre movie, but I was transfixed by the tale.

You see, this wealthy CEO -- seeking to make much more money by taking the company public -- was the GOOD GUY. His employees really liked him, and they had a great working relationship.

I can't recall the last movie I watched where a profit-seeking wealthy person was the hero. I kept expecting his fatal capitalist flaw to appear -- uncontrollable greed, yada, yada, yada. It didn't happen.

(Yeah, Bruce Wayne was wealthy, but never do you hear him discussing making more money. Just giving his daddy's money away, making more Batman toys -- and living large.)

I'm not necessarily recommending the movie to you, but perhaps it's worth seeing JUST for this "man bites dog" reason. It's a reminder that it's not ABSOLUTELY necessary for movie makers to always portray rich people as villains.

One thing's for sure -- it won't start a trend in movies. Not a chance.

Cute little thriller about Cyber Stalker

[gilgongo1980 · 5/10 · 3 March 2020]

I was interested in the story about stalking over the Internet. But it could have been done better in implementation. The plot wasn't as good as the story.

Could've been worse

[asharl33ngirl · 3/10 · 1 October 2016]

I had high expectations from a former James Bond actor, however in this role Brosnan bored me to death. Predictable, standard, even the accent annoyed me - it just didn't belong. The feminine actors, as well as roles, as plain as it could be. Nothing extraordinary about this film, could be watched on a sad Sunday afternoon. From my side it gets only a 3 - nothing saved this movie from being a cliché and just another title that one checks off the list. The best feature of the film was the house - good taste, hi - tech - nice propaganda for Sony systems, however I would not ever bring a stranger into my house to fix my wi-fi connection and let him in the dark corners of my security system. All in all, it could have been a much worse film, however, the villain saved the movie a little bit by bringing a little bit of unexpected on a few occasions.

Ignore the ratings. Watch this movie.

[hisxlnc · 7/10 · 17 April 2020]

This is taut little thriller that does not deserve the low rating it currently has . A brilliant cat and mouse game played out in cyber space as well as the real world. Do watch this movie , you won't the disappointed.

A good thriller

[Gordon-11 · 8 November 2016]

This film tells the story of a successful businessman, who hires a young man good at information technology. When the businessman wants to set boundaries with his young employee, things quickly sour and turn dangerous.

I think this story reminds us of the dangers of sharing too much on the internet. It is a fairly convincing story of how cyber stalking occurs and just how scary it can be. What I don't understand is why the businessman initially invites the employee to have a drink but subsequently wants to set a boundary. This minor inconsistency could have been easily rectified, and the story would have been even more tight and convincing. At the current state, "I.T." is still a good thriller that keeps me interested throughout.

Very Disappointing

[DKosty123 · 2/10 · 4 June 2021]

Why did Pierce give up playing Bond? This film makes Bond films into artwork for a lot of reasons. The errors are so blatant and the script so out there that I am not sure what to make of it. List of problems -

Relationships do not make sense. Why would someone give away the keys to their entire personal life to a stranger they do not even like? The script gives them a chance to be friends but they shut them out for no logical reason other than to make the plot work.

Plot too predictable - I can see the ending coming almost at the beginning credits. In fact, the ending is just horribly written and grafted on like a hand being grafted onto a leg to replace the foot. Even Dr House would do that better than this story.

Undeveloped characters - other than the husband and wife eventually saying they love each other, there is almost no character development. Of course the daughter is developed by having an erotic shower scene and sympathy for the bad guy, and makes the most sense in that she does not understand the initial dislike of him. Then what does not make sense is after she friends them on Social Media why she gets away with making the parents think she does not like the guy. I suppose the ending makes up for this, but the story makes little sense here.

The IT guy himself makes no sense. He basically bounces off the walls hacking systems, yet he really has no available goal as to what he is doing or why. It does not help that the technology in the story is so poorly presented that any legitimate Hacker would consider this a Comedy movie. If the Internet is ever presented poorly, and wrong, this movie does that well.

With those in mind, if you want to see Pierce you might want to look at this one. If you like to have your mind hacked by incorrect ransomware, I suggest you avoid this one. This is a movie where even putting your brain away does not help it get any better.

By the numbers......

[s3276169 · 6/10 · 1 November 2016]

IT is very much a "by the numbers" thriller.

There's nothing on offer here the viewer has, in one form or other, not seen before. Take an executive, add in a deranged IT guy and, of course, a loving family to protect and that's, pretty much it.

The acting is fine and, to be fair, Pierce Brosnan, in particular, hands in a very good performance. The action scenes are polished too. Indeed, in many respects, this film ticks most of boxes you would expect. Alas, this is not enough to save this now rather predictable affair from the label or "ordinary".

Watch by all means, just don't expect to be thrilled or even a little surprised. Six out of ten from me.

The Hackers movie from the 80's was better

[abdulrahmanrateb · 1/10 · 2 November 2016]

1- The plot sucks 2- Acting is weak 3- his hair is ugly 4- the cliché of (hackers use green font) 5- All of the movie's "hacking" is from the game: Watch_dogs. Literally The plot was linear and did not offer very much to begin with. It had some illogical things happening too. Felt rushed to me. The ending was unsatisfying and did not provide much to complete the movie.

Something was missing between the first act of the movie and the second act - the transition was not smooth. The story of the antagonist was given out so lamely that it made exhale more air than usual... It could've been done better. Everything could have been done better, might've ended with an okay movie to spend some time on.

Good Suspense and Tension

[rutzelb · 7/10 · 9 March 2017]

Mike (Pierce Brosnan) hires Ed Porter (James Frecheville) an I.T. guy to solve computer problems at his house and at his business. Porter makes moves on Mike's daughter Kaitlyn (Stefani Scott) and he lets Porter know this is not acceptable. Porter wires Mike's house and his business. Porter is now in control of Mike's house and Mike has no recourse as he cannot prove anything. Porter also did something to insure Mike would not get the IPO he needs to raise money for his new business venture.

We see many scenes with Porter spying on Mike's house and we see the family terrified at all the happenings that Porter is able to set in motion. He also captures Kaitlyn masturbating in the shower and those scenes are distributed among Kaitlyn's classmates. We don't really see anything here, but we know what is going on.

Mike hires Henrik (Michael Nyqvist) to undo everything Porter did in the house. Does this solve the problem? Not really. It is decided that Mike needs to get all the flashdrives that show all Porter's programs for what he did spying on the house. Does this solve the problem? Not Really. The police get him for breaking and entering. See? No help. He just cannot win. What to do? What do do?

The vehicle scenes when Porter controls Mike's speeding car are outstanding. There is good suspense and tension throughout. The fight scenes are very good (7/10)

Violence: Yes. Sex: No. Nudity: No. Language: Yes. Rating: B

.

Extremely predictable, slow and torturing film.

[sharjeel_larik · 4/10 · 3 February 2017]

3 stars for the movie and an additional one for Pierce Brosnan. As a veteran actor, he knows how to act and he was the only anchor for some sanity.

Extremely predictable, slow and torturing film. The movie could easily have been shortened by 30 minutes without affecting the plot or any good part. On the other hand, acting by James was very poor.

The story is quite related to the 21st century and highlights a real issue but the script is weak and not that compelling.

Do yourself a favor and watch this movie at at least 1.2x speed or don't even bother watching.

James Bond meets the I.T. Guy from Hell!

[rbrb · 8/10 · 22 April 2017]

Super intense entertaining thriller!

Top business boss is on the verge of great success, but misplaced trust in a temp computer expert threatens to bring down the bosses company and family.

This movie is worthy of a high vote as:

1.If done well, as here, there is something compellingly view able about a rich and happy man being at risk of destruction; and,

2.The film is educational as it illustrates the danger of misuse of technology especially when security is lax and put into the hands of a lunatic.

The outstanding performance is from James Frecheville playing the part of a IT expert who also happens to be a psycho.

Needs a Part II!

8/10.

Entertaining B movie

[btoews · 7/10 · 28 June 2020]

It was fun-sure everything is over the top but that is what you get with this type of movie-overall way better than most stuff churned out.

Complete waste of time!

[hjulstad · 1/10 · 29 September 2016]

It's when you see movies like this you wonder why it is not possible to give a negative score. One (1) star on the scale is one too many. The story is simple; Guy irritates psycho, psycho takes revenge, guy fights back, and wins... -nothing wrong there, could be the outline for a good movie. However, at no point during the movie do you feel connected to or take any part in any of the characters feelings or thoughts. You wonder if there will ever come an unpredictable twist or turn in the story. But, needless to say, you will be disappointed.

(The following text is just a rant to fulfill IMDb's demand of ten lines of text in the review...) The only purpose I can see for this movie, is as a part of the curriculum at film schools, on the topic of how NOT to make a movie. Sometimes, when the car industry discovers that a product they have been selling is affected with a serious defect, they do something called a recall. Maybe the producers of this movie should do the same? Recall the product, replace the actors, the director, the editors, maybe the story as well, and send it back out? Now, thinking about it, I can actually recall one positive thing. In the movie, there is a scene where The Guy crashes his car inside a tunnel. Now, the last clip in that crash sequence where the car bounces off the lorry, does in fact look realistic. You get the feeling it might not be CGI. If so, it would be reason enough to earn that one star!