Dreadfully Boring

I was totally surprised at how great this film.You could feel your paranoia rise as the film went on and as you gradually learned the details of the real situation.

The acting is good, and the firecracker script has some excellent ideas.

The thing I enjoyed most about the film is the fact that it doesn't shy away from being a super-sized-cliche;

Like another viewer, this was a painful experience. Unlike that viewer, I was unable to make it to the 30-minute-mark. Fortunately, Kris Kristofferson was killed off in the first half hour. That, to me, is the climax of any film. I don't care what happened after that. Of course if you like clichés, bad acting, awful story-line, cheesy acting, grade school art project like special effects then this movie is for you. Kristofferson delivers his lines in such a distracting way, that you don't even hear what he is saying. He delivers his lines worse than Back to the Future's George McFly (George McFly: Lorraine. My density has popped me to you). Move on and find something better.

We're here! Where's my videophone? This movie is not as bad as some of the critics here say. It is reasonably entertaining, if you can get past the first 15 minutes. It is Tom Clancy, so there is some twists and turns to the plot, which keeps it interesting. I think it is best to compare it to some of the lamer James Bond movies; on that score it looks reasonably good.What was going through my mind as I watched it was that I bet the computer security folks have watched the movie as a warning of what could happen, sort of, if they don't do their job. And I bet some of the hackers watch it with dreams of glory.Obviously, the problems with the Internet described in the movie haven't happened, for the most part, so the movie looks a bit foolish. Actually, I see from the book review that while the novel was written in 1999, it was set in 2010. But we have been learning in the past year or so about the dangers of spyware that abound. In that sense, the premise was remarkably prescient. Corporations just love to get their hands on all sorts of information about you, without your knowledge. And the government is not so different; often they work hand in hand, as in the airline passenger data collection. So the movie, as science fiction, is not entirely far fetched.I'm a fan of Scott Bakula and his great work on Quanum Leap. Frankly, the TV show had better writing, not to mention better cinematography. And the critics who bemoan all the boilerplate about asschewing are right. Another point that bothers me, especially given Clancy's general penchant for veracity, is the absurdity of they guy's wife covering him on the news. No reputable news organization would allow this incest, except perhaps FOX.But the ending is interesting enough to make it all worthwhile.Fans of Ayn Rand should find this movie especially interesting. It follows the same theme as Rand McNally Shrugged. And the quality of writing is about equal. Who is Steve Day???

At 2h40mins, this movie runs waaaay too long. The pace is kept at a moderate level most of the way with above-average-for-a-tv-movie sounds and visuals, intended to keep the average person watching. But I'm not Mr Average and I was zoning in and out throughout the movie. I was motivated to rent this movie because I just read Jeffery Deaver's 'The Blue Nowhere,' which is an excellent thriller abt hacking. This movie seems more like a slow-moving FBI show. How can Scott Bakula, the leader of 'Netforce,' look as clueless as he does when his system is hacked? And for Internet cops, there sure is a lot of physical chasing and shooting. Sure there's a lot of techno-babble thrown in, but it's all gratuitous. The coolest vision of futuristic technology - VR pubs and brothels - doesn't even involve any special effects. Hacking i s demonstrated as a flood of rotating green numbers. On the brighter side, the acting's pretty good and not exaggerated. Don't rent this, catch it on TV on a rainy Sunday afternoon.

Made for television movies can never escape the feeling they we're made for television. The taste, the sight and the scent. It's always there. Tom Clancy's Netforce itself was originally a two part television movie (how little did I know). In fact it's all still somewhat a wash. Let me break it down for you.Flash forward to 2005. The internet has become so powerful and potentially dangerous that the US government sets up a division within the FBI entitled "Netforce" to preside over it from the evil people of the world who look to exploit it for their corrupt plans. Personally I seriously disbelieve the internet holds the future of the world in it's grasp, but that doesn't matter because the people at Netforce couldn't protect it if they had to anyway.Upon meeting the major characters we realize they're roles we've all seen before. Like the tough male main character who's strong and dresses well. The rest of the cast fit typical molds. I especially liked how a certain character's ex-wife is a news reporter who at one point becomes a key piece in the story. Everyone is so linked together. Realistic? No. Then again none of the characters have any real in-depth characterization. They're just names and faces. There's also too many needless minor secondary characters being thrown around adding nothing but padding and viewer confusion. It gets hard remembering twenty characters throughout a two plus hour movie. I want to give the movie credit for trying to develop them, but it fails because we know they're insignificant. Frankly I expected more from such an ensemble cast too.Scott Bakula gets to look smart in suit -- the key word being "look". This project could have benefited from someone with more clout than Bakula. He's sufficient, but that's about it. Meanwhile Kris Kristofferson gets the cliché elder role and good 'ol Brian Dennehy has been given the plum task of the President's Chief Of Staff. That means him popping up spewing 'How his ass is on the line' or 'the President's p***ed at him'. Yes even good actors can't save bad scripts. That's a fact. Which bothers me even further because this product has Tom Clancy's name written all over it. Yet it isn't anywhere near the quality of his past outings. It's a real disservice. Some of the blame has to fall straight into the writer's lap too. I say this because I find it hard to see this as an adaptation project that started well. It was bad from the get-go. The story stinks. It's like amateur hour. Especially considering how much they squeeze into their time frame. Would more have helped? I'm hesitant to say. Even with over two hours they still came back with this slop. Frankly 160 minutes is a long time and there isn't enough depth to sustain a person's interest or the holding of disbelief for such a period.It can't even be taken seriously. Like Judge Reinhold playing the 'evil multi-billion dollar software tycoon looking to control the world' or how corny it is to have FBI agents point loaded weapons in the faces of innocent cabdrivers. It's things like these that help make Netforce such a bore. There's absolutely no atmosphere and honestly for a film dealing so heavily with computers and the internet, they sure went skimpy enough on the technical aspects too. I guess they didn't want to lose their biggest viewing demographic ... computer inept coach potatoes and patriotic Tom Clancy fans.For what it's trying to be, there's very little (if any) paranoia, suspense or "edge of your seat excitement" as so called critics would say. Netforce draws nothing but boredom and that's not exactly new territory. Last thing too. A golden rule of movies. If they don't find a body 95% of the time that's a clear signal the person ain't dead. That's the facts.