Conference bookie::movies

> Sandra Bullock in yet another (looks like a) hit movie?

	Except this time the critics seem to be panning it for the
	most part (except for saying the movie would of been a total
	bomb with out Bullock) unlike the reviews for Speed and WYWS.

> I'm going today

	Make sure to report back here ASAP :-)

	FWIW, the critics said it starts out with a good premise, but
	just turns out to be another chase picture with stupid actions
	like Bullock being stupid enough to run into the street when
	a car is trying to run her down.  However the reviews of The
	Net were much tamer than for Waterworld ....

    Saw it last night.  Thought the ending was a little pat, but it
    had me shrinking down into my seat a few times.  The actions of
    the heroin were logical and I don't remember one part when I
    thought "Oh yea, right.  Like she would have done that."  It
    has two thumbs up from me.
    
    I also enjoyed it for the lack of sex, no muscle bound hero, no cute kids, 
    and no family pets.  It was refreshing to see a woman as the lead,
    using her brain and winning the day without having to be rescued by a 
    man--the shrink was the only exception, even then she had to save him 
    before the bad guys off'ed him.  
    
    I enjoyed it.

    
    -1
    
    well, there was one part when i found myself thinking "what, she didn't
    know that?"  this was over half way through the movie at the point when
    she realizes what is responsible for all of the computer shenanigans.
    on the plus side, sandra bullock is convincing as the techo-dweeb, as
    is dennis miller as her ex-shrink/just plain "ex."  two stars (out of
    four.)
    
    bill  
    

> on the plus side, sandra bullock is convincing as the techo-dweeb, ...

	For another performance of Bullock playing a tecno-dweeb
	see the movie "Love Potion #9" (her 1st movie role I believe?)

    
    	I didn't even know that was her until I saw her name in the
    	credits.
    

    My first reaction (while watching the teaser) was "Are you kidding?
    How much career-ending evidence could you put on a 1.44 MB floppy?"

>       <<< Note 894.6 by TP011::KENAH "Do we have any peanut butter?" >>>
>
>    My first reaction (while watching the teaser) was "Are you kidding?
>    How much career-ending evidence could you put on a 1.44 MB floppy?"

You can put 300 or 400 pages of tightly packed plain text in a megabyte.
That might be enough for a pretty comprehensive indictment.

- tom] (haven't seen the movie yet)

	Bullock was on the Tonight show last night.  She confirmed that
	she is indeed on the "net" in real life.  She said she goes "on line"
	(which seems to imply her service is "America OnLine") using an
	alias.  She wouldn't divulge her alias as it took her a week to
	come up with the current one.

	Leno also read some email messages containing questions net users
	had for Bullock.  It seems there is a nude image of her floating
	around the Internet (my guess it's a still from the movie she
	was in called "Fire on the Amazon").

    Response to 894.1
    Since I was dissapointed, I waited til other responses got posted.
    I didn't think it was so good.  There were alot of things that did
    NOT get me into the movie.  The whole thing on the boat with the
    shifty guy she met was too predictable...i was truly bored  and
    dissappointed  but I still think she's a terrific actress
    and of course...we have all seen worse so I'm not going to complain
    too loudly..     

    I agree with .9 and .1.  I thought it was lukewarm.  Its not a bad
    movie, but its not a great movie.  I was getting antsy a couple times
    waiting for somemore action..then when the action finally came it was
    usually Sandra running down a street with a car after her.  It has a
    scary premise about how we are too reliable on computers, but it really
    doesn't deliver a good punch.  I agree with the critics (very usual
    for me!!) without Sandra, it would have been a real bomb.
    
    Worth seeing, but as a $1 show or rental IMO.
    
    RS

    I thought it was good.  I liked the attention to detail in scenes that
    revolved around the computer.  (ie  all the menus looked authentic
    (probably were)).  There was one part when she was walking through the
    tech support lab of xxyy company and you could overhear people talking
    about 'CONFIG.SYS' and 'DMA buffer size'.
    
    The action was great and I didn't mind paying movie prices to see it.
    
    3/4 stars...
    
    Jason

    My biggest problem with the movie/concept is the fact Sandra Bullock's
    career, and her audience attractions is based on the fact that, while
    she is not classically beautiful, she is so NICE, women want to be
    friends with her, and guys want to take her home to meet mother.  With
    this in mind, why is this the second movie in a row she's made where
    she has no friends whatsoever?
    
    tom

    oh come on.... you don't think she was best buddies with the bus
    driver?  They seemed pretty friendly :*)

My wife and I both liked it a lot.

My wife liked the standard suspense things (her mother recommended the movie
to her as "just like Hitchcock", and it certainly delivered on that).  I am
not that big on suspense movies, but it was pretty good for all of that, and
as mentioned before, no one in the movie was required to do totally stupid
things in order to move the plot forward.  So from a purely movie audience
standpoint it gets 3 out of 4 stars from us.

Now from a computer dweeb standpoint, this had by far the most realistic
and accurate depictions of computers and the Internet that I have *EVER* 
seen in any movie/tv show/fictional book/whatever.  They made one change
to current reality which required a "willing suspension of disbelief", did
3 things which were necessary in order to move the plot along (not "wrong"
as such, but not totally accurate either), but the rest of it was astonishingly
accurate.  (Details below after a spoiler).

Oh, one more point: the disk that she had that the bad guys were after did
not contain incriminating evidence as in text, it had a program on it which
itself was incriminating evidence.  The fact that it fit on a floppy was
reasonable.

I walked into the movie prepared to hate it for inaccuracies, stupid depictions
of the Internet, idiotic parodies of computer people, etc.  I found accurate
(except as noted below) portrayals of current technology as we in the field
know it today, with computer people portrayed as relatively normal people
(as opposed to the programmer in Jurassic Park, for example).  I liked the
entire move *much* more than I thought I would.

Spoiler comments on technology as portrayed in the move below:


The one thing which did not fit into current technology was the fact that
every computer everywhere was subject to hacking from the outside (ie, it
was all interconnected).  I found this believable as far as erasing/changing
her identity in the NCIC system, as well as erasing her phone charge card,
because these systems *are* interconnected.  But I didn't believe it for
the Mexican hotel computer (which shows that she checked out), and even more
so for the hospital computer (which changed the psychiatrists patient record
to show he was diabetic) and especially so for the navigation computer in
the Cessna piloted by her friend at the beginning.  Hospitals are paranoid
about that kind of thing, such that their systems which contain active 
patient records are not connected to *anything*, even though they have
other systems for billing, e-mail, etc which are connected to the world.
And how in the world did they get access to the nav system in a private
plane, which is physically isolated from the entire world, and is contacting
the GPS satellites for its information?

And the three things which are not in accordance to current technology, but
which I allowed them for artistic license are:

1) the lack of delay in her connections to the world.  Even if she was
   walking around with a T3 link, anybody who has been on the WWW knows
   that it simply doesn't work that fast.  But the audience would have
   been bored watching the systems load information into her system, so
   I understand why they eliminated the delays.

2) the implicit assumption that there is only one type of computer in the
   world.  GATEKEEPER was stated to run on the U.S. government NCIC system,
   as well as every banking system in the entire city, etc, etc.  Ask any
   software vendor how much trouble it is to get user-mode programs to run
   on many different types of systems (and we saw at least Macintosh, UNIX
   and "mainframe" systems in operation, all of which were going to be
   protected by GATEKEEPER).  Now multiply that by 'n' in order to implement
   a total security system.  But I understand that the majority of the 
   audience thinks of computers as only one kind, and it would have been
   techno-babble in order to explain this, so I let it go by...

3) the fact that all of her interactions with UNIX systems were done in
   **UPPERCASE**!!  Her "whois" and "telnet" commands, and the response
   from the system, were in UPPERCASE, and we all know that UNIX doesn't
   understand UPPERCASE commands... :^)  This one was simply a goof.

-- Ken Moreau

    
    I saw the movie this weekend.  Both my husband and my self loved it. 
    It had alot of suspense and excitment.  Sandra did a wonderful job
    acting.  I could care less for Dennis Miller, never liked him before
    and I still don't. IMHO  
    
    Louisa

    
Subject: What I learned from 'The Net'

Seventeen Important Lessons I Learned from Watching "The Net."

  -- by [email protected]

17) Don't allow office temps to have write permissions for the
fire-control systems of your major metropolitan skyscraper.

16) If you're fatally allergic to penicillin, wear a Med-Alert
bracelet.

15) Never fly your Cessna to a meeting... videoconference, you idiot!

14) Always virus-check software before uploading it to your
zillion-dollar mainframe that controls all banking transactions
worldwide.

13) When fleeing the police in a high-speed chase, stay _on_ the
pavement.

12) Avoid computer trade-shows like the plague, but if you *must*
attend, stay off the damn catwalks.

11) If diagnosed HIV-positive, get independent confirmation of same
before impulsively blowing your brains out with a sawed-off.

10) All you assassins? Six words: "Practice, practice, practice:
marksmanship, marksmanship, marksmanship."

9) Introduce yourself to your next-door neighbors, get a
safety-deposit box, hide at least one secret thing somewhere in your
apartment where no-one will find it within a few hours of looking and
keep receipts for all pizza deliveries.

8) Always ask "FBI Agents" for proper ID, and call the number on the
badge *first* before they give you a ride *anywhere*.

7) Three words: "buy a Mac."

6) If you're a young, attractive female who spends long hours alone in
front of a computer monitor, email me for a date. NOW!

5) Always check strange prescription labels carefully - before, not
after, consuming the entire bottle in one sitting.

4) Don't screw your shrink, and avoid talking to "hackers on vacation"
in third-world countries.

3) Never FedEx beta software without removing the visible backdoor to
your company's ultra-secret network.

2) Never write your password on the back of your *own* business card.

1) If you find a gun with a silencer in your date's coat-pocket,
remove the clip (and the one in the chamber) while they're not
looking. If it happens to be a blind first date on a CrissCraft in
Mexico, just remove the chambered slug *into* your date, preferably
between the eyes.

    > Seventeen Important Lessons I Learned from Watching "The Net."
    
    Great reply! Now, for the first time, I'd actually like to *see* this
    movie, if only to get the last note in proper context. Have you thought
    of submitting it to Letterman?
    			Jim

    
    
    
    Saw this on Friday night. My Partner and I liked it!
    
    only thing i need to add:
    
    
    
    
    
    	why on earth when someone has the bad guy at a disadvantage
        i.e knocked out
    
    
    do they not insure that he stays that way????
    
    
    Chris
    :)

    'cause the story would end right there.  It's called the Hollywood
    way...

    I liked it.  It was nice to see something I could relate to done in a
    reasonable (for hollywood) manner fit within the context of a
    traditional Hictchcockian movie.  Worth a rental!

    Rented this out at the weekend..
    
    MMMmmm..what can I say?
    Slightlty disappointed with it..I think it COULD have been a good film
    but it just missed the spot for me I'm afraid.  Too lacking in suspense
    and action for me!! Started to get fidgety at some points throughout
    the film.  Not a BAD film all in all but I wished I hadn't looked
    forward to seeing it so much!
    
    S..x

    
    
    
    
    spoiler warning
    
    
    
    
    	the only part I didn't like was when she had the bad guy konked
        in the boat. Why didn't she tie him up at least! ridiculous!!
    
    Chris
    :)

    Rented this one over the weekend, along with others in prep for the
    hurricane that never came. I had never seen Sandra Bullock in a film
    before and thought she played a pretty together, in charge of the
    situation role, much like Sigourney Weaver in Alien1-2-3.
    
    It sorta re-inforced the fear of what some malevolent individuals or
    groups could do to destroy someone that have crossed them. Now only
    being a vms finance programmer type, am I wrong or would it not be
    nearly as simple to hack all the databases; especially getting all the
    correct data entry forms for changing her stats.
    
    The phone rang a few times so I was not paying 100% attention to the
    plot....will have to watch it again before teturning it. Possible
    spoiler in question I have
    
    
    
    IN the beginning some high ranking official commits suicide when he
    (erroneously) learns he's hiv positive. And the autopsy comes back
    with no hiv. This seems to send the message, is one finds themselves
    hiv infected, the only logical thing to do is commit suicide. This
    bothered me a bit and added to fear factor of hacker mischief. I
    also missed the point of why the hiv matter came up. I did remember
    something about the suicidee being homophobic. Was this supposed to be
    a homosexual terrorist group. one of my housemates might return the
    movies before I get home, so was just curious, rather than rent over
    again. Or was the aids incident just a random act of terrorism?
    
    I know that hollywood is good at plot holes in films where computers
    play a central role, but this one seems a "bit" more realistic than
    many.
    
     ray

RE: .23 -< was ok for computercentric movie >-

>    It sorta re-inforced the fear of what some malevolent individuals or
>    groups could do to destroy someone that have crossed them. Now only
>    being a vms finance programmer type, am I wrong or would it not be
>    nearly as simple to hack all the databases; especially getting all the
>    correct data entry forms for changing her stats.

You are correct that it would *not* be nearly as simple as they made it out
to be to hack all of the different databases.  I suggest you read .14 for a
slightly more detailed answer.  But IMHO this fell into the "willing
suspension of disbelief".

More after spoiler warning...
    
    
>    IN the beginning some high ranking official commits suicide when he
>    (erroneously) learns he's hiv positive. And the autopsy comes back
>    with no hiv. 
>    I also missed the point of why the hiv matter came up. 

The official was about to either turn down GATEKEEPER for the contract to
protect the banking computers, or expose GATEKEEPER for being the Trojan
Horse that it was.  Therefore, the bad guys hacked a medical system to
make this guy believe he had AIDS.  As he was identified as strongly
homophobic, and his enemies would have attacked him as homosexual, he saw
this as the ruin of his reputation and he could not face it, so he killed
himself.  To me this indicates that he did not have anywhere near the
strength of character or common sense necessary for a person in his position.
First, he panicked over a single instance of a test, when he *KNEW* that he
had not been exposed to the virus, and that all such tests have a percentage
of false positives.  Second, that he would react so strongly to the attack,
when again he *KNEW* that it could be disproved, and that he considered the
attack so dangerous in any case.

I didn't think this was reasonable, because it would have been much simpler
for the bad guys to employ the same assassin they sent after Sandra Bullock
to simply kill this guy and make it look like a drive-by shooting or a simple
mugging (they *are* in Washington DC, where such things are distressingly
frequent).

-- Ken Moreau