IMDb user comments for
Antitrust (2001) More at IMDbPro »

Filter:

Best Chronological Prolific Authors Loved It Hated It Hide Spoilers:

Page 1 of 21:

[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11]

Index

210 reviews in total

---

74 out of 101 people found the following review useful:
About as unrealistic and irrelevant as "All the President's Men"., 29 July 2001

Author: Roger-141

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.

---

30 out of 36 people found the following review useful:
It took the time to be accurate - but at what cost?, 14 November 2004
Author: Craig Delahoy from Sydney, Australia

*** This review may contain 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.

---

23 out of 28 people found the following review useful:
Techno thriller panders to a digital generation, 13 January 2001
Author: Axdyne-2 from Atlanta, GA - USA

I praise Hollywood for creating a movie that does not have mass appeal. Too often movies of this type are designed to be for too wide an audience and all credibility is lost. This film avoids this, for the most part, by primarily appealing to a core target audience in the 15 to 35 age range.

The credits sequence began and I immediately cringed and thought, "Hacker 2...ugh." but it didn't turn out that way, much to my pleasure. Horrible computer idiocy was kept to a minimum, and generally only used for dramatic effect rather than the "computerz r kewl" aspect.

The dramatic performances were very good in my opinion and the film was superb in creating suspense. The soundtrack is rather excellent as well.

By my guess, huge changes were made to this film (based on the trailer) and I look forward to seeing an alternate version or cut-scenes on the DVD.

I definitely recommend this movie for anyone who likes technology and computers. For everyone else, I don't know if you would like it, honestly, but I can tell you it's not a whole movie about computers.

---

25 out of 34 people found the following review useful:
Microsoft were warned about the EU-CC, 8 July 2004
Author: soccermanz from Birmingham, England

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

What kind of computer expert can I be that I had forgotten that I submitted a comment the first tiem that I watched "Antitrust" - yet I enjoyed it just as much the second time around. A great deal of trouble was taken to ensure that the Computer Programming was authentic and the planned Synapse system would ultimately be feasible - wonder if Ronald Reagan ever watched it ? i take back what I said about the Male Lead, he wasn't as wet as I first thought even though it only occurred to him almost too late that both the Females seemingly attracted to him were too hot to be true. And he hardly looked to be out of short pants. The script made it quite clear that the Villain was not Bill Gates but a potential competitor for him and Microsoft but the plot fell down over the idea of being able to spy on LCD monitors from a relevant angle and extract useful information off the screen (before having the owner murdered in appropriate style). I'll let new viewers work out the relevance of the Sesame seeds for themselves and the light pictures which seemed to reflect the wrong moods for the characters nearest to them - but a great idea for a potential LCD guard dog. But then have the Israelis been working on this ? All in all a far more enjoyable film than the previous reviewer suggested.

---

17 out of 19 people found the following review useful:
Not "The Net 2", 14 January 2001
Author: Darth_Tirranus from Philadelphia, PA

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.

---

23 out of 32 people found the following review useful:
A really entertaining flick, 14 January 2001

Author: KatieJoy from California

I really enjoyed this film--it was exciting as well as thought-provoking. If you enjoyed "The Net" and "The Firm" you'll probably enjoy a hybrid of the two, although I found "Antitrust" to be more satisfying than either of those. Tim Robbins as always was terrific as the "Bill Gates" character and Ryan Phillippe was excellent as his genius protege. "Antitrust" was a great, entertaining way to spend an afternoon at the movies.

---

10 out of 12 people found the following review useful:
Tim Robbins- He is an actor who is a head and shoulder above the rest., 13 January 2001

Author: g_gib23 (g_gib23@hotmail.com) from Western United States

I saw "Antitrust" today the 1:15 matinee. I loved it. I became acquainted with Tim Robbins through 5 copies of" Top Gun." I will not give away the plot or read the last page of the book, but for those of you who like "Arlington Road" ,"Antitrust" may be a good sequel. So this movie does not win rave reviews. Movies are entertaining , some of them are informative. This one says that without computer geeks not many of us could not enjoy this modern day tool. Back in the 70's I thought the electric typewriter with a ball going across the page was exciting.

---

13 out of 18 people found the following review useful:
For once, it looks real, 13 August 2006

Author: Tom Duhamel (tom420.duhamel@gmail.com) from Sherbrooke, Québec, Canada

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.

---

8 out of 9 people found the following review useful:
Microsoft bashing in thin disguise., 7 October 2004
Author: TxMike from Houston, Tx, USA, Earth

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

Not a bad movie, but not really a good one either. Ryan Phillippe (Mr Reese Witherspoon) plays Milo Hoffman, a graduating computer genius who is being recruited by the biggest computer corporation run by Tim Robbins to write code for their grand data-sharing plan, which includes a system of satellites. Rachael Leigh Cook plays Lisa Calighan, one of the programmers already working there. Not everything is like it seems to be, and Robbins is not necessarily the benevolent boss that he appears to be in public. Entertaining, if you have 90 minutes to waste on a rainy day, if you can't find anything better.

SPOILERS FOLLOW, quit reading, OK?!! Robbins also has a system for monitoring non-company programmers remotely, and stealing their code. Murder is sometimes in the plan also, if it is needed. Robbins plays a big boss who is totally devoid of moral fiber, will do anything to advance the goals of his company. It is the detective work by Milo and Lisa that break the case and bring Robbins and his bad guys to justice.

---

11 out of 15 people found the following review useful:
sometimes "realism" is not always better., 23 August 2006

Author: daphne y from United States

i think a lot of people who rated this movie negatively due to the fact that it's "not realistic" or "true to life" probably do not have a lot of experience with writing novels or screenplays.

first off, let us all accept the fact that most screenwriters, as much as they may love their craft, probably want to make money off their work. and, as they are human, and have human desires, chances are, they probably want to make a lot of money off their work. that means that sometimes, they have to alter their work (or otherwise "dumb down", but let's not phrase it that way) to make it more accessible to a mainstream audience. now, some people may view this as "selling out", but this isn't necessarily the case: generally, most writers want their work and their message to be appreciated and recognised by the public. this isn't easy to do if the public doesn't understand what the hell they're talking about.

it's not always best for a movie (or a novel, for that matter) to be 100% accurate, because even if everything about the topic completely fascinates you (and generally the author as well, else they wouldn't be writing a story about it), chances are, it's going to bore nearly everyone else--even some of the people who are interested in and are as knowledgeable about the exact same topic. if you want to see a film that is completely and in every way accurate, watch a documentary. do not watch a movie. a movie, like a novel, is supposed to imitate the interesting aspects of reality (conflict, struggle, victory, love, et cetera), it is not supposed to actually be reality. it is supposed to filter out the mundane and uninteresting parts of life.

for example, the fact that we rarely see milo typing code for synapse--we know he can do it (as in the daycare scene), what would it possibly at to the story to actually watch him code synapse? that would be boring. it's much like saying, we never saw any of the character sleep. well, we know they do--but we don't need to watch 8 to 12 hours of them actually doing it.

the only thing that really disappointed me about the movie was the fact that it didn't really explain the motivation for some of the characters' actions. why does lisa turn against milo, and in that same vein, why does allison suddenly decide to lie for him?

---

---

Page 1 of 21:

[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11]

Add another review

---

Related Links

Plot summary	Ratings	Awards
Newsgroup reviews	External reviews	Official site
Plot keywords	Main details	Your user reviews
Your vote history