Political villain Gabriel Shear (John Travolta) is a dangerous man with a problem. He has been hired to steal $6 billion in unused government funds. The problem lie in the fact that the funds are locked in a tangled cyber web that would make Bill Gates blush. Shear decides to seek the help of supercomputer hacker Stanley Jobson (Hugh Jackman). Stanley is also a man with a problem in that he is a felon, living in voided trailer-park , with no rights to his daughter Holly (Camryn Grimes). To further exert his power, Shear sends his femme fatale sidekick Ginger (Halle Berry) to seal the deal with Stanley. The deal was simple: crack the codes for us and we will get your daughter back and make you very rich.
This movie tackles two issues in film making:
1) what is the real definition of a happy ending
and
2) can we really believe what we see and hear in any situation?.
Sure we love to see the hero save the day and defend the common good; but in real life, that's not always the case. We love to root for the hero, see the problem through his eyes, and bank on his point of view. But what about the villain? When was the last time an audience left a theatre cheering the villain and deeming his actions as a `happy ending'. This is what Shear is pushing over and over in this movie. If the villain gets away, isn't that a happy ending for him him?
Shear also talks a lot about redirection using the famous magicians of the past. By directing the eye and ear at one thing, you totally miss what is really happening. This is directly related to film making in that a lot of films will turn on the explosions, cool stunts, and CGI's to cover the fact that the script is lacking or the actors are weak (for proof of this see the following movies: Batman and Robin, Battlefield Earth, Anaconda, The Rock, Broken Arrow). Unfortunately, Shear uses this theory to get away with billion dollar crimes.
While watching this film, I got the feeling that the writer was really infatuated with the Shear character because even though the trailers push Stanley as the lead, it is Shear that takes the limelight. The end result is a movie with a great secondary lead (villain) and the other characters existing around him rather than with him. I will say this: Travolta is very good in this. His character is well defined. But I didn't feel the script did enough to prove this to me that a man like Stanley, whom is trying to turn his life around so he can see his daughter, was trying to make the change. Even though the dialogue said he wasn't, he felt like a practicing criminal the whole time. Halle Berry was nothing more than a sexy pawn (redirection with a great body) with no essence. The acting wasn't bad at all. Director Dominic Sena assembled a great cast. It would have been better had he actually used them equally.
As far as the movie as a whole is concerned, It was good as hyped up fluff that practices what it preach. It used the theory of redirection quite a bit. It's full of spectacle and flesh to keep you pinned to the mat but ultimately you will realize that the plot doesn't satisfy your hunger for entertainment
This movie tackles two issues in film making:
1) what is the real definition of a happy ending
and
2) can we really believe what we see and hear in any situation?.
Sure we love to see the hero save the day and defend the common good; but in real life, that's not always the case. We love to root for the hero, see the problem through his eyes, and bank on his point of view. But what about the villain? When was the last time an audience left a theatre cheering the villain and deeming his actions as a `happy ending'. This is what Shear is pushing over and over in this movie. If the villain gets away, isn't that a happy ending for him him?
Shear also talks a lot about redirection using the famous magicians of the past. By directing the eye and ear at one thing, you totally miss what is really happening. This is directly related to film making in that a lot of films will turn on the explosions, cool stunts, and CGI's to cover the fact that the script is lacking or the actors are weak (for proof of this see the following movies: Batman and Robin, Battlefield Earth, Anaconda, The Rock, Broken Arrow). Unfortunately, Shear uses this theory to get away with billion dollar crimes.
While watching this film, I got the feeling that the writer was really infatuated with the Shear character because even though the trailers push Stanley as the lead, it is Shear that takes the limelight. The end result is a movie with a great secondary lead (villain) and the other characters existing around him rather than with him. I will say this: Travolta is very good in this. His character is well defined. But I didn't feel the script did enough to prove this to me that a man like Stanley, whom is trying to turn his life around so he can see his daughter, was trying to make the change. Even though the dialogue said he wasn't, he felt like a practicing criminal the whole time. Halle Berry was nothing more than a sexy pawn (redirection with a great body) with no essence. The acting wasn't bad at all. Director Dominic Sena assembled a great cast. It would have been better had he actually used them equally.
As far as the movie as a whole is concerned, It was good as hyped up fluff that practices what it preach. It used the theory of redirection quite a bit. It's full of spectacle and flesh to keep you pinned to the mat but ultimately you will realize that the plot doesn't satisfy your hunger for entertainment