Rating: 
Summary: Stale Fish
Review: Slick, empty, disconnected. How else to describe this sad attempt at entertainment? There is no continuity, no character development, nothing to really sink your teeth into. Consider the famous shot of Halle Berry in the nude. Oh, sure, all the macho studs were howling for more, but it had absolutely nothing to do with the story. In fact it serves to destroy what little momentum there is up to that point. You're moving along with the action and then suddenly Berry's bare breasts are staring you in the face. My reaction was "What's going on here, did I miss something?" Then there's the scene where Hugh Jackman goes waltzing into Berry's bedroom only to find her wearing a wire along with her skimpy lingerie, whereupon she admits to being a spy for the DEA. I was expecting to learn more about Berry's involvement with the DEA but it's just left hanging in mid-air. This is but one of many strange startings-and-stoppings throughout this pathetic flick. Add another dog to Travolta's growing string of cinematic failures. This flop is right up there with his other duds like "Face-off" and "Battleship Earth".
Rating:
Summary: Did it really have to be THIS dumb?
Review: Slick and savvy terrorist Travolta recruits ex-computer hacker genius(Hugh Jackman)to transfer billion dollar funds from a forgotten account. This, of course, can't be done without guns and explosions galore. Tiresome action yarn with money to burn takes a mildly intriguing notion and loads it with costly but silly stunt pieces (eg, a city bus being flown around by a helicopter). MATRIX style 360-degree slow-motion track of a hostage explosion at the start of the film is its only highlight. Halle Berry got paid a million to be seen topless for a few seconds.
Rating: 
Summary: More like 3 and 1/2
Review: John Torvolta does (surprisingly) make a every good spy but I have to agree with the others watch the opening scene and then stop. If you get it for free watch it the whole way though. I just don't feel that the plot is thick enough to be worth the money.
Rating: 
Summary: New,Different, and Fun
Review: All the so-called critics and some others don't get it. Every time a strait action movie comes out with lots of explosions, high body count, and lame cache frases the critics always say the same thing,"why can't they make a different kind of movie" well, this movie is out of the standard field of action movies, it has a great plot twists,interesting charactors, the good guy is a little dirty and the bad buy has a good goal, but the cry baby critics still wine.It's a different kind of movie then say the movies that always win the "Emmys" and "Oscers" for no others reasons than the people who chose the winners for those awards are locked into a extremely norrow view of what makes a good movie to such extreme as is if the movie doesn't have a so called "deeper meaning" the whole movie is judged to be inferior, this makes me sick. Judge the movie for what it is, not compare it to dusty "safe" movies that have a million clones that are exactly like it.
Rating:
Summary: 'Techno thriller'
Review: This techno-thriller kicks off with one of the most exciting movie openings ever. And rest assured, there is plenty more action to follow. John Travolta is on top form as Gabriel, a government agent turned arch thief plotting a heist to the tune of $9.5 billion from a top-secret government stash. He's aided in his devious efforts by his glamorous assistant Ginger (Halle Berry) and Stanley Jobson (Hugh Jackman), a well-known computer hacker. Meanwhile, Vinne Jones enhances his Hollywood reputation by playing a physic hitman-what else?
All in all, it's a slickly-made action movie that's drenched in testosterone. And although the plot gets a bit obscure at times, there are plenty of big bangs and some decent acting too- and you can't say fairer than that.
Rating: 
Summary: "You know, the problem with Hollywood is they make s---."
Review: Thanks for the hot tip. Unfortunately, director Dominic Sena makes it, too. The above quoted line is the first thing we hear in *Swordfish*, an excrescence of a film about a criminal mastermind (John Travolta) who's trying to gain electronic access to some billion-dollar government slush-fund or other. My comment to Mr. Sena -- and to the cologne-sprayed, Armani-wearing, tanning-booth-owning mental midgets who greenlighted this film -- is: If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the "problem" to which you refer. I know, I know: I must not have a sense of humor. Perhaps not, but such facile reflexiveness by the screenwriters isn't funny or clever or "postmodern"; it indicates a cynical sloughing off of concerns about quality with its attempt to head off the critics at the pass. Apparently, the mainstream film industry is now beyond being embarrassed at itself. Big accomplishment! As for the rest of the movie? John Travolta, replete with page-boy haircut, is clearly more concerned with the catering than with his performance (in fact, he doesn't give one). *Swordfish*, despite some digitally composed "action" sequences, remains a nerd's movie, in which we're supposed to be thrilled while watching Hugh Jackman type excitedly on a computer keyboard. The ending encourages us to reasses the Travolta character who, it turns out, is really an uber-patriot fighting global terrorism. (He's fighting the REAL "evil-doers".) However, those who believe that *Swordfish* deserves a reassessment of its own in light of 9/11 are just whistlin' Dixie. Or are at least VERY DETERMINED to like the movie.
Rating:
Summary: watch the opening scene and then turn it off
Review: This really starts with a bang, the opening scene is very well done, and really blew me away. but what happens afterwards, nothing, every effrot seems to have been made creating the opening scenene, and the rest of the movie tacked on as an afterthought.
Theres some really really bad performances notabley from vinnie jones and halle berry, and frankly, i could care less about a brief flash of her soft focus flesh, which seemed to be the main adolescent selling point.
Rating:
Summary: Stupid
Review: Stupid and predictable. If you have a moducum of computer knowledge then you should skip this one.
Rating: 
Summary: Definately 5 Stars!
Review: When "Swordfish" first came out, I wasn't interested in seeing it nor did I wish to see it. Although I was forced to see it when my sister and my mom were dying to see it, which would result in leaving me home alone. So I went to see it, planning to sleep in the theatre but... TADA! I love this movie! The first scene attracted me with Travola's cinematic theory and the "bullet-time" explosion, which was very awesome. This movie definately is worth to see , buy "Swordfish" and expect great things with Berry's nudity!
Rating:
Summary: How far is too far in the war against terror?
Review: While this movie used many of the formulaic conventions, i.e. car chases, nudity, and parent/child affection, to manipulate the audience and to entertain, I thought it did a masterful job of presenting a very poignant, current question: How far is too far, in the war against terror? John Travolta's character is the bad guy, or is he really a good guy who is just willing to pay a higher price for freedom than I am? I could not possibly care less about Halle Berry's figure, but at least she is not painful to watch in her acting. Hugh Jackman even carries his role well. All in all, I was very pleased with this movie and recommend it highly to anyone who appreciates action/intrigue movies.
|
