Matialth Good concept, poorly executed.

Stellead Don't listen to the Hype. It's awful

Arianna Moses Let me be very fair here, this is not the best movie in my opinion. But, this movie is fun, it has purpose and is very enjoyable to watch.

Billy Ollie Through painfully honest and emotional moments, the movie becomes irresistibly relatable

tle_mgr I actually found the movie on the web. I thought it was just a one off TV show, but apparently there was at least two episodes. It is worth a watch if you are bored and nothing else is on. It's kind of funny watching head honchos in their 30s and 40s talking hitech gibberish about cyber security and what not. Stuff usually taken on by the younger folks

not convinced 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.

ptarmigan 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???

mythicfox I read the book long before I heard about the movie, and given past history with books being translated into movies, I expected NetForce to suck but hoped it didn't. Well, it sucks big time. I was hoping for something remotely close to the book, which it is... for about 10 minutes or so, until Steve Day is assassinated. Then, after that, it bears no resemblance to the book. I was disappointed, but based on my expectations, not THAT disappointed. 3 out of 10