Un abogado se convierte en blanco de un político corrupto y sus matones de la NSA cuando accidentalmente recibe evidencias clave para un crimen serio por motivos políticos.Un abogado se convierte en blanco de un político corrupto y sus matones de la NSA cuando accidentalmente recibe evidencias clave para un crimen serio por motivos políticos.Un abogado se convierte en blanco de un político corrupto y sus matones de la NSA cuando accidentalmente recibe evidencias clave para un crimen serio por motivos políticos.
- Dirección
- Escritura
- Estrellas
- Premios
- 5 premios ganados y 16 nominaciones en total
- Dirección
- Escritura
- Todo el elenco y el equipo
- Producción, taquilla y más en IMDbPro
Opiniones destacadas
Why? Well for starters there is the best chase sequence since The French Connection. Then there is Will Smith as an actor - not just a star, though later in the movie he is admittedly overshadowed by veteran Gene Hackman.
There are two layers to this movie: On the surface is a pacy thriller with edge-of-the-seat chases but underneath lies a telling commentary on government surveillance. It is one of those truth-in-fiction stories which makes its point about government intrusion into privacy dramatically and effectively.
There are references to the classic, The Conversation: The surveilled couple talking in the park, and the Hackman character's premises are an obvious recreation of his workshop in the earlier movie. If you haven't yet seen The Conversation - see it before you see this one - you will understand the Hackman character a lot better (besides, it is a superb movie in its own right).
Oh, and Jon Voight is terrific as the bad guy...
There are two layers to this movie: On the surface is a pacy thriller with edge-of-the-seat chases but underneath lies a telling commentary on government surveillance. It is one of those truth-in-fiction stories which makes its point about government intrusion into privacy dramatically and effectively.
There are references to the classic, The Conversation: The surveilled couple talking in the park, and the Hackman character's premises are an obvious recreation of his workshop in the earlier movie. If you haven't yet seen The Conversation - see it before you see this one - you will understand the Hackman character a lot better (besides, it is a superb movie in its own right).
Oh, and Jon Voight is terrific as the bad guy...
Well, I like this one. I like the cast, the visuals are well done, but what is more important is the plot that I like really much. It's not the most sophisticated plot of all times, but I think it's quite good, and to some degree, realistic. Of course it's not possible to move sattelites that quickly, or zoom in on a videotape that much and still have crystal-clear visual, but quite some technology seen is realistic today, or in the near future. This is an hollywood flick, all right, so they have quite much action and everything looks very easy, steering a sattelite seems to be no harder than playing a video game, what makes it all seem a bit unrealistic/sci-fi-like, but today's technical posibilities are quite large, and continue to grow, so informing oneself about the issue (I mean the real world issue) is not a bad idea.
To give you some points to think:
The list could go on, but what I want to say is that one should think about the posibilities and listen to what the politicians say, and what they want to allow the federal organisations.
You want to be able to still _enjoy_ the movie in some years time, not thinking of it as being somewhat normal just as everyday life, all right?
To give you some points to think:
- It's routine for the credid card companies to document every transaction made with the cards, go figure who gets the docs if police is investigating.
- Every call / fax done is documented for billing, go figure, who...
- At least for your ISP it's possible to read every unencrypted email you send or receive, go figure ...
- Today there are MANY cameras in public areas in Great Britain, with numbers still growing.
- Face recognition software is already being used in combination with some surveillance cameras.
- Dictation software that can interpret your spoken word and convert it into written text is being sold to you today, maybe some organisations have much better versions at their hands ...
The list could go on, but what I want to say is that one should think about the posibilities and listen to what the politicians say, and what they want to allow the federal organisations.
You want to be able to still _enjoy_ the movie in some years time, not thinking of it as being somewhat normal just as everyday life, all right?
When I first watched it 26 years ago in cinemas, it looked like a futuristic thriller under which everybody has absolute power to spy on you not because you are an enemy of the state by a) because they spy all simultaneously and b) they do this not for their country that has given them the power but for themselves.
Well, 26 years later, this aged well as few years later one could already evidence this happening and in today life we almost accept is as a normality, something that 20 years ago was infuriating citizens and could make a government fall. Today there are similar case constantly seeing the light of media, and its only another normal day. Gene Hackman (especially) and Will Smith carry on the film very well with nice plot, speed and actions.
Well, 26 years later, this aged well as few years later one could already evidence this happening and in today life we almost accept is as a normality, something that 20 years ago was infuriating citizens and could make a government fall. Today there are similar case constantly seeing the light of media, and its only another normal day. Gene Hackman (especially) and Will Smith carry on the film very well with nice plot, speed and actions.
Hi - really latetotheshow once again
As for my review title . . . I edited it and my rating from a 5 to a 7 after watching special features - an action I often take once I view them and get more insight into the impetus behind the movie.
I also find that anything Jerry Bruckmeyer is behind is often top notch.
Of course, Gene Hackman could make any movie worth a high rating - and I still think there are a lot of unrealistic extremes that make this borderline comedy. And maybe they should've made this a more obvious dark comedy.
Some reviewer on here said it was 'informative & educational' . . . Good grief.
I think there are more informative & educational sources out there than a entertainment piece. That's the only thing that worries me about movies. So many people use movies for school rather than ENTERTAINMENT.
However, this subject matter is something we all think about when we zoom in on our own home in maps . . .
There's several good suspenseful moments, and again Hackman was the draw for me. I really liked how he portrayed being both very helpful while also couldn't care less about Robert at first, in one a particular fast-paced scene.
He played paranoia very realistically. Also played a highly intelligent nerd really well too. Seemed a really different character from the tough guys he usually plays.
Now I really want to see him in The Conversation, which is allegedly the prequel to his Brill character here.
Anyway, this movie provides a lot of food for thought . . .
I also find that anything Jerry Bruckmeyer is behind is often top notch.
Of course, Gene Hackman could make any movie worth a high rating - and I still think there are a lot of unrealistic extremes that make this borderline comedy. And maybe they should've made this a more obvious dark comedy.
Some reviewer on here said it was 'informative & educational' . . . Good grief.
I think there are more informative & educational sources out there than a entertainment piece. That's the only thing that worries me about movies. So many people use movies for school rather than ENTERTAINMENT.
However, this subject matter is something we all think about when we zoom in on our own home in maps . . .
There's several good suspenseful moments, and again Hackman was the draw for me. I really liked how he portrayed being both very helpful while also couldn't care less about Robert at first, in one a particular fast-paced scene.
He played paranoia very realistically. Also played a highly intelligent nerd really well too. Seemed a really different character from the tough guys he usually plays.
Now I really want to see him in The Conversation, which is allegedly the prequel to his Brill character here.
Anyway, this movie provides a lot of food for thought . . .
Jon Voight, Will Smith, and Gene Hackman are the three stars who make this movie interesting. Voight is a rogue NSA operative and Smith quite accidentally gets on his trail without even realizing it. Hackman provides the key to exposing the crooks and facilitating a reasonable ending. Watching this movie makes you wonder how much of the surveillance depicted can really be done today by our governments. Although the movie has its share of violence, and an ending out of Reservoir Dogs, it also is sprinkled with some good humor. If you like action and espionage, then you'll like this movie. The DVD picture and soundtrack are both excellent. I give the movie overall 8 of 10.
¿Sabías que…?
- TriviaGene Hackman turned down this movie several times, but was ultimately convinced to sign on after a phone call by director Tony Scott. Will Smith later signed on at a relative post-Día de la independencia (1996) bargain price because he wanted to work with Hackman.
- ErroresWhen Dean is running on the hotel roof after Brill leaves him, the surveillance team reports that the satellite is coming on-line with "one meter resolution". One meter resolution indicates that the smallest pixel (detail) that can be seen is 1 meter by 1 meter while the film clearly suggests that the satellite has enough resolution to see Dean running. Assuming you would need at least "web-cam" resolution (75 pixels-per-inch), the satellite resolution would need to be roughly 2,800 times higher than one meter (38 inches x 75 pixels per inch = 2,850).
However, the full text is "one meter res grid frame", which is not equal to the image resolution. It suggests that the camera is able to zoom in to 1 x 1 meter. At a typical resolution of the period, this would make a single pixel about 1/8" or 3 mm in size, which is more or less the minimal resolution you would need to read a license plate. In the period, that was military-grade technology only.
- Citas
Robert Clayton Dean: What the hell is happening?
Brill: I blew up the building.
Robert Clayton Dean: Why?
Brill: Because you made a phone call.
- Versiones alternativasAlso available in an "Unrated Extended Edition" which features some new/extended footage (ca. 7 minutes) like some explicit shots of the senator with his secretary or Dean finding his dead ex-girlfriend covered in blood.
- ConexionesEdited into 24: 12:00 a.m.-1:00 a.m. (2001)
- Bandas sonorasO Come All Ye Faithful
(Also known as "Adeste Fidelis")
Music attributed to John Reading (uncredited)
Arranged by Margaret Dorn, Linda Lawley, Danny Pelfrey
Performed by The Accidentals
Courtesy of Amusicom Records
Selecciones populares
Inicia sesión para calificar y agrega a la lista de videos para obtener recomendaciones personalizadas
Detalles
- Fecha de lanzamiento
- País de origen
- Idiomas
- También se conoce como
- Enemy of the State
- Locaciones de filmación
- 1633 Connecticut Avenue Northwest, Washington, Columbia, Estados Unidos(Zavitz gets hit by a car)
- Productoras
- Ver más créditos de la compañía en IMDbPro
Taquilla
- Presupuesto
- USD 90,000,000 (estimado)
- Total en EE. UU. y Canadá
- USD 111,549,836
- Fin de semana de estreno en EE. UU. y Canadá
- USD 20,038,573
- 22 nov 1998
- Total a nivel mundial
- USD 250,849,789
- Tiempo de ejecución
- 2h 12min(132 min)
- Color
- Mezcla de sonido
- Relación de aspecto
- 2.39 : 1
Contribuir a esta página
Sugiere una edición o agrega el contenido que falta






