Un avvocato viene preso di mira da un politico corrotto quando riceve accidentalmente prove chiave per un crimine politicamente motivato.Un avvocato viene preso di mira da un politico corrotto quando riceve accidentalmente prove chiave per un crimine politicamente motivato.Un avvocato viene preso di mira da un politico corrotto quando riceve accidentalmente prove chiave per un crimine politicamente motivato.
- Regia
- Sceneggiatura
- Star
- Premi
- 5 vittorie e 16 candidature totali
Recensioni in evidenza
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.
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 . . .
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...
I remember when this came out and how much it freaked people out. Could we really be living in such a surveillance state? Could the government really be monitoring us whenever they want?
Well, over 20 years later and... Yeah, that's probably all true and then some. Still, this was a fun movie with a compelling enough story, solid acting and a surprisingly deep cast of comedians playing serious computer nerds.
Biggest downside to me was the tech itself. Movies of this nature can't help themselves from reaching into the nonsense handbag and pulling out things like the "zoom and enhance" cliché or the ability to tell exactly where someone is at all times with pinpoint accuracy among others.
Dated though it may be, this was still a pretty enjoyable watch. I'd say it's worth checking out if you have it streaming somewhere.
Well, over 20 years later and... Yeah, that's probably all true and then some. Still, this was a fun movie with a compelling enough story, solid acting and a surprisingly deep cast of comedians playing serious computer nerds.
Biggest downside to me was the tech itself. Movies of this nature can't help themselves from reaching into the nonsense handbag and pulling out things like the "zoom and enhance" cliché or the ability to tell exactly where someone is at all times with pinpoint accuracy among others.
Dated though it may be, this was still a pretty enjoyable watch. I'd say it's worth checking out if you have it streaming somewhere.
This is a pretty good flick that I caught at the time in my room at the Pittsburgh Hilton. A really good cast helps it along, aided by a very small but effective (if not completely soaked in sweat) role from Tom Sizemore. What really gets me now is what followed in the few years after its' release. The motivation for the story is the ruthless push by the NSA to get approval for a bill that would allow them to spy on anyone at anytime using any method they deem necessary with unilateral and total approval issued by the NSA itself. Little did we know at the time that just a few years later President George W. Bush would do that very thing, with a nice, catchy, flag waving title. We all know it by its' minuteman moniker - The Patriot Act.
Lo sapevi?
- QuizGene 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-Independence Day (1996) bargain price because he wanted to work with Hackman.
- BlooperWhen 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.
- Citazioni
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.
- Versioni alternativeAlso 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.
- ConnessioniEdited into 24: 12:00 a.m.-1:00 a.m. (2001)
- Colonne sonoreO 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
I più visti
Accedi per valutare e creare un elenco di titoli salvati per ottenere consigli personalizzati
- How long is Enemy of the State?Powered by Alexa
- is Gene Hackman playing the same character from The Conversation?
- What is 'Enemy of the State' about?
- Is 'Enemy of the State' based on a book?
Dettagli
- Data di uscita
- Paese di origine
- Lingue
- Celebre anche come
- Enemigo público
- Luoghi delle riprese
- 1633 Connecticut Avenue Northwest, Washington, District of Columbia, Stati Uniti(Zavitz gets hit by a car)
- Aziende produttrici
- Vedi altri crediti dell’azienda su IMDbPro
Botteghino
- Budget
- 90.000.000 USD (previsto)
- Lordo Stati Uniti e Canada
- 111.549.836 USD
- Fine settimana di apertura Stati Uniti e Canada
- 20.038.573 USD
- 22 nov 1998
- Lordo in tutto il mondo
- 250.849.789 USD
- Tempo di esecuzione2 ore 12 minuti
- Colore
- Mix di suoni
- Proporzioni
- 2.39 : 1
Contribuisci a questa pagina
Suggerisci una modifica o aggiungi i contenuti mancanti
Divario superiore
What was the official certification given to Nemico pubblico (1998) in Japan?
Rispondi