Takedown

Historical accuracy: 3 Acting: 6 Camera work: 4 Editing: 5 Budget: 4 Story: 6 Theme: 5 Pure entertainment factor: 6 Video quality: 5 Special effects: NA Pacing: 6 Suspension of disbelief: 3 Non-cringe factor: 5 Lack of flashbacks: 10

It's not a good movie as such. It's engaging enough with decent acting and a plot that always advances, but it's messy and cheap movie making. Firstly, I have read Mitnick's book and watched the doc. The doc had some weird scenes and was dirt cheap, but overall a good watch and the audiobook was very fun.

This is not really what happened. This is a story from a point of view of a guy who claims he caught him. He didn't of course. And while watching the movie it will be quite clear that it's nearly fully fictional. The super hacker, who is here better than Mitnick, can do no wrong. He has a hot horny blonde girlfriend, mocks political figures openly, works with FBI, has his own company it seems. He's like a superhero of sorts and Mitnick is this weird criminal hacker. A loner who was forced to leave his girlfriend as FBI was after him. His girlfriend starts dating his best friend instead. In a dating scene he mocks the woman he asked out. He acts weird and creepily and overall the great danger he presents is because he steals this super powerful program from the guy who is now chasing him. Apparently it can hack into ANY system whatsoever. FBI, airports, hospitals. Anything. Obviously this movie is nearly pure fiction and a narcissistic product.

Actually, the best scenes are the ones where we experience realistic events like Mitnick tricking his way into companies, hacking a phone to make free calls, talking about the morals of hacking, hacking the people chasing him, being easily offended. But largely the movie tries to be over the top. The camera work is shoddy and rushed, the hacking scenes cringe. Overall the plot is confusing. The guy chasing him somehow always tracks him down yet we never clearly understand how. And many scenes are plastered in. There is clearly a script and plot here yet the movie is recut by someone besides the director because much of it makes no sense with scenes just appearing and explaining very little.

It's actually watchable and semi-enjoyable. It's not boring as such and I guess one could watch it. But it looks very cheap, the plot is nonsense, and the editing makes it a giant mess. I feel like there is a great story here that could be made. Just focus on the small hacking stuff and social engineering. Keep it realistic. This is why I think some people enjoyed it enough as you could imagine how it could have been good. It's not, but at least it's not dull. There are not many hacker movies out there and most are quite horrible. This at least is perplexingly not awful. Which is something I guess.

To be honest I watched this film purely for the fact that I am very interested in Hacker Culture/History.. and to my dismay, this film is far from the truth. However it does have its good sides.. it's portrayal of hacking itself and of people with an over-enthusiastic interest in computing for one. Where other hacker-orientated Hollywood movies show flashy tron-like graphics to depict gaining root on a system, Takedown shows you how it is. And the other good thing about this movie is just that... its a movie. If you ignore the fact that the majority of its plot is based on biased views from people who either disliked Kevin, or never even knew him, it's watchable. It contains all the aspects of a Hollywood movie that grab the viewer.. an original topic, a fast moving storyline, a so-called criminal that you really feel sorry for, an unjust American legal system, and a so-called victim who is just as bad as the depicted criminal. If you can easily switch off, this film is for you, but if you care about freedom of information, moral values and the fact that everyone has the right to a fair trial... go watch Freedom Downtime.

I know all about the Mitnick story, the "Free Kevin", the story from both sides. I'm well aware how the hacking scene thinks this paints an unfair portrait of hackers. Compared to what is usually painted, this doesn't really paint them too bad. Compared to the really atrocious movie "Hackers", this does a lot better at showing what hacking is really like. You don't hack with a Mac, you hack from a PC in different ways. You get to also see the other try & true techiques of Social Engineering & Dumpster Diving. While any true hacker could point out the blatant lies in the movie (Mitnick & Shimomura never met in person until after the arrest), it was cool that the film made some clear distinctions in terminology. If this movie showed actual hacking, it would of been a snoozer. This was able to keep it a bit more interesting without making it look cheesy to the semiliterate computer user. It's funny how this won't appear in the United States, maybe the US Government is afraid of the truth about how afterwards Mitnick was stripped of his constitutional rights. Watch this film, and be entertained, but don't believe it, as most of it is really fiction.

Not arguing technical details or realism, I feel what is presented in this movie is an all-too black and white picture of hackers, or "Crackers", as the hero refers to them. Great pains are taken to portray Kevin Mitnick as a temper-prone, reactionary, asocial neurotic, with nuances of sexual dysfunctionality thrown in as well. Whereas, the hero (Tsutomu Shimomura)comes off as being the shiniest star in the sky.

I would say this general portrayal is unfair, and nearly propagandistic in its intent. The movie really becomes a base for expounding the moral issues of hacking and 'freedom of information' in a society that survives on security. It is a clear warning, and it does NOT favor hacking or hackers.

I am appalled by that, because a more open picture of both sides might have been painted. "Hackers" brought the world to the standards of today, and daily test the security and limits of it... likewise, "programmers" continue to strive for safety, but also encrypt for greed, control, power, and politics. It is not all back and white.

Either a hacker OR a programmer are capable of accidentally, or intentionally creating havoc in a real world of banking, traffic lights, airports, and defense systems, although the chances seem less with programmers (unless you know about "The Singularity").

All I am saying is that this movie is VERY biased against hackers, it allows them NO redeemable social attributes, and it radically stereotypes them. It is intended to PERSUADE you. THAT, I regard as a THREAT to my own individual freedom of thought, and when you cross that line... alarms go off.

BEWARE of this if you haven't seen this movie yet.

Did "Big Brother" produce this film? ("Big Brother" is a reference to George Orwell's novel "1984") Regardless, the movie has good detail within a fast-moving and captivating plot.

Lastly, NO, I am NOT pro-hacker oriented. Mitnick is clearly a criminal with a long record of convictions dating all the way back to 1981... but, I don't like being told what, or how, to think about a whole class of people.

Stumbled upon TAKEDOWN's listing here on IMDB.com and had to check it out: I'd read Markoff and Shimomura's book back in grad school and thought it was okay (digression: there's a lot of debate in the hacker community about which book covers the Mitnick case best, and many say Markoff and Shimomura's book is extremely one-sided; Mitnick is guilty of nothing more than breaking into several large corporation's servers and poking around, trying out their code, they say. Whether this is a real crime, I leave that up to you dear reader).

As for TAKEDOWN, the movie: most flicks about computers teeter on one end or the other of the Reality Scale: they are either boring -- afterall, it's just a person typing at a computer -- or way too fantastical for anyone who's used any flavor of Unix to take seriously (e.g., THE MATRIX or the last HACKERS movie). TAKEDOWN straddles the line somewhere in the middle -- and admirably so.

What TAKEDOWN does very well is show the process of social engineering, e.g., talking someone into thinking you're someone you're not to get information. Mitnick mastered this skill. The real crux of TAKEDOWN, though, is the showdown between the two egos of Mitnick and Shimomura (bravo to Russell Wong -- wow, if Shimo really is that much of an arrogant jerk, I can see why he got under Mitnick's skin so much).

Skeet Ulrich is often called the Poor Man's Johnny Depp, but here's a role that was made for him. Joe Chappelle's direction is crisp and keeps the action tense. Minor complaint: The editor should have chilled out a bit though -- man, do we really need all those quick, jarring cuts? I supposed they were trying to make using a computer look interesting, cool and non-boring.

Overall, if you're into hacking, subcultures, law enforcement and computer crime, you should check this one out. It's too bad no one's seen this -- it must have been released direct-to-video; I don't even remember seeing ads in the paper for it.

P.S. keep an eye out for a brief appearance by Amanda Peet in a telling scene that hints at the REAL source of Mitnick's problems: LACK OF SOCIAL SKILLS!