I.T.

I never came to the theater with great expectations of this one. It just follows an already known path and delivers nothing special to be remembered for. The acting is on a similar level, maybe the antagonist stood out a bit more than the others, but not by a huge margin.

The plot was linear and did not offer very much to begin with. It had some illogical things happening too. Felt rushed to me. The ending was unsatisfying and did not provide much to complete the movie.

Something was missing between the first act of the movie and the second act - the transition was not smooth. The story of the antagonist was given out so lamely that it made exhale more air than usual... It could've been done better. Everything could have been done better, might've ended with an okay movie to spend some time on.

Unsettling movie. 6/10 (I mainly rate movies from 5 to 10 so this is really low for me)

It sounds interesting enough: Pierce Brosnan plays an airline tycoon who accidentally befriends the wrong dude, namely one of his IT guys, Patrick who becomes obsessed with becoming a part of his life (or rather obsessed with getting into his daughter Kaitlyn's), and when he tries to get rid off him, this guy turns their smart house against them, and shows them the absolute horrors of what it means to be online all the time.

It's a story that I've seen million times before, and despite this possibly being the first time I've seen the story done in this era of all smart phones having a camera and everyone on social media (but I'm sure there exist a another movie that has done that before this one), the story itself is predictable and unimaginative enough that it overshadows the updated concept.

Pierce Brosnan is very good in a really bad movie. I'm not sure what that really means. Usually when an actor is driving a crap vehicle, it only showcases what a great driver the actor can be, but in this case the vehicle was too crappy to actually do that. It evens out for both somewhere in the middle.

Not the worse movie in the world, just a very weak attempt at an old cliché.

I find it curious those that state this is the same formula of person doesn't turn out who you think they are that's been done so many times in Hollywood. I disagree. (I personally think the age of the person writing the review should be included so as to tell the maturity level of the reviewer so that one knows when reading their review just how much to put in to the value of said review).

I found this movie quite good. One reviewer said they didn't like Brosnan's accent. Really? Check fact it for yourself...it's his native tongue. He's Irish. That was my first hint of the level of maturity of some of the reviewers. Someone who doesn't know the actors enough to even know where they are from. Top that off with not even looking his bio up before critiquing his "accent" in their review. (Sad to think that this is journalist current trends - who needs to check anything out before writing about it). Take it from me, bypass the 5 star or less reviews and watch the movie.

The story is a cautionary tale. Not for the persons in their 50's and older. The caution is for the immature viewers thinking this was far fetched and it might possibly could happen. Oh, it can. It has happened and will continue to happen. I bet there is not one reviewer who marked this movie at 5 or less that thinks something like this could ever happen to them because they are smarter then the average psycho. Think again and think long and hard about it. The easiest prey are those who think it will never happen to them and do no safeguarding. You know the type, they walk around with their face in a smartphone, never paying attention to who's watching them.

I feel sorry for those who don't heed the warning this movie sends. Is there Hollywood fluff in this movie? Why yes, there is. How else could you market a movie that didn't have the bells and whistles? There always has to be the bells and whistles so that those who keep their faces glued to their smartphones get their wiz bang entertainment factor. Heaven knows there can't be a total cerebral content movie because that wouldn't satisfy the "Peanut Gallery" (don't know what that is, well if you don't then you are part of this group and it doesn't mean you have a very high IQ).

For those who are mature enough to understand the message this movie sends, well I am more then sure you will enjoy it like I did. I thought all of the actors did a very good job but most of all Mr. Brosnan and James Frecheville. Frecheville portrayed the psychopath that can scare without any violence for the majority of the movie. Enjoy. I know I did.

Could have been a good movie. But a movie with a crime plot, cyber and law subplots shouldn't get all the details wrong. Errors included citing the wrong constitutional amendments and using the wrong law enforcement agencies. Although the acting was pretty good, the characters actions were counter-intuitive, thus creating distance between the characters and the audience. As a result, the movie quickly grew implausible and therefore tedious. They needed better technical consultants and tighter writing. Perhaps a little research before finalizing the script would have uncovered the errors. We deserve better.

This film tells the story of a successful businessman, who hires a young man good at information technology. When the businessman wants to set boundaries with his young employee, things quickly sour and turn dangerous.

I think this story reminds us of the dangers of sharing too much on the internet. It is a fairly convincing story of how cyber stalking occurs and just how scary it can be. What I don't understand is why the businessman initially invites the employee to have a drink but subsequently wants to set a boundary. This minor inconsistency could have been easily rectified, and the story would have been even more tight and convincing. At the current state, "I.T." is still a good thriller that keeps me interested throughout.