Boring

Blistering performances.

The movie turns out to be a little better than the average. Starting from a romantic formula often seen in the cinema, it ends in the most predictable (and somewhat bland) way.

The film's masterful storytelling did its job. The message was clear. No need to overdo.

Without going deep into the the story I can say that if you want to know about the real world under your computer and the privacy that never been out there you're In the right place. The movie Takedown will show you a small piece of hacking in the past and maybe the name "history of hacking" can be correct too.you can find some of the items from the movie in the spy-shops around so in my opinion just for the knowledge the movie must be seen. In the movie there are some point who are too stuck ,and some time there is no point for long focus in one position. I can see by the movie the vision of the creator ,and he did understand the story and the "How" not like many times in movies without any contact to the reality ,however he failed in focusing too much on the technology and mess the option to show how really hacker feel against and from the authorities.Enjoy

The technologies used and shown in the movie are accurate. This movie is much better then Hackers where ridiculous 3D and CGI are passed off as hacking. As a fellow geek I enjoyed watching this. We all know that Kevin is innocent, so basing your viewing experience on the fact that your watching something based on a true story is absurd. I found myself relating on many levels with Skeet's character, Kevin. The idea's and philosophies correctly portray the ideals of many hackers, even today. Information does belong to the world. This movie gets it right in the sense that it shows the perspectives that most hackers share. This movie is worth owning and is a must have for any geek or information security professional.

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.

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.