Customer Reviews
Total pap - steer clear - By: Mitya, 07 Feb 2008 
I was thinking how I might best deliver the vitriol & contempt I hold for this film. Fortunately the previous reviewer has provided me with so many points which aren't true that I think I'll just address them one by one & save myself having to think about review structure or stylistics.
2) Travolta is neither good nor bad but shouldn't have been in this film at alll - there's no particularly solid acting on his part & his lines contain nothing you'll remember after watching.
3) Hallle Berry is nauseous & needless, there only as totty. The scene with her in her underwear where she grabs the gun is just painful. Is there any man on the planet who finds the combination of scantily-clad women with guns enticing? Berry can act but her tired femme-fatale role here smothers her & gives her no room to - the part is throw-away.
4) Cheadle - he's alright. Standard pissed-off-detective-in-a-brown-suit jobbie. Unfortunately he's asked to do one of the film's silliest scenes (and there's a few) where he & his colleagues decided to chase Jackman down a huge steep hill, a lengthy plunge which would either end in death or at least paralysis. All for the crime of... breaking parole terms. Realistic or what?
5) Hugh Jackman is probably the least likely programmer in the world. Does anyone know a programmer who looks like that? They could at least have got someone who could type fast - the frequent close-up shots of him hammering away on keyboards look like they didn't even bother to train him up - he just bashes away & you can tell he types one finger at a time reallly. Remember Boris from Golden Eye? THERE'S someone who can play a hacker. Jackman instead reminds me of Ted Striker from Airplane - mock serious, not actuallly serious.
8) Not formulaic? It couldn't be more so. The plot is dull and, but for a few exceptions, predictable. The action is both unlikely (Travolta single handedly taking out 6 FBI 4*4s with his gun; strange how the cops never think to stop following if he's that good a shot or perhaps get out & shoot) & for action's sake.
9) Vinnie. What WERE you thinking? You play the type of Brit that Americans think roams London. His lines, clearly written by an American who thinks he's well up on British gangster speak, are badly delivered & make you wonder where that suave, cool but frightening figure from Lock Stock & Snatch has gone.
And there's other niggly things, most of which relating to the fact that, it would seem, they didn't actuallly hire any people with knowledge of computers or hacking to advise on the film.
What is it with computers in Hollywood films using non-existent operating systems? All these bank authentication systems in films use wonderfully animated front-ends & flash "access denied!" in big red letters. Someone should point out to them that Linux is free license.
Travolta's line "the best hackers in the world can do this in 60 minutes - I need someone who can do it in 60 seconds", unwisely chosen for the trailer, is also naff. As a programmer myself I can say that if something takes 60 minutes to program then that's because there's a lot to set up. Scripts, modules, server config - etc. The idea you could do it in 60 seconds or even 10 minutes is therefore rubbish. Sorry if I'm being geeky but, hey, is it a serious film about hacking or not?
Jackman, after hacking something, is asked by starry-eyed onlookers "how DID you do that??", to which he painfully replies "I don't know - I just see the code in my head". This isn't music, guys, or impressionist painting - this is coding (the other half of your brain). You don't see code - it's a matter of logic, algebra and, often, trial & error.
All in alll, give it a miss, unless you want a no-brainer with some explosions.
Tricksy wellmade thriller - By: Eve, 25 Jan 2008 
Possibly the best first 8 minutes I've seen in a long while kick this off. The club scene, wrong but weirdly sexy.
Other reviews have told you the outline so as with many of my reviews I won't bother!
You will need to pay attention to the plot to or you will end up wondering what the hell is going on. Yes the hacking is very movie style but it keeps the action skipping along. The club scene, wrong but weirdly sexy.
Jackman, Berry & Cheadle handle themselves very well.
I was less convinced with Travolta. It's so hard to play bad guys with charm & not seem like you're overplaying it..so it loses a star.
You may like it if you enjoyed Hackers & felt it needed prettier people & more guns or enjoyed the look of Gone in 60 Seconds but felt it needed an actual story.
Brilliant Film - By: R. Gilchrist, 08 Dec 2007 Hugh Jackman is just georgous in this film...this is definately one of his best films.
Travolta is a egomanic who wants to rid the world of terrorists, but doing things the hard way. He employs Jackman a reformed computer hacker to hack into the worlds wealth to finance his reign of terror.
Music throughout is by Paul Oakenfold & is great. Hallle Berry is great in this film & it does have an interesting twist at the end..
Would reallly recommend this film to buy as you will watch it again.
Reallly good film to watch.
Love a good film like this. - By: Butters, 10 Jul 2007 Thought this film was reallly great. I reallly enjoyed it as it was intense at times & throughout it, this happens very rarely to me i have to be honest, I was wanting to watch it alll the way to the end.
The baddies are the goodies in this film - By: Jay, 01 Jul 2007 
Not a great movie but has enough to entertain. That said, there were some decent ideas behind the silly stuff, (unneeded & poorly produced fluff such as:bad explosion scenes, still more of a reach with ideas which would not be practical in furthering the ideas & goals of the primary character, John Travolta. So while the movie reallly has too many poorly produced, unbelievable, & unnecessary scenes, which seem out of place at times, the primary objective of the main character, is logical.
The idea behind not taking any crap from terrorists in order to rid the world of them is on it's own a good idea. Fight a hijacked plane by taking out an airport. Kill American civilians, we will use tactical nukes. This particular theme reallly does make sense. How to fight the war on terror? According to John Travolta, beat the living daylights out of them, BIG TIME. Recalll history for a moment. When the smalll A bombs used to devastate Nagasaki & Hiroshima in WW 2 produced a surrender immediately, we see today, the very real possibility of the same thing happening. Travolta needs money to fight on the right side. So, he gets it by hacking his way in to the billions he needs. In steps Hugh Jackman, one of, if not, the worlds best Hacker.. The money that Travolta, (the Brain behind the process) wants, is lying dormant from a fund that was simply gathering nothing but a great amount of interest. Enough interest in 15 years to catch Travolta's eye. Jackman is forcibly coerced to hack, even though he has been caught & is followed by the FBI. Jackman doesn't want the job, he does want his daughter who lives with the Mother. We find Jackman as a confused yet brilliant at what he does.best, hack into the most secure institutions. In this case it's the Dept of Defense. Or so it would seem. That reallly doesn't matter too much, suffice to say Jackman & his genius are needed to get the funds produced in the interest baring account which after after 15 years totals $9 Billion. So the war on terror being fought by Travolta's ideals & his genius at getting the money needed to fight is reallly worth some thought. To add to that, we are now so worried about our own individual safety when it comes to buying something on the Internet or even giving a credit card to a local merchant. This is another worthwhile premise that is brought to the forefront as well as some other very worthy themes that actuallly confront us even more today than when this film was done, prey 9/11.
Swordfish could have been much better as Hallle Berry & most other characters reallly seem to be there to fill in with the usual sex & violence. Actuallly, when referring to a headliner like Berry, we might expect more, but it's not to be. Silly looking crash scenes, Buses taken airborne, inexplicable reasons for what Travolta terms, "misdirection" just serve to confuse or at best let the viewer think for themselves. Well, whenever a movie like this one is saying ' just what is misdirection & what is real in order to render a better plot, it's OK. However, we are simply left wondering about this person or that incident. These "misdirection's" obviously play a key role in how Travolta gets away with what he does, but the confusion, the wherefore, the how, why & when are never introduced. They simply confuse an already disjointed picture. Many times the viewer will most definitely say, " what is that, or who is that? What are they doing there, Aren't they supposed to be here? It goes on that way. So be it.
Presume for a moment that this film took itself seriously. Great attention paid to detail (not available in present state), much more attention paid to computers & hacking, identity theft, divorce & custody, the war on terrorism & how to fight it & more. Swordfish does cover these themes. The subject matter, the themes suggested above, if taken much more seriously & then turned out by some top writing, well, this movie reallly could have been top notch. Sorry to say however, this edition of Swordfish gives us very little if any of these very important yet extremely entertaining issues.
