Claysaba Excellent, Without a doubt!!

Kaelan Mccaffrey Like the great film, it's made with a great deal of visible affection both in front of and behind the camera.

Lucia Ayala It's simply great fun, a winsome film and an occasionally over-the-top luxury fantasy that never flags.

Paynbob It’s fine. It's literally the definition of a fine movie. You’ve seen it before, you know every beat and outcome before the characters even do. Only question is how much escapism you’re looking for.

kylopod It's quite an experience watching a movie that you haven't seen since childhood. Your memories of the film are filtered through an innocent perspective you no longer possess, and as you watch the film again you're struck by how different it looks to you now, even as the memories flood back.Some of my favorite films from childhood, like "The Neverending Story," have not stood up well as I've grown older. Others, I've found, have been enhanced by my adult perspective. "Cloak & Dagger" falls in the latter category. Interestingly, my overall opinion of the film has not changed. Back in 1984, I perceived it as a good but not great film. I still perceive it that way.At age seven, I enjoyed how the movie blurred the line between fantasy and reality. That's one of the techniques that make for good children's movies, the recognition that a child's fantasy life can feel as real as anything else happening around him. And movies in which the child's fantasies literally come true seem like vindication to young viewers.Henry Thomas of "E.T." fame plays a youngster mourning his mother's death by escaping into a fantasy world of adventure games. He has an imaginary friend called Jack Flack, a suave super-spy with a passing resemblance to the boy's father (Dabney Coleman, in a wonderful dual role). The father, a hardened Air Force pilot, loves his son but wants him to grow up, telling him that real heroes are those who put food on the table, not those who go around shooting people. That may seem a harsh thing to say to a child, but the boy does appear to be having psychological problems, unable to distinguish between fantasy and reality even though he's old enough to know the difference. So when he witnesses the actual murder of an FBI agent, who slips him a video game cartridge right before dying, the boy is the last person anyone will believe. He knows the murderers will be after him next, but how will he get his dad to believe him soon enough to stay home from work the next day?What's nice about the film is the seamless way it combines the conventions of adult thrillers and children's adventures. The child as the murder witness whom no one will believe is a setup that would have made Hitchcock proud. I'm sure the filmmakers realized the connection, for there are many nods to Hitchcock, including a visual allusion to "Vertigo" as the murder victim plummets down a long stairway, and a plot that combines elements of "Rear Window" and "North by Northwest." Like the latter, the movie greatly exploits its locale. Viewers who have been to San Antonio will recognize many of the places, including the River Walk, the setting for a unique chase scene.Then there is the MacGuffin of the "Cloak & Dagger" cartridge itself, a special copy containing information important to the bad guys (whom the kid perceives to be spies, but who may simply be mobsters). The Atari game looks quite primitive today, and the scenes in which the boy calls upon his geek friend (William Forsythe) to crack the code will probably not impress those who take interest in computer espionage. But that hardly matters. The filmmakers understand, as Hitchcock did, that the MacGuffin is there only to move the plot along, and is not independently important.As the boy evades the villains, Jack Flack keeps appearing and giving him kernels of advice. Although we realize that Flack won't say anything the boy doesn't already know, he helps the boy keep his calm and use his ingenuity to defeat some dangerous men, while gradually learning he doesn't need an imaginary friend. This isn't like "Home Alone" where the villains are portrayed as cartoon idiots. The movie takes its relatively uncomplicated plot seriously and manages to make some sense, without feeling manufactured. While it doesn't pretend to be realistic, it does grow out of the basic truth that adults don't take kids as seriously as they should.The movie also confirms, once again, that Henry Thomas was one of the best child actors of all time. A lesser actor could have easily sunk this movie, as indeed Christina Nigra, playing the girl next door, almost does. She is cute, but can't act to save her life. Thomas never feels like he's acting, and as a result we almost can believe in the absurd events even when we watch the movie as adults, long having set aside our own childhood fantasies.

TVFreak1010 It was commented by another reviewer that the movie should have been rated PG-13 due to the violence of the movie. However, it should be pointed out that the PG-13 rating had just been created the year this movie was released and the definitions of content were still a bit loose between PG and PG-13. Therefore, movies that should have been rated PG-13 were still being released as PG (Beetlejuice being one example) for some time after it's creation.That being said, the PG rating is defined as follows: Rated PG Parental Guidance Suggested—Some Material May Not Be Suitable For Pre-Teenagers That's a very loose definition and certainly doesn't imply a movie is meant for young children.PG-13 doesn't prohibit children under 13 from seeing a particular movie (even alone). It alters the definition to the following: Rated PG-13: Parents are strongly cautioned to give special guidance for attendance of children under 13 Either one seems to fit the content. Younger children may find some of the deaths disturbing (there are something like 10 of them - though some are a bit more surreal than others). Henry Thomas's character does act disturbed by some of them, which may lend empathy to the viewer.Like any movie where there is some violence, I would view this along with your children, rather than allow them to see it alone.

mara-mirax Short and sweet: I loved this movie as a kid--now I'm an adult and I still love it. Yes, the computers and games are horribly dated. Heck, my computer from two years ago is horribly dated. That doesn't change the fact that this is a solid, exciting movie which is appropriate for most school-age children without being dumb or talking down to them. I know there's nostalgia involved in this, but kids movies have gone downhill since the '80's. We had The NeverEnding Story, Labyrinth, The Dark Crystal, The Secret of Nimh, The Goonies, Cloak & Dagger...what do kids today have? See Spot Run. ANYWAY, this is a good movie, your kids will probably like it (if only to see what video games were like in the dark ages) and you'll like it, too.

wsst Don't be mislead by the fact that some adults remember this movie fondly. It is really horrible with bad adult acting, bad child acting, bad bit-part acting, bad wardrobe, bad directing, bad plot development and a horrible film score that would be more appropriate for one of those ABC Afterschool Specials.Obsolete Atari 8-bit computers and games are prominently featured, which might make it slightly interesting in a retro way. Due to the speed of computer development, this movie is tied to the early 1980's. So it might be interesting from a retro point of view. Also you can see Louie Anderson doing an awful job in a bit part.If you live in San Antonio, or visit it you might find it interesting to see the city in 1984. Scenes were shot on the riverwalk, on riverboats, at the Tower Life building and inside and outside the Alamo. (How did the Daughter of the Republic of Texas let them in there?) On the river are the old wooden boats of the 1960 through early 1990's and the now long gone paddle boats which people used to be able to rent.Unless you are a fan of bad movies, 1980's retro or want to see San Antonio in the 1980's I suggest that this movie is not worth the time to watch it at any price.