Odelecol Pretty good movie overall. First half was nothing special but it got better as it went along.

Curapedi I cannot think of one single thing that I would change about this film. The acting is incomparable, the directing deft, and the writing poignantly brilliant.

Chirphymium It's entirely possible that sending the audience out feeling lousy was intentional

InformationRap This is one of the few movies I've ever seen where the whole audience broke into spontaneous, loud applause a third of the way in.

Ian Right! My thoughts after an hour...Derivative, predictable drivel. Psycho gets control of a smart home, monitors family - gosh, that's original! - hacks into computer system, etc, etc, etc. The authorities don't believe it. Ring any bells? It should ring a whole campanile!But if you can stick it out for an hour, it actually, amazingly starts to get more interesting. Although still largely predictable, with the obvious 'hero' stupid moves, and with more script Uh Ohs than you really want.Any attempt at redemption after an hour eventually dissolves into a hackneyed, cliched story line. Poor writing.Having said that, if you like this sort of movie, it's as good - or as bad as any! But do yourself a favour and watch a Pierce Brosnan James Bond rerun! And because or Pierce, I just can't bring myself to give it 1*!But hey - I watch these things so you don't have to!

Joshreynolds-47 I loved this film. In the sense that the acting was OK, the writing was good (Ish) and the general plot was entertaining.Why 3/10? Because of the lack of any police use. Nobody called the police when he kept turning up to family events. The police didn't catch him doing any of the hacking stuff.He doesn't call in IT people to fix his house or phone.Just the lack of common sense from the protagonist annoyed me despite the rest of the film being half decent.

secondtake I.T. (2016)A typical modern thriller with a strong (and typical) performance by Pierce Brosnan as a wealthy businessman. He's painted as a good guy, with a loving wife and slightly rebellious but nice enough teenage daughter.They live in a modern rich house with the latest in "smart" appliances, so the shower and the windows and video cameras are all controlled through computers, which are connected by internet. Enter the I.T. expert who is asked (without any background check at all) to enter this guy's house and tinker with the system which is wonky. And to ogle the daughter, who he begins to admire, and then stalk. It gets ugly from there. If only the actor playing the villain were half as evil as he wishes he was--he's a big flaw in all the suspense.Lots of predictable buttons are pushed—the angry father, the demonic mind of the criminal, and the many screens and portable devices that can show pictures in fancy ways. It's all pretty good stuff, but never quite as inventive or scary or even as visually chilling as it could have been. One flaw, for example, is the key soft porn scene that was supposedly captured by a tablet on a table, and yet it is shows like normal cinematography with a variety of camera shots and perfect clarity, etc. There are lots of little opportunities lost here, but Brosnan is a decent version of the angry father out for justice. Not as sensational as the Liam Neesan type in recent movies, and more believable. With some computer spying tricks that keep it all interesting along the way.

rrider92131 This is a bizarre movie -- for reasons few will notice. It's a thriller about a wealthy man who founded and is CEO of a big private jet manufacturing company. Quite rich, Brosnan gets entangled with a deranged computer hacker working as an I.T. temp in his company. It's perhaps a mediocre movie, but I was transfixed by the tale.You see, this wealthy CEO -- seeking to make much more money by taking the company public -- was the GOOD GUY. His employees really liked him, and they had a great working relationship.I can't recall the last movie I watched where a profit-seeking wealthy person was the hero. I kept expecting his fatal capitalist flaw to appear -- uncontrollable greed, yada, yada, yada. It didn't happen.(Yeah, Bruce Wayne was wealthy, but never do you hear him discussing making more money. Just giving his daddy's money away, making more Batman toys -- and living large.)I'm not necessarily recommending the movie to you, but perhaps it's worth seeing JUST for this "man bites dog" reason. It's a reminder that it's not ABSOLUTELY necessary for movie makers to always portray rich people as villains.One thing's for sure -- it won't start a trend in movies. Not a chance.