Slashdot Mirror
Antitrust
Jon's Review (continued from above)
Some day, a great movie will be made about the Microsoft era, about the arrogance and predations of Bill Gates' monumental power snatch, and the resulting hacker revolution that spawned the open source and free software movements and rocked corporate America.
But the idea that Antitrust is it, or even comes close, is a hustle. Watching a Hollywood studio take the open source idea and infuse it with one stupid line, cliched and inane plot twist after another, and try to turn it into a contemporary thriller, is mildly entertaining for about 10 minutes. But that can't mask the fact that Antitrust doesn't work, either as pop history or, more importantly, as a movie.
Antitrust is the first attempt by Hollywood to capture the genuine drama that occurred in the '80s and '90s when Gates and Microsoft very nearly monopolized the entire software industry, thus the Net and the Web. The media fawned and the government looked the other way for years, even as evidence mounted that rapacious business practices were out of control and the less-than-best possible software was all the public could buy.
It's also the first major movie to introduce the non-tech public to the idea of open source, and in a positive, if confusing and not particularly intelligent way.
Insofar as Gates got reined in at all, it was initially by a motley band of teenagers and older hackers and coders around the world who worked collaboratively -- sometimes for fun, sometimes for idealistic reasons -- to develop alternative programs and operating systems.
That's a pretty dramatic story. Moviemakers are under no obligation to render it literally, with technical accuracy, or even faithfully, but neither should they get away with concocting something this lame.
Perhaps MGM is banking on the fact that the movie is more or less technically accurate (the producers hired hackers as consultants); therefore, maybe for the first time in movie history. But the resulting almost-patronizing Open Source blabber and technical fireworks don't cut it.
Consider the film's conceit, for instance, that one of the ways the evil corporation NURV ("Never Underestimate Radical Vision") stays competitive is to use hidden video cameras to spy on the keyboards of all the smart young programmers in the world and feed their discoveries into a central network -- hidden in a day care center. They then commit their perfidy to videotape, and leave the evidence in non-encrypted, accessible files. That's only one example of the screenplay's foolishness.
Here's another: The geeks, male and female, may be work obsessed, but they are all gorgeous (with a couple of gorgeous girlfriends) and all from Stanford. They are all, as it happens, OS idealists working on a media delivery system as a gift to the world (although they seek venture capital funding for it from Silicon Valley -- huh?). Information wants to be free, and they intend to make it so. NURV, on the other hand, is working on a media delivery system called "Synapse," and it doesn't want to be free. It wants to control the earth, at all costs and by any means. And guess what? It's CEO thinks he's above the law.
Naturally, one of our brilliant young graduates, Milo Hoffman (Ryan Philippe), falling into a Faustian bargain with Gary Winston (Tim Robbins), the reptilian CEO of NURV, gets seduced in about 30 seconds by some fancy hardware and few potato chips into abandoning his friends and helping NURV pillage the noble Open Source ethos. His best friend Teddy (Yee Jee So) is disappointed in him, to say the least. Within minutes, he's also in huge trouble, courtesy of one of the dumbest plot developments in recent film history.
Controlling big media is a powerful lure for all sorts of people these days, but in America, you don't have to murder hordes of programmers to do it. You can just hire them.
Ten minutes into the movie, every upcoming narrative zig and zag is alarmingly clear. NURV's evil tentacles engulf young Hoffman, reaching into every corner of his life, into government, politics, and, of course, most of all into the mass media. The only witty or telling time the movie hits home is when it jabs at Microsoft's alliance with news entities like NBC, Newsweek and The Washington Post, pointing out what journalists seem to miss: this relationship undermines their credibility in coverage of technology-related issues.
Tim Robbins, who plays the creepy, Pringle-addicted, Gates-ish tycoon living in a way-over-the-top Portland (read Seattle) mansion with digital art all over the walls, was phenomenal in The Player, one of the best-ever movies about American culture in general, and about Hollywood valuelessness in particular. Maybe that was why he was chosen for this role. But he's a weak caricature in this movie, completely out of his element as the psychotic, power-obsessed CEO.
Certainly, people working around computers and in tech industries will enjoy the programming stuff, all the self-conscious, painstakingly "realistic" lingo and references -- our heroes start out in a Silicon Valley garage. Does anyone in the software industry start out any other way? ("Our problem is, we don't care about anything that isn't on a hard drive," says one geek ruefully.) Hopefully, even approval-starved geeks won't be bought off this cheaply.
Hiring good consultants isn't nearly enough to save this dog, which steadily degrades into a touch-typing war between Philippe and Robbins, a foolish stand-off that comes just when you think the movie couldn't possibly get any dumber. You really miss Schwarzenneger or Gibson at a time like this.
Maybe that's part of the problem with Antitrust -- the supposed threat of world domination comes down to who can type the fastest. By then, the rest of us are long asleep.
Mike's Review
A short preamble:
Antitrust is getting a lot of buzz in the open source community mainly because it employed John "Maddog" Hall and Miguel de Icaza as consultants, and prominently features the GNOME desktop on computers used in the movie. Because of this, I am reviewing the movie on entertainment value as well as technical accuracy.
Entertainment Value: two stars, out of four
The movie is about a brilliant programmer at a small startup (Ryan Phillippe) who is recruited by a software billionaire (Tim Robbins) to work for his software company called Never Underestimate Radical Vision, or simply 'NURV.' Phillippe's character Milo becomes suspicious when Robbins starts handing him code when he hits programming roadblocks, but refuses to tell him where it came from. Then, Milo notices that programmers at competing companies are turning up dead, which gives a whole new meaning to killing the competition.
The rest of the movie turns into standard PG-13 thriller material. The directing is uneven, and the acting varies from mediocre to bad. Phillippe is unconvincing as a computer programmer and looks bored in his role. Robbins, who was so creepy in Arlington Road gives a tepid performance as a megalomaniacal billionaire.
The movies shows promise early on, then just never delivers. It also reeks with the Hollywood-correct corporation bashing. Corporations will do almost anything to "kill" the competition (figuratively), but despite depictions like this one, murder is not a usual business practice in the real world.
Technical Accuracy (Geek Value): three out of four stars)
Although it is lacking in entertainment value, Antitrust is actually pretty technically accurate. The computers have a real operating system on them (GNOME) and programmers have real code on their screens (it looks like some flavor of C). At one point Milo is at a command prompt using the "mount" command to mount drives. The underlying story line of using low-orbiting satellites to deliver content to PCs, cell phones and PDAs is at least plausible.
There are a few minor gaffes, but far fewer than in most Hollywood movies. At one point Phillippe solves a "bottleneck" in a program then proclaims "We are such geeks!" One scene depicts Milo burning a CD in a few seconds. I would sure like to have that drive!
Scott McNeely and Miguel de Icaza do have cameo roles, but you might miss them if you blink. They are briefly shown in video clips on a computer screen. Still the movie is very pro-Open Source. The characters in the movie sound almost like Richard Stallman when they say that "the software belongs to the people."
It's a pleasant surprise to see a Hollywood movie that is technically accurate and shows computer programmers in a (mostly) positive light.
Conclusion
If you go into this movie not expecting a great movie, Antitrust is reasonably entertaining. While the acting and dialog are bad at times, the technical aspects of the film aren't insultingly laughable. I wouldn't put this movie on my must-see list, but it is worth a look at a matinee or discount theater.
You might also wish to investigate the official movie website, or imdb's Antitrust page.
...out of four.
/.ers are slamming it), and has received little promotion from its studio.
This movie got a lot right. Some of it was silly. But almost everything in these reviews is wrong.
Katz is blatantly lying to say he got the ending from the first 10 minutes. It involves a surprise ending which is only partially telegraphed.
Tim Robbins does a brilliant job of showing both the good and bad side of Bill Gates (to say nothing of the guy who got Ballmer right). The corporate culture at MS is well portrayed, showing the internal competition as well as the unethical practices vis-a-vis outsiders (no, I don't think Microsoft murders anybody). The idea of taking that internal competition a step further (in the surprise ending Katz lied about) was a good filmmaking idea, even if some of the tech reasons for it were plain silly.
To portray this movie as Hollywood exploiting open source ignores the facts of the movie itself. It is clearly outside the Hollywood mainstream, made with a low budget (not a single special effect, that must be why
This is a good movie. I enjoyed it. It raises issues which the general public may not be aware of (such as accusations of MS stealing code). It presents a naive view of open source (taking "information wants to be free" one more step to "knowledge belongs to all the people"). Silly, naive, but not anything you can't read on Slashdot every day.
The reason why there may never be a good geek movie made is because geeks trash perfectly honest efforts like this with perfectly dishonest reviews like this one and the equally unwarranted attacks on "Mission to Mars."
An interesting side note: The name "Antitrust" is not about antitrust violations or government action against monopolies. It comes from the question of who can be trusted (and is it possible to trust someone who has violated that trust). This is an interesting theme and is explored better in this movie than this movie was explored in these abominable reviews.
Eternal vigilance only works if you look in every direction.
Goodlooking geeks? Now we're drifting into the fantasy genre!
Hollywood sensationalizes everything they touch!
No big secret - you just have to be able to look at the small (and not so small) jabs on M$, and the references that only Open Source folks will see, and enjoy them.
If nothing else, OpenSource people should see it just so they can let their non-geek friends and co-workers know what the realities and exaggerations were when/if they start a "I saw that Antitrust movie this weekend - you're into open source, right?" conversation.
Go see it - at least a matinee - it's a good flick!
Hey Katz, what did you want, a documentary on M$? That'll be on PBS someday, and it will probably still be slanted one way or the other. It's called the media....
"It may, however, be the first film in history to prominently feature the GNOME desktop."
Edison's first film back in the early 1900's/late 1800's was "Fred Ott's Sneeze" which featured a several second clip of a man sneezing. Everyone already knows this. What I thought everyone ALSO knew was that Edison's second film was "Fred Ott's Linux Desktop Session Manager" featuring...you guessed it, GNOME. Sure this was back before 1.0, but all the major features were there. Fred even demonstrates an early version of Mozilla (although it core dumps when he tries to load the Java on Standard Oil's website).
--
MailOne
Non-meta-modded "Overrated" mods are killing Slashdot
(Hey Ryan! Here's your proof!)
"The computers have a real operating system on them (GNOME) and programmers have real code on their screens (it looks like some flavor of C). "
;)
Actually over on Java lobby the've identified the piece of code in the still on the Antiturst website as a fragment of Java Web Server, which was open sourced.
Does this mean if I contact the producers they have to send me the complete Java Web Server source?
Well, I saw this movie. And I enjoyed this movie. It was all I would hope for, given how little I'd heard about it, and how little I paid to see it. Bottom line: it entertained me.
What I found MOST amusing was the obvious product placement of anti-MS people: the afore-mentioned GNOME is obvious, but did how could you miss the prominent placement of Sun logos at times? Or how about the more subtle Handspring Visor on the main character's desk? These are companies I can see spending bucks on an anti-MS propaganda flick. It's the little things that make movies worth seeing....
would have the movie's source code - the SCRIPT - available for comment and peer criticism before shooting begins and maybe get a plausible plot about this software drama from the point of view of those actually involved, instead of being relegated to the role of mere technical advisors.
What I'm getting at is the irony that probably everything in this flick is copyright protected, controlled and produced by a small group of writers, cathedral style, just like what 'evil' software companies produce.
try { do() || do_not(); } catch (JediException err) { yoda(err); }
fuck that. What the review said was that it wasn't worth $8. Most crap at the theaters isn't worth $8. Was it good enough to wait for video rental or second run ($4)? sure, guess so.
But remember, it's not the audience that started this whole "taking movies too seriously" thing, it was the movie industry, who decided that they were entitled to billions of dollars in profit, regardless of the quality of the product.
Be a wise and responsible consumer - read reviews BEFORE you go see a lame-ass peice of crap. If it's bad, DON'T reward "them" by paying $8. Sneak in, or wait for it to be second-run, or watch a matinee, or wait for it to be on PPV or rentals, (or Scour).
The more you encourage them, the more ticket prices will climb, and the more the quality will drop.
These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
Since when has the open source movement "rocked" Corporate America? What sort of blathering fantasy is that?
As it much as it pains me to say, the official score is still Corporate America 1, Open Source Movement 0.
jack's bicycle is music to my ears
If only the free programs wore blue and the non-free programs wore red... Maybe give them the ability to absorb colors from each other... And discs! Every program should come with a disc that can be used like a frisbee... And a game brig! That would be cool... How about a Master Control Program?..
End Of Line.
It occured to me after watching this that a great scene at the end would have been to have a Linux user glance over at his TV to see the big broadcast and then look back at his still working Gnome desktop and shrug at all the fuss.
--
Some people have a way with words, and some people, um, thingy.
Anyone notice during the scenes of Milo flipping through the spy-cams while in the daycare center that one of them showed a man wearing a red fedora with his feet up on his desk? :)
Also, I thought the movie was fairly decent for a first shot at open source in hollywood. We can't expect a big summer "blockbuster" the first time out. Take it for what it is: Good press. And invite all of your friends to see it.
As I was leaving the theater last night I noticed a fair number of old people. I really wonder how many of them (or of the audience in general) understood what was going on. We need a real solid documentary on open source that is light enough that the average person can find it entertaining.
everyone of the developers is using an x86 running GNOME, but everytime Tim Robbins hands Milo a piece of code, Tim always shows it to Milo on the new Titanium G4 laptop. Does anybody else also think that there is a subtle reference to history here??
The computers have a real operating system on them (GNOME)
I give this review 1 out of 4 stars on technical accuracy. GNOME is not an OS!
It's sad that every time anyone trys to do something to please us unix guys/gals we just tell them it's not good enough ... I mean hell, GNOME is on the big screen and they're pushing Open Source! Sure, it would be nice to have good actors and decent lines, but they're starting to at least attempt to make it realistic ...
.. this movie for example, another example is Loki .. hardly anyone is BUYING their stuff ... we all want all the games in the world ported to linux .. but nobody is buying them..
Every time they try to please us somebody bags on them
I dunno, just sad to see that even when they try to make us happy we don't return the favor.
But my big problem with the film isn't the fact that the story was bad, or that major technical errors were made. I believe that the movie trivializes the entire open source movement.
The movie basically said that the company was bad because they killed programmers, without getting into the topic of anti-competitive practices that still obeyed the letter of the law.
It upheld all the stereotypes that have plagued our comunity throughout its existence.
It leads us to believe that if the Windows source code was to be broadcast over the internet tomorrow, all the problems with microsoft will go away.
Ñ'
i'm pretty sure that the cd burner featured in this god-forsaken movie must have a rating of nearly 900x. I think.
Personally, I think anyone who came out not enjoying this movie was too busy analyzing it to let themselves enjoy it.
While open-source zealots may have thought that the "open-source" movement may have sounded like a one-liner repeated over and over until the kid was beaten to death, I hate to say it but that's what you all sound like. I hear a lot about open-source, but it's mostly about how everything sucks if it's not. That was captured perfectly in the movie. Everything would be better if it were open-source, regardless of what that means.
I liked the way Robbins portrayed the Winston character, just a bit over the top at times, but showed some of the manicness that Gates is known to display at times. Eloquence when "on camera," quiet wonderment when with other geniouses, and flashes of frustration and anger at any lack of creativity.
And I definitely liked the idea that things were not quite where Milo expected them to be, and it kept me guessing as well.
It was a good movie, not spectacular, but definitely one I'll see again (and probably own), and well worth the money. Loosen up a bit, don't go into it expecting too much, and you'll come away pleased.
Comments from other critics:
Prof. John Frink: "Well, as any real geek can tell <glavin> this movie is highly overrated...what with the self-referential cliches <glavin> and the inaccurate depiction of programmers, and the clacking and clicking, and the spying, and the killing, oh the killing! <Glavin>!"
Comic Book Guy: "I thoroughly enjoyed this movie, a DIVxed copy of which I downloaded a week before it was released to theaters, from alt dot nerd dot obsessive."
Pedro: "esta película lastima mi cerebro!"
Burns: "Exxxxcellent. Why, you know, in this day and age it is so rare to see the head of a giant corporation portrayed in such an honest and favorable manner."
Lisa: "Obviously this is just more pop-culture tripe from Hollywood, and just another weak attempt to appeal to geeks."
It's 10 PM. Do you know if you're un-American?
"You know, for Kids."
Alright, now if any of the five people on slashdot who got that have mod points hand em over!