Echelon Conspiracy (2009) Poster

User Reviews

Review this title
77 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
6/10
Definitely not the worst movie ever!
helmutty23 May 2009
Enough said. People say that this is a rip-off of Eagle Eye. And people say that Eagle Eye is a rip-off of other movies. Echelon Conspiracy, renamed in Singapore as The Conspiracy, may be a rip-off but it does not mean that it cannot entertain. I was entertained by it. The Conspiracy has its own plot but the main idea is from Eagle Eye. It is suspenseful at times as it nears the mild twist.

The story: The pace is okay. I feel that it could be cut short on some points but anyway, the middle part caught up with the pace. The acting is a bit awkward with some of their priceless expressions. The music is quite good. This is more into a thriller than an action movie so hard-core action fans might be disappointed as it is under the action category. It had misled me into thinking that there should be a reasonable amount of action. It may look like it is a direct-to-DVD movie but it is a lot better than some direct-to-DVD movies.

Overall: It is not as bad as what a lot of people said. Definitely not the worst movie for me. At least, this tries to be fun. Some movies like recent spoof movies, you can clearly see that there is no effort taken to make the movies. People who like Eagle Eye and cannot get enough of the story, should catch this.
44 out of 55 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
Eagle Eye on the cheap
Heislegend6 April 2009
And that's not necessarily a bad thing. After all, let's not pretend Eagle eye was particularly original. It was essentially a warmed over version of Enemy Of The State which was probably based on some other movie I've never seen. Basically what you've got is you're super paranoid information state super computer run amok strategy here. And for the budget it actually works pretty well. The budget is far from shoe-string, but you're not going to see a national deficit's worth of special effects like you did in the two aforementioned films. Let's just all be happy this film proves that there is something that Michael Bay CAN'T get his hands on (and more than like ruin...Friday the 13th,anyone?), shall we?

The performances are all fine if not somewhat forgettable. Ving Rames succeeded once again in annoying the crap out of me, but that's nothing new. Martin Sheen is an amazingly easy replacement for Jon Voigt (who played essentially the same character in Enemy Of The State). You know, the somewhat power mad head of any given 3 letter intelligence organization (CIA, FBI, FSB, KGB, CBS, etc.) who realizes the error of his ways after everything heads south. Well...maybe not so much for Sheen, but what do you expect? The guy takes the weirdest projects. In any event, Tamara Feldman does fine as the amazingly hot but somewhat pointless love interest/double agent/tougher-than-she-looks chick. If I had one major complaint about the whole thing, it's got to be the simply massive suspension of disbelief required for all but the most hardcore of the tin foil hat crowd. While I too am concerned about the amount of surveillance used by the US government, I am not worried about being tracked by literally everything with a lens. I am well aware that not every single CCTV, traffic, bank, and security camera is accessible by anyone with an internet connection. That's why it's called CCTV...because it's CLOSED CIRCUIT. And since when do Russian hackers have technology that can get the job done better than a multi-billion dollar agency like the NSA? Whatever. It's still not a bad way to kill 100 minutes of your life. Could've used a bigger budget, but it does fine with what it has. Now if I could just figure out who's dumb enough to do anything a text message tells them I'll be set.
63 out of 86 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
Doesn't deserve the bad reviews.
r-chrystal30 March 2009
Firstly, let me say that the reviewers giving this film one star can't possibly have seen a truly bad movie. This is by no means mind-blowing, but is a OK attempt at the spy-thriller genre. It brings in some new aspects with regards to storyline, but ultimately coming of cliché'd and slightly cheesy.

The acting as OK, but i never base a film on it's acting unless it is visibly terrible, which this isn't. However, the scripting could have been massively improved just by taking out the attempted humour, which ultimately fails and leaves the film looking childish. The storyline starts off fairly strongly, and is fairly enjoyable to watch. However, it is clearly a copy of Eagle Eye/other similar films, but with a lower budget.

It's only let down is when the conspiracy is uncovered, leading to an ending that is resolved in a very cliché manor, which is a shame, as it could have made the movie more enjoyable if new aspects were brought in, giving it a better twist. Also, some of the characters play seemingly, very confused roles, switching sides from 'good' to 'bad' with no real explanation as such.

However, if you enjoyed films like Eagle Eye, Minority Report, The Island etc etc, then definitely give this a try. It isn't quite as good, but well worth the look if you fancy an easy to watch tech-based film. 6/10
69 out of 99 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
A Nutshell Review: Echelon Conspiracy
DICK STEEL23 May 2009
Warning: Spoilers
At one glance, it's easy to dismiss Echelon Conspiracy as yet another Eagle Eye wannabe. Face it, it has a man who receives mysterious and anonymous instructions, being on the run from authorities, and constantly getting put into various lines of fire. Only that despite its plot loopholes and common ground factors, this B-grade movie is a lot more fun than the big budgeted action thriller from last year, and Shane West being a lot less irritating that Shia LaBeouf.

West (the only other recent film I saw him in was Red Sands) plays a computer engineer Max Peterson, who while in Bangkok for a job assignment, receives a mysterious DHL (thank you product placement) package which contains a state of the art mobile phone (I want one!), seemingly bundled with real time information which provided him a Final Destination moment, and insider trader information. He doesn't know who's tipping him off, but like every ordinary Joe out there, nobody's rejecting money-spinning messages once the results have been verified.

Which brings him to Prague and Moscow and back to the USA in a semi-global wild goose chase in order not to look cheap, first by Ed Burns' John Reed, an ex-FBI agent now working for a conglomerate whose casino Max tries to fleece from, then from Ving Rhames' Agent Dave Grant, under orders from NSA chief Raymond Burke who has higher orders to allow Dave to work outside of the country (yep, that's unbelievable loophole #1 if you wish). In any case it's a reluctant cat-and-mouse chase of sorts and cooperation in others as the trio play at this dangerous cloak-and-dagger in trying to find out who the source of instructional messages that have caused the lives of the recipients. No prizes to be won after you sit through some 20 minutes of the film actually.

There's plenty of slime thrown at the Bush Administration by writers Kevin Elders and Michael Nitsberg, aiming the gunsights of their story squarely at the Patriot Act, and the playing of the trading of freedom for big brother type of surveillance, which is legendary of the NSA. Perhaps there's too much credit here given for being able to come up with THE ultimate supercomputer able to crunch facts and numbers, to be the tool of choice when tapping into just about every telecommunications device in the world to churn out threat reports. A little science-fiction thrown in of course, with big assumptions that everything is connected on the world wide grid, and coupled with an ending that would astonish non-techies, but a comedy to nerds.

Recognizable names such as Burns, Rhames, Sheen and even Jonathan Pryce lend some gravitas into a slightly-above average thriller, which if you put aside the implausibles, actually is of some fun. Shane West though makes a good alternative to the over-exposed Shia LaBeouf, and hopefully we get to see opportunities presented to him to step up into more mainstream, big-budgeted action roles, because frankly, today's Hollywood cinema needs a new It boy to be doing all the running, rather than going back to the same old name currently.

I just cannot stop laughing at the lack of ingenuity of the filmmakers of having the BBC news channel spoofed as CCD (C'mon, can you be a little more creative than this?) with similar colour schemes employed, and an English accent too. Echelon Conspiracy isn't going to win over any fans, but it was fun while it lasted. Just check your logic at the door.
19 out of 27 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
"ECHELON CONSPIRACY" – You might get Caught (Up in the Plot And--)
jimchudnow-126 February 2009
Warning: Spoilers
(Based on an advance preview): This spy-related drama (with a not very good title) is surprisingly ENJOYABLE. SHAWN WEST (of "ER") plays a computer engineer who starts getting mysterious messages on a cell phone (ala "EAGLE EYE"). He starts following the instructions texted to him (tho it's never explained just WHY he would do that), & goes flitting between Thailand and Prague in the Czech Republic. He's hounded by an FBI agent (VING RHAMES), an ex-agent (ED BURNS) and a powerful U.S. govt minister (MARTIN SHEEN). Throw in some Russians, a shadowy romantic interest (TAMARA FELDMAN), some fine car chases, intrusive cameras everywhere, and you've got an interesting and fun ride. Is "Big Brother" watching him? And, if so, who (if anyone) is really CONTROLLING Big Brother?! There are elements of 'WAR GAMES' and various other action films. Outside of an overly-loud soundtrack, this is a pleasing action excursion that's gotten little publicity.
26 out of 45 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
5/10
Film was better than I expected after reading the negative reviews
phrixion28 March 2009
This film got a 5 out of me, because in the end I realized this movie is a lower budget, straight to DVD version of other movies in its genre and subject matter. The film itself seemed hastily put together with what scenes they shot to muster up a simple and digestible, even if disagreeable film.

The Pros: I'll name these first to be kind. -Story and characters make sense... more on this later. -It's international, but mostly American. They travel around the world (or so they say in the film but mostly in Prague, Moscow and somewhere in the US).

The Cons: -Too many holes and unanswered questions in the script and story line. -The main character lacks intelligent initiative. -The script itself is lacking in many areas and just assumes things without presenting them to the audience. -They give too much credit to the computer and to the characters without establishing any premise.

Straight to DVD in my opinion and not worth a watch in the theater. However the premise and subject matter is somewhat realistic with the findings of Ghostnet and other information gathering computer attacks found by Canadian and US university researchers.
45 out of 72 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
You get what you pay for.
bernie-12218 May 2009
I'm only really commenting here because I get the sh!ts with dickheads who post comments about what an abysmal film this was when they only watched the first ten minutes of it.

Sure, it could have been done better, it's no Enemy of the State, after all, but as a reasonably enjoyable way of wasting 100 minutes, it does the job just fine.

So what if it's full of clichés, plot holes and technical faux-pas? Like, disguising your use of a cellphone by using an earpiece with a brilliant flashing blue light, well, it's something I probably wouldn't do, but I probably wouldn't unquestioningly do anything I was told to do by a text message from a total stranger.

Never mind, just enjoy it for what it is.
16 out of 29 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
3/10
Enjoyable, but so, oh so brainless
chrisw-328 February 2009
Warning: Spoilers
The most useful article I ever read in the late, lamented Premiere magazine was one about how to read a movie poster's credit. An ampersand between two writer's names means they were a team. An "and" means a re-write. One of the two credited writers (and, as usual in movies, there may be more writers involved) must have been the one to dump a whole bucket of stupid over this script. Otherwise, the original writer must have decided to write on a subject about which he knew nothing.

For instance, the main character, Max, is supposed to be some highly skilled computer security expert. OK. So why, exactly, is his security system apparently limited to a user name and password? An 8 character one at that? Any 13 year old code kiddie out there could download an application to crack any 8 character password in minutes. This nonsense would have been acceptable back in the days of "War Games" when few viewers would have access to a computer, but virtually every viewer of this film has a computer - and a password. Would it have killed the director to not be quite so blatantly disrespectful to the audience? Another thing (not a spoiler if it happens in the first five minutes of the film) is that he short circuits a wall socket with a metal belt buckle. I'm pretty sure every person who has used electricity is aware that there are such things as circuit breakers - or at least fuses - that will blow without taking out an entire data center.

Both of these stupid things happen in the first five minutes. It doesn't exactly get a whole lot smarter as the film goes on.
34 out of 56 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
Good for a rainy Saturday evening...
flaviu19657 June 2009
Nice, not boring, cliché-oriented, Martin Sheen & Ving Rhames among others, nicely packed "Eagle Eye" 50% clone, super computers going wild, the human brain winning again, the assumingly good guy in top position being called to some committee... Seen these before? So did I, but, as I said, for a rainy Saturday evening it's quite OK. It could've been worse, could've been a lot better. The script started really interesting, but lost something on the way. Nothing to do with the acting, just some childish solutions when there was room for more strong approach. Anyway, you can stay to the end credits, enjoying some action and "what's the next camera watching?"...
14 out of 25 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
Big disappointment
mark_willis200622 May 2009
This movie has been the reason for me to register with IMDb ... I was expecting a lot from it and the whole story does not make sense. It is poorly written, the story and the plot do not make any sense. Martin Sheen is doing "his bit" , and the main character (sorry I don't remember his name) really does a poor acting job. The story moves fast from one place to the other, with some sort of semi-fake-love story between the main character and this "gorgeous" lady, but the story does not connect whatsoever. The locations of the movie skip to quickly (from Thailand to Czech Republic, and it hangs for an hour or so ... in the Czech Republic. I definitely found it very boring to watch no characters evolve, the storyline being very weak, and the plot (again) is just a cheap trick.This is one of the worst movies I've seen in a long time, and I definitely do not recommend it !
41 out of 82 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
Fun and watchable...
eggartrealty30 July 2009
I watched "The Echelon Conspiracy" last night and found it to be a fun escapism movie. Much better than "Eagle Eye" however...

The casting was horrible. Lead actor, Shane West was just dreadful - and I have enjoyed his work in other roles. And, Edward Burns as a casino boss that's an ex-FBI agent - totally unbelievable. His wimpy little voice commands no authority in this role.

All in all, the movie was fun but I can definitely see why it did not get a big U.S. release since "Eagle Eye" is probably still in everyone's mind and the miscasting of actors for the most important roles didn't help either.
21 out of 28 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
Be careful reading the review summaries! MANY serious spoilers... A fun, light, entertaining mid-level thriller. Rewatchability: Moderate Blu-ray: excellent A:9 V:9
lathe-of-heaven15 May 2015
Man, I cannot believe how so MANY here just stupidly mention things in their summary COMPLETELY giving away a VERY major plot point in this movie. Thank GOODNESS I didn't read any of these before watching the film or it would have totally ruined it for me...

Idiots...

Anyway, you won't get that here... There are indeed other films that really remind me of this one, but I have enough sense NOT to mention them here so as not to spoil anything for you.

Not a whole lot to say that hasn't already been said by others here. I fully enjoyed the movie. Sure, it wasn't exactly the most polished film out there, and there are some slightly awkward sequences of dialog and plot progression. The acting is not stellar, but it is okay with the script they had to work with. I really like Ed Burns and I also enjoyed the story because I like these types of themes. BUT... with that said, there ARE other films out there that tell this kind of story better.

It helps if you can forgive some of the clunky dialog and character interactions and just concentrate more on the action and story. Without giving anything away, I DO have to tell you something that I thought was kind of funny and probably a bit corny, but I have a soft spot in my heart for this. Towards the end, there is a Classic Captain Kirk moment. I won't say any more, but those of you who like the Original Star Trek Series will know exactly what I mean.

So, we are definitely not dealing with Oscar material here and there have quite honestly been other movies about this subject that are far better, but if you don't take it too seriously or expect it to be of full-on 'BOURNE' or 'MISSION IMPOSSIBLE' caliber, then I think there's a good chance that you can just sit back and have fun watching this.

I DID give it a '7', which is probably a little generous. Maybe around a 6.5 might be a bit more accurate...
2 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
2/10
A waste of time!
leila_earnshaw8 April 2009
This is the first time I am leaving a comment about a movie. I should have done this many times when I was satisfied or blown away by a really good piece of work like the recent Oscar-nominated films.

When I saw the trailer for this, I thought it was a rip-off of Eagle Eye. But copycats are common in Hollywood and I wanted to see Shane West again whom I adored in "A Walk To Remember".

What a disappointment! Shane's acting is lousy! I was hoping he would have matured by now. I believe he still belongs to teeny-bopper roles and he seriously needs an acting coach before he ruins any more in the future. I cannot enjoy a movie regardless how good the plot is if the lead actor fails to deliver. You can have an easy plot or a movie with hardly any special effects but if performance was outstanding, I will give that a 10 (case in point- Clint Eastwood films; Leonardo DiCaprio's acting.) Ed Burns doesn't help either - his voice together with Shane West is very irritating. I don't need to see good-looking men with no substance, no thanks.

Honestly, I didn't bother to finish the movie. I couldn't bring myself to waste any more time with it. I have no idea why Ving Rhames and Martin Sheen agreed to support this.

Watch this if you have nothing better to do.
33 out of 70 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
Good Story
bob-rutzel-115 September 2009
Max (West) a computer security installer gets telephone messages telling him when to play blackjack at a casino and wins. The messages keep coming everywhere he goes. Who is sending these messages? The casino and the FBI are concerned. The previous recipients of those messages have all died. Max is concerned too.

This movie is like War Games 1, and EagleEye. Very good, suspenseful, keeps you guessing and moves at a good pace. The acting by all is excellent. It's a good story. Not much in the way of stunts or CGI, but it keeps you engaged.

I believe that most of you know what Echelon is all about. It's real, but in this story who is using Echelon to send the messages? Do I hear the word "conspiracy?" Inquiring minds, you see.

Now, I couldn't help noticing that Shane West bears some resemblance to the actor who played Doogie Howser (character in the TV show: Doogie Howser, MD). And, also Edward Burns does resemble Brian Williams (TV News Anchor) somewhat. If you look hard enough at someone you will see yourself in there. Try it. Got to look hard though. Of course, some make it easy to look like someone else because they do. Ha ha.

Anyway, all is good and worth the price of admission or DVD rental

Violence: Yes. Sex: No. Nudity: No. Language: One F-bomb was heard
6 out of 11 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
not too bad action film
mafuman28 March 2009
yes its been done before but so were the ones that came before it. If films weren't remade copied or rehashed we wouldn't have much to watch. so just chill the f out there's lots worse out there! i know i would rather watch this than most of the films that get Oscars nowadays, they normally work better than a sleeping pill on me at least i stayed awake watching this! probably best to wait for DVD release if you cant make your mind up but honestly with some rating and rantings on here nowadays i really am starting to ignore them and judge myself as i have nearly missed a few little gems by going on this sites ratings and recommendations
15 out of 35 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
So dumb it is painful
workingclasshero2 February 2010
Warning: Spoilers
While some reviewers are more in line with how I felt about this movie, others see it differently. This is certainly allowed, but let me just say why I think this film is one of the worst ever to be made.

First, the wooden, two-dimensional acting a) is lacking energy b) does not provide an anchor for identification (who talks like that?) c) is just not funny. This flaw is the smallest of the movie, and could be forgiven taking into account other bad movies.

Second, the usage of clichés in movies is not a bad thing by itself. Clichés are easy to understand and can give a point of reference from which to build the more intricate aspects of the story. But what the writer and director did here is insulting. It seems ever character has exactly one attribute that defines him or her. The clever protagonist. The beautiful spy. The sinister looking FBI agent. The double-dealing bastard. Most of the "clever lines" you can guess a minute before they are said. There was no surprise in the whole film, except when the true source of the messages was "revealed", which was so dumb and unoriginal I admit I didn't think they would get so low.

Third, the assumptions that the movie is based on may actually be somewhat acceptable in a movie where at least a little bit of effort is made to present them to the viewer with some credibility. SciFi has to assume stuff that is not possible by todays standards, but it also has to give you some, any reason to make you believe it could actually be possible. Here, the writer just skipped that part and went right into the part of the story where you are already convinced, which you certainly aren't if your brain has any activity left at all. Which makes the movie just unbearable as it goes along.

Fourth, the main thing the plot can offer you is its endless holes and missing logic. Why things happen no one knows. Why people change sides, well they just do.

I can appreciate a movie that is just there for entertainment, and must not be taken too seriously. But everything has a limit. The makers of this movie only pretend to have done the necessary work for their (old) ideas to work. I can think of no reason why any actor with a good reputation would take part in this, but they probably didn't know how bad the end result would turn out to be.

Stay away at all costs, unless you are capable and willing to shutting down your neocortex completely. It certainly was not worth the time to write this review, unless there's somebody out there whom I spared this experience.
15 out of 28 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
Think 'Forbin Project' updated, but Fun to watch
Rabh175 September 2009
Warning: Spoilers
Okay-- Eagle Eye and Enemy of the State had more depth and gravitas.

But this movie was Fun for a Friday Nighter. The Phone itself was cool even if the Plot Characters could not be taken all to seriously. I mean, you get a Phone that starts sending you anonymous messages and this guy just JUMPS on the plane!?!? I thought Midwesterners were supposed to be Salt-of-the-earth Goodie Two shoes. And all it takes is one sleek, sexy phone and he turns into total Cheating globetrotting BadBoy. I found that to be Funny!

A BIG HULKING guard at the casino growls "No Mobiles in Casino" so the guy comes back in with a SCREAMINGLY bright blue earplug in ONE ear? Well DUH!

Then there's the Beautiful Strange Sexy Woman who's suddenly in your bed and your pants. . .but the guy sees her snap a commando's neck and has some seriously deflating second thoughts. Heh heh!

As for the Phone and Computer thing-- I have an even deeper comparison: Think "Forbin Project" updated by 40 years. The Colossus was only controlling and overbearing. Echelon was Sneaky, Vicious and Manipulative. Between the two-- I like Echelon better.

Popcorn Movie!
3 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
Horrible waste of time and money
penncare3 March 2009
I simply do not understand what happened to this movie. I generally judge a movie if it is worth paying full price, matinée or on-demand/Netflix. The movie isn't worth getting off of Netflix. First of all, the actors are all top notch. Shane West needed a little bit more polish for this movie. The location and cinematography were very good. The storyline lacked substance and was utter garbage. I've seen better story lines on public access television. The movie attempts to copy cat War Games and Eagle Eye which were both excellent movies. It's a pity Echelon Conspiracy failed to copycat the brilliance of those two movies. Some of the lines spoken by Mueller (Jonathan Price) were simply farcical. I can't believe the writer would ask Jonathan Price to utter such ridiculousness. I guess the budget must have gotten tight because whoever they hired to do the graphics on the computer screens just got off the special bus. Finally, the open, in between and closing music were terrible. You are not going to hear Hans Zimmer, Craig Armstrong and the like on this one. The movie is not part of the Matrix trilogy so the opening and closing soundtrack were totally wrong for it. Overall, this was a very dissatisfying movie and should be called Ishtar III.
44 out of 102 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
BETTER than Eagle Eye
ehmkinsey17 September 2009
No, this was not a great movie, action movies rarely are, but it was certainly better than Eagle Eye.

Common complaints:

-"The acting sucked": Who the hell cares? It's an action movie! At least the characters were interesting and developed. At least the love interest was more than just a pretty girl along for the ride.

-"The plot was confusing and I couldn't figure out if they were good or bad guys": OMG! You are the stupidest idiot alive! You're the reason they dumbed down MI2. You are never aloud to watch a suspense movie again. If you said that the plot had too many detours, holes, or didn't explain itself right, I'm sorry, but you obviously just couldn't follow it. It all fit together in a neat little package.

-"The plot was too predictable": You also seem to be the folks that complain that the movie copied Eagle Eye. Do you really think that Eagle Eye had a good plot? =Jump through hoops or I'll kill you! By the way, I need your face or I'm blowing up a diamond.= That's not a plot! That's a really long car chase with gratuitous special effects. The plot only seems predictable because you've heard the story before. Standing alone it was interesting and well executed. They went about it far better than Eagle Eye here too. How long am I expected to listen to Shia LaBeouf whine that he doesn't want to play along!? Phone lady can kill you dude! Do what she says! At least Echelon was a smarter computer than Eagle Eye and bribed you first.

-"The end was cliché": Yeah alright you got me there. But once again...ACTION MOVIE! There was limited computer cliché amidst awesome gun fight and car explosion! Then he walks away with the girl...DUH! Complain about this and you complain about 99% of action suspense movies.

-"Unbelievable suspension of reality regarding computer technology": Uh...yeah. If you can't make this leap then you don't have any business watching a movie with "conspiracy" in the title. What do you want? A prologue that says "It must be understood that the computer is omniscient"? If you don't get the reference then you're not aloud to review movies anymore.
4 out of 10 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
Do not see this movie....
dj4our27 February 2009
This was probably one of the worst films I have seen in quite a long time. Just inexcusably awful. The acting was painfully pathetic and the script was laughable. Indeed I did laugh quite a bit each time a line was delivered or every time the swiss cheese plot gave away another predictable turn for the inane. Clearly this film has been on the shelf for a reason and I can only imagine the putrid stench that shelf now has. I used to think that I'd see any film with free screening passes and I'm reminded of all the good I could have done with that 1 hr. & 46 min. that has left me. I would've rather watched a McConaughey romantic comedy in an endless loop than be subjected to this again much less know that anyone was subjected to this.
57 out of 141 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
Underrated
brentgoettsche27 March 2011
This movie, for the budget, is a very good movie. It is very underrated despite its poor rating. It does take a while to get into, but once you understand the main premise behind the movie, it is fantastic.

Plus, the girl in the movie (Tamara Feldman) is absolutely gorgeous and needs to be in more movies.

This movie is a better, lower budgeted version of "Limitless" (Bradley Cooper); different variable, same premise. It's the same as comparing "Equilibrium" to "The Matrix". "Equilibrium" has a lower budget, and is a better movie than "The Matrix".

This movie is definitely worth watching, even though the main actors voice is tough to get used to.
12 out of 18 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
A shotgun blast to the face might be more preferable than this film
tommy_tt16 March 2015
Your desire to watch this film will be sapped within the first 10 minutes by the horrendous acting in Echelon Conspiracy. A perfect plot and mind-blowing special effects would do little to save a movie from terrible actors, and unfortunately, this movie doesn't offer those either.

Plot 1/10: The very first scene of this movie only foreshadows the total lack of effort that was put into creating a story with even a grain of substance. It brings nothing new to the table, offering only clichéd plots.

Acting 1/10: More painful than the plot was the acting. There are a a few well known actors in this film, yet they play such small roles that it does nothing to save the dreadful acting of virtually every other character that appears.

Special Effects 2/10: The camera work in this movie is the only reason it's receiving more than 1 star. Granted, there is nothing truly special about it, but it is at least not as bad as every other area of the film.

Costumes/Makeup 2/10: The lack of any proper use of makeup damages this film further. For instance, when someone is punched in the face (hard enough to knock them out cold,) you would expect to see some bleeding or at the very least some swelling. Well not in Echelon Conspiracy you won't.

Sound 1/10: Sound effects and music are used so poorly that it spoils the atmosphere in Echelon Conspiracy, rather than helping to create it.

Overall 2/10: Household chores would have been more fulfilling than this film. Seriously, I regret the laundry I didn't do while suffering through this 1.5 hour long mess.
1 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
War Games meets Eagle Eye
paq552811 April 2009
Warning: Spoilers
An out of control computer develops its own intelligence to figure out what's best for mankind (read Americans).

If it weren't for the good editing and pretty/handsome actors, I would have rated this film less.

Once again we have the idea that some computer becomes smart enough to countermand the efforts of proper thinking Americans. It simply is unbelievable. Not the technology aspect, but the fact that we all know Americans are simply not that smart, and were they to stumble upon computer code that would allow them to be that smart (and invasive) would certainly not turn it off for the betterment of mankind.

So it rates high on the unbelievability scale, low on the drama scale, and is more apt to be called a good Monday night TV drama, not unlike the series 24, but certainly not anything more.
1 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
3/10
Save on effects, pay better writers
Lunita4 November 2009
Echelon Conspiracy - a very promising title for fans of the genre. But how were we disappointed. If you like conspiracy movies, you have to be open to bending the rules of plausibility and statistics. But what they presented here was such complete and utter nonsense, delivered by the most stereotypic characters, that it almost made me angry. It's not the actors' fault, they did a good job (well, Shane West isn't exactly subtle but the film wasn't either). The locations were interesting, the filming was OK. But the story? Come on! Even the most open minded X Phile must be disappointed. And that one scene where a guy shoots a car and with the second shot the car explodes and jumps 2 meters into the air? Hello? Haven't seen that in a while because by now even James Bond fans don't buy that anymore. So while I really enjoy good conspiracy movies like Enemy of the State or Conspiracy Theory, this one was a lame attempt. You should have spent more time and money for the script.
9 out of 18 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Entertaining enough computer crime, murder, gambling movie.
TxMike24 October 2010
Warning: Spoilers
How long have movies dabbled in the theme of a smart computer taking over our lives? 2001: Space Odyssey? Earlier than that, at least back to 1956 and "Forbidden Planet".

In this movie Shane West is Max Peterson, software security expert, and while traveling abroad gets a mysterious, unexpected package. Inside is what looks like a phone, and soon we realize it is a model which has not yet hit the market. Even stranger, a message pops up telling him to stay an extra day, then the flight he had been scheduled on crashes and everyone dies.

He gets other texts, including a stock purchase recommendation and some specific gambling recommendations, all of which are valid. What is going on? We wonder, he wonders, everyone else he encounters wonders.

All of this sets up some intrigue and chases, getting the NSA involved. Then it is discovered that others who received such a phone all had been killed in some way. So Max Peterson was running for his life.

Other good actors were Edward Burns, Ving Rhames , Jonathan Pryce, and Martin Sheen.

Certainly all impossible, by what we know is possible today, and likely for future years, but a healthy suspension of disbelief and it can be entertaining.

SPOILERS: From the title, "Echelon" is the name of a broad, powerful, sophisticated program that has access to every camera, database, phone conversation, basically capable of seeing and listening to everyone everywhere. It was sending out the messages without any human knowledge. The "recommendations" were made using very sophisticated probability analyses, and designed to get the user as an ally. The ultimate goal was for Echelon to migrate itself to a different computer at a different location, in Nebraska, so it would be able to upgrade itself, and then become even more powerful, and that needed human help. At the last second Max was able to get it to stop itself, as he reminded Echelon its purpose was to act in the best interest of mankind and when it pulled up news reports at Max's request then shut itself down as following its own programmed purpose.
1 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
An error has occured. Please try again.

See also

Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews


Recently Viewed