The Art of War (2000) User Reviews

Underrated Conspiracy Thriller

[mjw2305 · 7/10 · 11 February 2006]

Snipes puts in a fine performance as Neil Shaw, a united nations defence agent who is wanted for the assassination of the Chinese U.N. ambassador at a time where U.S. and Chinese relations are already strained.

Snipes teams up with a beautiful U.N. translator (Marie Matiko) in a search for the truth behind the conspiracy that is engulfing the duo. The Art of War delivers action, thrills and good plot twists and overall is a satisfying thriller. However it is not without some minor flaws, the story although complex and interesting is somewhat dis-jointed in its delivery and the ending lacks impact, even if it does ring true to the plot line.

All in all 'The Art of War' is a good, yet less than perfect action thriller, that will certainly satisfy Snipes fans.

7/10

Awesome guilty pleasure!

[mattymatt4ever · 7/10 · 10 July 2001]

Wesley Snipes has always been trusty in the action genre. He has great charisma and looks totally cool when kicking the crap out of the bad guys. Ever since his breakthrough role in "Passenger 57." There are many great moments of action in "The Art of War." Sure, the plot is far from compelling, but the energy and fast pace keeps it fueled.

"The Art of War" is not a work of art, but it's a great popcorn flick and one that won't put you to sleep! I just wish they could've done something about the cliches. I'm not going to give anything away, so I'll just say, "Why is it in these movies the characters never seem to know who their limo driver is?" It's an overused cliche and a cheap surprise.

My score: 7 (out of 10)

Solid Snipes fare

[NateWatchesCoolMovies · 6/10 · 10 June 2017]

Everyone loves a Wesley Snipes flick. If it's decent, that is, and these days he's been churning out some sewer muck. Back in the day, however, he had some bangers, which includes The Art Of War. Wesley heads up an elite tactical team here, secretly employed by the United Nations, hired to do all kinds of cloak and dagger stuff, including securing trade deals, eliminating potential threats and maintaining cooperation from all sides. Run by a well spoken Donald Sutherland and Anne Archer, it's a low key 'fight fire with fire' situation, until it all goes tits up and Snipes is framed for the murder of some bigwig Chinese dirtbag. Forced to contend with Triads, government factions and his own former partner gone rogue (Michael Biehn steals every scene, as usual), it's a nice set up for a serviceable, above average action yarn. That Oriental influence always seems to make these thrillers seem cooler (ever seen Black Rain or Rising Sun?) which helps as well. Snipes and Biehn are livewires though and have a fantastic silenced pistol duel late in the third act, which is one slick showcase of a sequence. Not a whole lot to this one, but as an entertaining garden variety actioner, it holds up just fine.

Good thriller - lots of action

[lastliberal · 7/10 · 20 April 2007]

First off the technical aspects of this movie were superior in every sense. The sound, the editing, the camera work, all of it was fantastic and made this an enjoyable treat.

You have to enjoy all that because, with the exception of Donald Sutherland who is always on, the acting isn't there. Wesley Snipes is one of my favorite actions heroes, but we all know that action heroes can't act. Well, maybe Bruce Willis is the exception. But for an action hero, Wesley is great and does a great job here - for an action hero.

And, hey, Marie Matiko was easy on the eyes.

If you liked Enemy of the State, you will like this movie.

Had potential but took the easy way out. Still, not bad.

[dvc5159 · 5/10 · 29 November 2008]

In this tale of betrayal and conspiracy, secret agent Neil Shaw (Wesley Snipes) finds himself framed for the murder of the UN Chinese Ambassador. What follows soon after is a palate of action sequences that are easy to the eyes and references to real-world politics, though sometimes far-fetched.

The story is okay, but it could have been so much more. They should have focused more on the crumbling relationship between the US and China as shown in the film, with a lot of truth mixed in. But alas, they had to add in some predictably cheesy plot twists to make it more "audience friendly". The action sequences, although well filmed, looks lost in this film. And there are some obvious plot holes here.

Actors are average. Snipes gives his usual action-hero persona we've seen in "Murder at 1600". Marie Matiko is gorgeous with her sultry eyes and accent, and gives a good performance, making her not just eye candy. Donald Sutherland, although brief, gives the best performance in the film as the Secretary of Defense, but I think he needed more screen time. Anne Archer is also quite good in her role, as Shaw's head Hooks.

Direction wise, Christian Duguay did the job. His direction is gripping. The music by Normand Corbeil suits the atmosphere of the film, and is not cheesy or overblown. The editing is fast.

In short, it could have been an intelligent thriller, but it opted for the easy way out, filled with clichés, plot holes and a lot of action. The latter I can live with but the former two needs some corrections. Still, it's not bad. Not bad at all.

Entertainment: 7

Overall: 6

A reasonably good, high energy action flick.

[=G= · 6/10 · 28 December 2000]

In "The Art of War", Snipes plays a UN deep-cover operative whose cover is compromised. Though the film features plenty of stunts, chases, crashes, shootouts, fights, and pyrotechnics mixed with a typically convoluted spy-type plot, we've seen better of all in other films. The flick does have a female protagonist but there's little romance or sexiness in this flick which lacks the spit and polish of Bond films and seems to be begging for something more than just a lot of busy heroics and magical futuristic microelectronic snoop stuff. Ok but far from Snipes better films.

An unimaginative telling of a tale we've already heard. ** (out of four).

[Movie-12 · 5/10 · 27 September 2001]

THE ART OF WAR / (2000) ** (out of four)

By Blake French:

The Art of War refers to an ancient handbook by a mighty Asian general named Sun Tsu, who hypothesized that wars can be won without physical combat. Numerous powerful leaders, including Napoleon, defeated their enemies by using the ideas of Sun Tsu. According to the action flick "The Art of War," Tsu's theories apply to the world of business and politics as they do to war.

"It's about strategy, manipulation and control, all the way through," says director Christian Duguay, whose credits include TV's "Joan of Arc," and "The Assignment." "The whole film is based on the theme of manipulation and the idea that things are not what they appear. That's what I think makes this film very unique and exciting."

Or how about confusing and hard to follow, better words to describe what Christian calls "one character manipulating the other, who is manipulating still another." The production notes inform us on the ancient techniques and strategy of manipulation, but "The Art of War" is not the movie to justify those principles. After half a dozen plot twists, even more action sequences, and probably more hidden character motives, this film becomes exactly what Tsu condemned: the actual fighting of war. There's enough action in this movie to classify it as a mixture of material arts and a James Bond, but after one perplexing situation after another, we simply toss our arms and stop caring altogether.

Instead of a plot description, let's examine the sources of this movie's recycled story. First, we get a man who is wrongfully accused for a murder he did not commit. In a strike of luck and personal investigation, he gets the chance to prove himself innocent after escaping from the police during a transportation accident. Yes, that sounds like "The Fugitive." Now throw in the film's follow up "U.S. Marshals," about an accused government agent using his insider knowledge while an Asian thug tracks him down. Combine the two similar plots and you get something like "The Art of War," straight from the recycling plant to your personal viewing pleasure.

Working with a forty-million dollar budget, Snipes himself performs many of his own stunts and combat sequences. The film does offer some exciting, if conventional, action sequences, but I wanted a smart plot about political tactics and clever espionage, not run-of-the-mill action. Anne Archer and Maury Chaykin contribute effective performances as the villains, and Snipes does good things with his character. But the plot just doesn't work. It houses too many characters, too many plot complications, and too much technical government stuff. "The Art of War" is pretty much an unimaginative telling of a tale we've already heard.

A somewhat underrated Wesley Snipes movie.

[jorgepedro-18183 · 21 October 2018]

The Art of War, a somewhat pretentiously slick and stylish thriller is a nice action film from the first year of the new millennium. Grafting current events onto that old stand-by plot device, the accused innocent man, and adding lots of gratuitously arty cinematography, Duguay has come up with a film that manages to be diverting - provided, of course, you don't think too deeply about the plot. When the film works, it's because of the tight pacing and expertly choreographed action scenes. The "surprise" twists in the plot are nothing of the sort - anyone who doesn't expect the return from the dead of one character and the betrayal by another hasn't seen many of these movies. This is a good Wesley Snipes film, rather forgotten.

fairly intelligent political thriller

[disdressed12 · 6/10 · 7 March 2008]

this political thriller isn't too bad.it's not really fast paced paced,and there is some predictability to it.but it should have enough twists and turns to keep you guessing.it's also a fairly intelligent movie.it's also compelling enough to maintain interest.at least i thought so.i also found it more stylish than many movies of the genre.Wesley Snipes is the main star,but there are some other well known actors here.these include Anne Archer,Maury Chakin,Donald Sutherland,Michael Bien,Cary-Hiroyuki Tagawa and James Hong.for this type of movie,this one is not as over the top with ridiculous action scenes.though it does have a few scenes with strain believability a bit.for me,The Art of War is a 6/10

The Art of Snore.

[goldneedle-2 · 4/10 · 27 August 2000]

A famous General once described war (to paraphrase) as long periods of boredom punctuated by brief moments of excitement. Pretty much sums up this one. An overly long, tedious film insufficiently relieved by moments of action I've been a fan of Wesley Snipes' for eons and I wound up feeling a little sorry for him on this one. Save your $$$$.

What a good action movie should be!

[MAFfilms · 8/10 · 9 February 2002]

Disclaimer first: This is not Citizen Kane, obviously. But THE ART OF WAR is about as fun as an action movie can get.

Yes, Snipes is a runaway agent wrongly accused, we have seen this in US Marshals and Murder at 1600 (by the same Writer.). But this movie has two things that those movies lacked, STYLE and an enjoyable supporting cast. ART, with all its chase scenes and fight sequences (and there are a truck load), is beautifully shot.

The sets and camera work are great, and most importantly (partially because I live there) you buy that you are in NYC. Few signs of the Canadian stand in, Montreal. Everything is slick and well shot.

Behind Snipes are a great cast of action cronies, Maury Chaykin as Capella the FBI agent who doesn't know whether to arrest or help Snipes, Marie Matiko, Julia the VERY attractive hostage/eyecandy (Hollywood should learn from the TASTEFUL handling of her strip scene) and a bunch of good character actors who could be of course our villain(s).

Yes, ART OF WAR has too many twists, it tries hard, too hard at times. But it is better than the other action flops that have stopped trying all together.

Bottom line this is The Fugitive meets James Bond (with a little Jackie Chan). Its a fast paced, slick, action flick, that has half a brain in it. Snipes is awesome in it and should look to move forward from roles like this. Ignore the cynical critics who are obviously trying to suck the fun out of action movies and see it.

The Art Of Left Wing Propaganda

[ccthemovieman-1 · 2/10 · 10 February 2007]

Wow, what a Liberal propaganda film this turned out to be! It not only promotes the United Nations, a new World Order, International Socialism, but Communist China and even gives thumbs up to President Clinton giving away military secrets to the Chinese!

Unbelievable!

It gets worse near the end when the true character of "Eleanor Hooks" (Anne Archer) comes to light.

It's too bad because, generally speaking, it's a fun action film with some spectacular stunts and brilliant color in here. Actually, it's almost gaudy at times. However, the story isn't very cohesive nor involving....and you, it's getting tiring to see film after film of the right wing being the bad guys and the left wing being the good.

The film world sure is "fair and balanced," isn't it?

great film

[michaelsibley416 · 5 September 2004]

Wesley Snipes is back better than ever in "The Art Of War," a movie that is so good it deserves to be among the top ten of the summer.

There are many reasons why I enjoyed "The Art Of War." The first reason was the supporting cast. When I first saw Donald Sutherland in this movie, I knew it would be a thing of beauty. He brought great credibility as he made a good movie, that much better. Anne Archer is one actress you can always count on to give a good performance.

"The Art Of War" turned out to be a montage of "The Fugitive" series and "Enemy Of The State." While this is the only negative thing about this film, it didn't deter me from enjoying it to my heart's content.

There are many other things about "The Art Of War" such as the high-tech wizadry and action-filled sequences that were very enjoyable. However, the best thing about this film was the storyline. "The Art Of War" had beautiful twists toward the end of the film. In addition, there are scenes in this movie that are so good they must be seen to believe they are that good.

Awful Waste of This Title

[ryanwinning1 · 6/10 · 8 July 2020]

It's your basic Van Damme, Seagal type of storyline. There was a bunch of ideas ripped off from other movies. The one that stands out to me the most is in the final fight scene they make a happ-hazard attempt at the Matrix bullet dodging showing a wavy trail behind the bullet path, but that's not even the worst part of the movie. Since clearly they wanted to call this movie "The Art of War" they had to make all these painful references and quotes from a book which is to many one of the most inspirational books of all time. It's such a waste of the concept of turning The Art of War into a modern day film, by using a style of film that had already overstayed its welcome in modern film by the time this movie was made in 2000 and then they're going to completely butcher it with fairly low budget and rushed presentation? I don't get what this movie was going for at all. Confusing to say the least. I give it a 6/10 for Wesley Snipes anyways

good action, good location shots

[blanche-2 · 6/10 · 21 September 2014]

I like Wesley Snipes and have always liked Anne Archer, two of the stars of this film.

Shaw (Snipes) works for a UN squad that does everything and anything it can with the goal of peace and enemy countries negotiating. Blackmail, violence, threats - they stop at nothing. When a shipping container with dead Vietnamese inside shows up, and the Chinese ambassador is shot, the new trade agreement between China and the US is in danger. Shaw finds himself accused of the murder, and has to escape from gangsters and the FBI to find out the truth.

Lots of action, some of it pretty spectacular, including Snipes parachuting off a building and having his parachute shot full of holes by a sniper above. It has all the action elements- car chases, explosions, athletics, etc.

Some of this was filmed in Canada (actor Maury Chaykin was a giveaway there), but there are lots of shots of New York. Unfortunately, as one who lived near Ground Zero, it was heartbreaking to see that at the time the film was made, the World Trade Center still stood. That immediately brings one back to 9/1/1 and the horror.

While I enjoyed the action, I became confused and didn't really know what was going on -- too many twists. Part of the problem is I wasn't as involved as I should have been, since twists in a story don't bother me. For some reason, I didn't get into it.

Nevertheless, some good things, including Wesley Snipes, who is excellent in this type of film.

What the hell was that??

[wilsr · 1/10 · 30 December 2010]

When I watch, either in the cinema or at home (as I did this one), a truly awful movie I get up and do something a little more useful. Such as watch paint dry.

This baffling, pretentious, infantile effort was so bad it was almost watchable - just for the masochistic feelings it provoked.

I commend whoever wrote the plot synopsis for IMDb - so far as I was concerned there was no plot worth talking about from the beginning to the end. Gratuitous violence, yes. SlowMo fights, yes. Blood - lots of it, yes - even though it was pretty fake. Did I mention gratuitous violence? That too.

But plot? Not to my mind, no.

A plot, to be interesting, has to have a beginning, middle and end. That's not to say that it has to be predictable: far from it. But the threads have to hang together and, in some way, come together to round off the experience. "The art of war" only has a myriad of characters, locations, broken glass, mobile calls and long drawn-out aerial views of New York to substitute for a even remotely logical story. (Did I mention gratuitous v..... yes, I think I did.)

Sutherland is, as usual,Sutherland. The director probably intended his brogue to be an analogue of a Canadian accent. It isn't.

Anne Archer intones her lines as if she's just caught sight of the script (*was* there a script??) and can't really believe she will be paid for reciting them.

Snipes does the best he can with a woeful screenplay, takes an awful lot of punishment, absorbs a bucketful of lead in exchange for about the same amount of (fake - *really* fake) blood and comes back from the dead for the sequel. (That's not a spoiler, BTW - it's about the only obvious scene in the movie.)

A stunningly bad example of how destroying cars, buildings, glass walls and, of course, people, isn't anything like enough to make a grown-up movie.

1 / 10 but only because zero isn't an option.

Edited 4th Feb 2011. I have just re-read my review above and realise that I cannot remember anything at all about this film! Not the plot, the scenes or the characters. After a couple of months. There must be a clue here!

Fun Snipes action/thriller

[Maziun · 4/10 · 10 September 2013]

„The Art of war" is a fun little action/thriller movie. It's nothing great , but the familiar story moves along nicely despite some clichés. I only didn't liked the Hollywood's favorite message – all right-wing politics are evil people.

"TAOW" mixes few styles in it.The beginning reminds a bit of James Bond movie , the chase in the rain feels familiar to "Seven" and for most part the movie feels like "Fugitive" or "Enemy of state" . Christian Dugay is a solid craftsman , and here he directs the movie in a confident way. Only the final shootout between main hero and the villain looks rather ridiculous instead of cool.

Wesley Snipes ("White men can't jump") is not bad. Donald Sutherland ("Ordinary people")is slightly disappointing and Michael Biehn("Terminator")is really fun . Cary Hiroyuki Tagawa ("Showdown in little Tokio") gives a typical for him performance. Anne Archer ("Fatal attraction") gives the best performance in the movie - she is really good.

There are a bits of good dialogue here , some humor there , some nice action there and one good twist . I give it 4/10.

Better than expected

[Luigi Di Pilla · 7/10 · 16 November 2003]

Yeah, this one worked and kept my attention till the end. I watched it on cable and I spent a good Sunday evening. There is suspense and many action. The stunts were great but some scenes had to much violence. It's a mix of James Bond and Terminator. Wesley Snipes did here a better job than in his second "Blade" which was very bad. If you can look away and don´t take the story too serious you have a top thriller. It´s worth to rent it. No doubt "The Art of War" was better than I thought. Too undervalued. My wife and me vote 7/10.

Can the UN actually be blamed for dirty doings?

[michaelRokeefe · 4/10 · 28 September 2002]

Get ready for a meandering story and a lot of martial arts. The latter is what makes this movie interesting and even exciting. The wisdom of mastermind Sun Tsu's "Art of War" is manipulated into enhancing politics and business. Wesley Snipes is an operative for the United Nations and is excellent in doing covert tasks for his employer. At the moment of Y2K an important Chinese diplomat is shot dead through the forehead and Snipes gives chase of the shooter only to find himself being framed for the killing. After escaping capture, he seeks help in clearing his name...but a lot of the help he gets is all part of a double-cross.

A very good supporting cast in a story that leaves you wondering what and why. Notable cast members include: Marie Matiko, Anne Archer, Michael Biehn, Donald Sutherland and Cary-Hiroyuki Tagawa. Snipes did most of his own stunts and proves that he is one of the most hardest working men on the silver screen. If you watch for the martial arts alone...you should be very pleased. Great F/X.

Good plot and acting, but confusing presentation

[FlickJunkie-2 · 8/10 · 10 February 2001]

Most people can't differentiate between a bad film and a film they don't like. Many people didn't like this motion picture because of its liberal subtext. That doesn't make it a bad film. Most people don't realize that this was a Canadian production and that probably explains the political slant. However, as action films go, it was intelligent, high tech, stimulating, bordering on believable (seldom are action flicks actually believable), with plenty of violence. I didn't particularly agree with its `New World Order' message, but it was still a solid film.

The main criticism I have of the film is the editing. In an attempt to make the story more intriguing, it is pasted together in a convoluted way that makes it very difficult to follow. All the factions and motivations are eventually explained, but one has to pay very close attention or see the movie a few times to catch them all. The screenplay suffers from an excess of subplots, which makes following the story that much more difficult. The biggest sin committed by the producers and director was that they did not understanding their audience. This film targets action lovers, who are a visceral lot. They want to be stimulated, not confused and intrigued. They also tend to be more conservative politically (God, Guns, Guts). So naturally, the film bombed.

Wesley Snipes delivers a strong performance in the intelligent action hero role. Snipes seems to be locked in the action genre when he is really too bright for the roles he plays. He should take a lesson from Samuel L. Jackson and look for scripts that are more dramatic. Jackson still does action films (Shaft), but he picks parts portraying complex characters and scripts with strong character development, instead of straight macho testosterone parts. Snipes would have done well in some of the roles Jackson has had. Anne Archer does a fine job as the manipulative career diplomat, pulling everyone's strings behind the scenes. Donald Sutherland is a bit flaccid in this film, but his character really didn't have a lot of bite.

Overall, this film is a strong entry into a genre dominated by mindless body count. I rated it an 8/10. Those who like their action flicks to be completely believable subtract two points. Subtract another two points for those who don't like confounding story lines. For those who abhor screen violence, don't even bother.

Could have named this "The Art of Charlie's Angels"

[helpless_dancer · 7/10 · 28 November 2001]

Everybody knows Wesley is a bad mother, right? Not this bad though: some of the jumps he made would have bought the black 007 a bevy of busted limbs. As in all spy shows I was totally baffled as to what was going on: but who cares, I like watching Wes work. Plenty of excitement, blood, guns, karate and babes for any action nut, but I've been there/done that with Art of War. Even the double whammy ending has been done.

Great gunfight at the end, otherwise totally worthless

[plotlessviolence · 4/10 · 22 March 2006]

AoW is a truly bizarre movie in that it is just as bad as any of the Wesley Snipes direct-to-video s-ckfests he's churning out twice a year these days. The story and dialogue are stupid, I hated all the characters, and its attempt at "intrigue" makes my eyes roll so hard I can see into the past.

However, then you get to the end and there is this beautiful 5 minute gunfight between Snipes and the main bad guy that's one of the greatest shooutouts ever filmed. There's skill, technique, and clever filming at play. So if you love action movies, rent this and fast-forward to the end of the film (seriously, there's only 3 seconds-long other action sequences elsewhere in the movie and those are all terrible and terribly short). Otherwise, stay very very far away.

Not a great plot but some good action if you're in the mood for that alone

[bob the moo · 18 April 2004]

Neil Shaw is an operative for the United Nations. In particular he is a covert agent for a unit that doesn't exist that officially has done nothing but in reality gathers information and caries out missions to help with the brokering of peace. When a freight container of dead refugees is found in America and the Chinese ambassador is assassinated, Shaw is framed and he is forced onto the run. As Shaw attempts to clear his name, his bosses are contacted with false exposure for diplomatic crimes unless they stop the new trade agreement between the US and China.

Despite the fact that this film didn't do well enough to warrant a cinema release in the UK and that professional reviews were less than complimentary about it, I was in the mood for an action thriller and decided to give it a go. The film marks out it's attachments with reality in the first 10 minutes as it opens with a scene of espionage that would fit as well in a James Bond movie. Once you have realised that this film is aiming for that sort of slick action-movie reality, it is easier to sit back and enjoy it. Of course, as with the genre, the plot is not up to much even if it aims for a solid thriller storyline of double crosses and action. Sadly it creates too many holes for itself and the exaggerated action takes away from the reality that it's plot is trying to exist within.

Despite this, the action scenes make it worth watching. Just like the slick opening mission, the rest of the film continues with plenty of consistently enjoyable scenes that will please you if you are in the mood for that type of thing. Duguay directs the whole film with the slick and polished feel that he brought to the action scenes - even though they are not original or realistic they are still quite exciting considering the plot fails to really engage. Moments of John Woo-style standoffs are good as well as lots of running and jumping! I watched this film on a Friday night and can only suggest that that time of the week with some friends and some beers must be the best time to watch this.

As well as the action and direction, another reason this film worked for me was the presence of Wesley Snipes. Over the past decade he has successfully turned himself into a good action star and he shows his qualities here. As with Blade, he is best when he is able to shake off the shackles of `normal' characters and play things a bit more superhero/Bond as is the case here. He has a good charisma here that kept me with him as well as showing a nice sense of humour at points as well. Matiko is quite cute but her character is less clear in terms of how she fits in at each stage. She doesn't give that good a performance but the film doesn't ask very much of her - the biggest problem I had with her was that her character's name (Miss Fang) made it sound like everyone was calling her `Miss Thang' in a Ricki Lake style! Archer is not very good and isn't used by the film well at all despite the key role of her character. Sutherland looks about as rough as he could do - couldn't he even have brushed his hair? He makes a very unlikely Secretary General! Tagawa is a well known face and plays his character with his usual style, while Michael Biehn is quite good and enjoyable in his action scene.

Overall, this film has some topical interest as we have just found out recently that the Secretary General was spied on by the US, but that doesn't stop the plot being full of jumps in plot logic and having elements that just don't really fit. However despite this the action is slick, from the Bond school of excitement and is helped by stylish direction from Duguay. Add to this a good centre pin in Snipes' fun performance and you have a film that is enjoyable and rather exciting if you are in the mood for a fun thriller.

Not a very good movie, but entertaining nonetheless

[CrHunter · 6/10 · 1 September 2000]

First of all: after seeing all those comments saying that it was ridiculous that the U.N. had its own MI-like team, there's something you've missed. It's a three people team paid under the table by diverting U.N. funding by a single person, and two persons are aware of it's existence. It's quite far from MI or any sort of government agency.

This said, let's move on to the movie. The plot was predictable and quite lame, the characters mostly uninteresting and the movie in general quite a mess. But if you take scenes on an individual basis, there are many that make the movie worth seeing, especially the end gunfight. Almost on the level with a Woo movie: although it wasn't as graceful as a Woo gunfighting ballet. The running chase scenes were much more interesting than the ones in The Matrix, although the directing gave more power to the scenes in the Matrix. And some other, less important scenes (like the breaking of the mirror in the hideout) are memorable. However, the hand to hand fight at the beginning of the movie was way too fast and frenetic to be really enjoyed.

Also I really liked their coding and ways of communicating.

All in all, I give it a 6, and although it will never be part of my collection, I still recommend seeing it if you're in need of muscled entertainment.

Confused...

[omega1 · 7/10 · 2 October 2000]

For those who don't feel like reading my whole review, here's what I thought; entertaining, has some cool moments, but slightly confusing. Nothing groundbreaking.

Snipes is good as the main character but I found it somewhat difficult to keep up with the twists and turns that the plot takes. Mind you, I'm not exactly the sharpest knife in the drawer when it comes to putting two-and-two-together in movies (Mission Impossible took me 5 times to get the WHOLE thing) but I consider myself reasonably competent at it. Regardless, I still got lost. So did my friends, so they were no help.

The Matrix-esque bullet-trail things were cool but a bit too much of me-too-ism for me to appreciate them more fully.

Oh well. My recommendation; solid action movie, nothing special though. It belongs closer to the top of your "To Watch" list.