Sun 28 May 2017
Archived Movie Review: SNEAKERS (1992)
Posted by Steve under Reviews , Suspense & espionage films[11] Comments
SNEAKERS. Universal Pictures, 1992. Robert Redford, Dan Ackroyd, Ben Kingsley, Sidney Portier, River Phoenix, Mary McDonnell, James Earl Jones. Director: Phil Alden Robinson.
An aging ex-radical hippie is roped into pulling a steal for what he thinks is the National Security Agency, but of course it really isn’t. At stake is the security of the nation’s computer networks, a hacker’s sweat dream, if ever there was one.
High tech without much glitter, the movie is slower moving than it should be, but with all these pros on the job, it still manages to be an above average piece of work.
— Reprinted from Nothing Accompliced #4, November 1993 (very slightly revised)
May 28th, 2017 at 4:25 pm
I wish this review were longer, but at the time, this is all I wrote. I’d try to pad it some now, but this is all I remember.
May 28th, 2017 at 5:23 pm
I enjoyed Sneakers when it came out. Haven’t seen it since.
At the time, was impressed by the film’s command of computer technology. It was an early film to discuss “encryption” as part of computer security.
The film has low-key but real charm.
It is not as good as Robinson’s wonderful “Field of Dreams”. But that is a high bar.
May 29th, 2017 at 7:00 am
I don’t remember much of this movie either. I do remember it more as a caper film, entertaining and instantly forgettable. With the talent behind it it is a surprise that it wasn’t better. Redford is a very good and appealing actor but his characters often lack an edge and fade into the background. That type of character worked great in THREE DAYS OF THE CONDOR, but too often Redford’s films are entertaining but meh.
May 29th, 2017 at 12:55 pm
I haven’t seen as many Redford films as I might have, but you’ve just expressed a thought that I hadn’t quite formulated yet — that his characters lack an edge to them that other actors might have added, even subtly in the very same roles. I will keep that thought in mind as I watch more of his movies.
May 29th, 2017 at 8:54 am
Like you say, above average — and very watchable!
May 29th, 2017 at 11:02 am
The useful “Math in Movies” website has this clip of mathematical cryptography in Sneakers:
http://www.math.harvard.edu/~knill/mathmovies/swf/sneakers.html
May 29th, 2017 at 12:48 pm
Thanks for the clip, Mike. I always wonder in movies like this how much of the mathematical symbols on display mean anything, or if they’re there only for effect.
One of my favorite TV series was NUMB3RS, in which all of the math involved was authenticated by actual mathematicians, or so I’ve been led to believe. It is hard to believe that it was on for six seasons.
May 29th, 2017 at 12:58 pm
I meant to add — so I will now — that even this clip doesn’t bring back any memories of the movie. This is strange. It doesn’t happen often. I enjoyed it at the time, but it’s totally gone now.
May 29th, 2017 at 2:26 pm
Steve,
I actually don’t remember the actual movie either.
What I remember is having a conversation about cryptography with a computer scientist friend AFTER the movie.
This clip confirmed that cryptography was indeed in the film.
May 29th, 2017 at 5:56 pm
I had totally forgotten this one. Entertaining film that somehow got erased from my memory chip.
I agree about Redford, yet that blandness has also served him well in other films.
May 30th, 2017 at 10:32 pm
Pauline Kael made the interesting point, which I agree with, that Redford seemed warmest and most approachable in as Hubbel in THE WAY WE WERE because we see him through Katie’s (Streisand’s) worshipful love-dazzled eyes for much of the film.
Redford I think in general is a cold presence in most of his films. Obviously a huge star of course.
(Rick Libott)