I wish we could do the same for Computer Science/Software. Movies like "Travelling Salesman" or "Pirates of Silicon Valley" or "Imitation Game" would be great suggestions but typically things like the Matrix or Ghost in the Shell are recommended which for me are great movies but poor examples of the discipline.
I would say "Anything that offers insight in to the world way software is" -- since Mr. Robot is entirely fictional so wouldn't qualify for me but I would add that it at least tries to be faithful to what software is. Terminology seems appropriately used it forgoes many cheap Hollywood software tropes.
Wargames is a great hacking movie. The ending is a little meh, but the old-school tech is fantastic. It inspired the video game DEFCON.
Sneakers is another great movie. It seems a lot more faithful to how hacking works in real life: as you said it's mostly about social engineering, not how fast you can type. And the device in the movie is at least somewhat plausible. A mathematician could in theory discover a critical vulnerability in cryptography and build it into a standalone electronic device.
Hackers is awful. I don't get the appeal at all. I'll never understand why this movie is so popular. I'd put it right up there with Swordfish in terms of nonsensical computer voodoo.
Hackers had a lot of influence from the scene and the vibe from 2600 meetups and even one of the characters is named Emmanuel Goldstein. The soundtrack was so good they released a second soundtrack with songs which were not even in the movie.
> Wargames is a great hacking movie. The ending is a little meh, but the old-school tech is fantastic.
There were a few great things about that movie: the technology was grounded in reality, rather than fantasy (except for the WOPR); the hacking was plausible, rather than magical; not only was there commentary on the geopolitical situation of the time, but it was plausible.
The end was incredibly disappointing, but I do not know how I would improve upon it since it is pretty much the consequence of the fantastical WOPR. It would have been a much darker movie if the WOPR was replaced with a more realistic computer.
Yeah, you pretty much have to accept that you have this somewhat fantastical scenario simulation computer running your production nuclear missile controls. But if you can get past that, it has a real feeling to it and was a lot of fun besides.
Sneakers works great for the era, if you just imagine the "magic box" as a fast DES cracker. It even makes the comment at the end about how "it only works on US crypto, not Russian" make sense !
The Matrix has one huge plot hole: There is nothing sacred or special about the way humans extract energy from food. You can do the ATP cycle in a vat and get the same results but you never break even or get a net energy gain. If a post-singularity AI needed to assure a continuous energy supply, that has to be among the worst possible ways to do it.
I'm not sure I'd call it a plot hole but it's a pretty weak explanation. Something like using humans for processing capacity or something like that would have made more sense at least in a handwavy SF context.
> Something like using humans for processing capacity or something like that would have made more sense at least in a handwavy SF context.
ISTR reading that that’s the original explanation, and it is what the depiction of the programs-as-people (and agents specifically actively replacing people) is grounded in. The exposition—but just the exposition—was changed at studio direction based on test audience feedback.
(Personally, I think the change to in-character exposition is an improvement, not because it is plausible, but because it foreshadows and underlines that the “free” humans understanding of the Matrix is ultimately grounded in deception intended, as later made explicit, a system of control.)
Of course, I don't accept the reality in which the sequels exist :-) I admit I was pretty much in the school that The Matrix was a cool film and didn't really dive into the sequels and what they meant too deeply.
The explanation given in the 1st movie is quite the interpretation of the humans and far from the truth. In the 3rd movie the Architect explains why the humans are bred and why Zion exists.
I didn't enjoy "General Magic". It barely touched the device, UI or the thinking behind it. It was the typical generic startup movie about the people, not about the tech.
"Halt and Catch Fire" seems more like something every tech-startup worker should watch, but totally agree on the recommendation -- it is literally the most real, most reflective TV series on the industry, focusing on the average/typical experience through the industry and life.
Hello cm2187 what's happening. I'm gonna need you to go ahead and not recommend movies while at work. So if you could go ahead and get back to it.. that'd be great.
I re-watched Hackers recently and it isn't that bad. They clearly did the research, and then spiced things up for more enjoyable viewing. It's not accurate, but it wasn't trying to be, and I think they got the main points across perfectly well.
Eg, there's a lot of social engineering, and taking sensible precautions like not using your own connection. The villain's plot of hijacking a control system and extorting money is perfectly modern.
Sure, there's a bunch of colorful graphics they put on top of that, but it's arguably a visual representation of "being in the zone", and something that's done in virtually every other piece of media ever. Any real job includes lots of boring work that never ends up on the screen, and you just get the highlights.
I'm not sure why, but the two hackers fighting to get control of a tv station's tape robot is simultaneously the greatest and most ridiculous thing in that whole movie.
Even that is sort of sensible, actually. Just not in the exact manner depicted.
In say, an Unix system, a tape robot is going to be hooked up to some sort of SCSI device, and probably nothing prevents two people from commanding it at once in conflicting ways.
Two people logged into the same system trying to figure out who the other one is and kill their login process or to disable whatever way the other guy used to get in -- also possible.
Even two people typing at each other is a thing. Linux has the 'write' and 'wall' commands, and there even was a realtime chat program:
So yes, the entire scenario of two people breaking into the same computer, sending conflicting commands to the tape robot, trying to kick the other one out, and even sending chat messages at each other is very much something that's plausible on an Unix system. Just without the colorful graphics.
Sneakers is about perfect for those kinds of movies. The major hacking facets are all represented by various specialists and it is all just barely plausible.
I'm probably a minority in this but I always thought "The Net" with Sandra Bullock was prescient about technology and its dangers, even if the wrapping was hokey.
My 6 & 8yr old kids adored that when I showed it to them recently. Ben's character more than a little out of place these days: he's used entirely as an object of comedy (and that as a target rather than a source), does nothing for the story, and his casting would definitely not be acceptable in 2021. The rest of the movie is fun and warm though, and the robot is endlessly quotable by little voices.
yeah that's a sad point about Ben's character. I'm going on about 35 years of memory since i last saw it and then just looked up a few quotes on rotten tomatoes. I like the dilemma facing engineers working on military weapons. Then also the theme around AI and those implications.
Yeah it's all good except for that, and definitely touches on some pretty cutting edge concerns as you mention.
I didn't remember the Ben stuff either. I hadn't seen it since I guess age of 10? Put it on for the kids to watch with them a couple months ago and I spent most of it praying that Ben wasn't the thing they'd remember. If you have a reason to watch it again then I'd do so, it's amazing how uncomfortable it'll make you feel with modern eyes!
I think the filmmakers recognized how crap that was anyway, he's barely in it and does nothing for the story.
He's the main character in the sequel though. So while he was Steve Guttenberg's comic sidekick in the first movie, I don't think we can deduce that the filmmakers thought Fisher Stevens's character was "crap".
We're just going to have to accept that we were a bit tone-deaf back then. No one blinked twice at Fisher Stevens dipped in bronzer and doing his best Ghandi impression.
The sad thing is that I do like both movies. I was at the right age for that whole quirky robot comes alive schtick to really hit. I try to rationalize it by saying that Ben isn't really a negative portrayal. The dude is smart, witty, kind, and all around a good dude.
The Social Network would be on the list for me. I remember grinning from ear to ear in the theater seeing Perl and wget on the big screen during the Harvard scenes. Great movie.
I would count the Social Network as well. Still lots of suggestions I wouldn't agree with below my comment. The problem is many are conflating great movies that involve software/computer concepts rather than movies based on software/computer concepts.
I think as a programmer I'm way more easy going about realism when it comes to computers in movies. I get way more picky about physics, biology, sports, and other topics where I'm just a gee-whiz dilettante.
Trinity used an actual exploit (ssh IIRC). This sets it apart some movies like Jurassic Park with the girl looking at some UI made of 3D shapes and says "unix, I know it).
Or NCIS - of which I copied for an awareness training the part where the two geeks "go though the firewall" both on the same keyboard.
Also, the Jurassic Park scene to which you're referring was a real picture of SGI IRIX's 3D file manager. It was visual fluff, but functional visual fluff.
Jurassic Park: That was the Button Fly Demo UI from SGI IRIX. So at least it wasn't a complete mockup. (But nor is it the same as "knowing unix". If she knew unix, she would've been complaining more.)
reply