Darren New wrote:
> Bill Pragnell wrote:
>>  3 was good, I liked the puzzle-bombing concept, but it all fell apart 
>> a bit towards the end. 
> 
> Disagree. The end is what made it all worthwhile: that there was 
> something other than just mad-bomber puzzles going on.

Yeah, it definitely needed something else, but it just felt like two 
different stories shoe-horned into one movie for me.

>> Number 4 was surprisingly good but there was too much to-ing and fro-ing.
> 
> Four with the power grid bit? That was awful. The hacker characters knew 
> way too much about what was going on. For example, why would the 
> computers at the electrical substation know what valves were opening and 
> closing in the gas pipes in the next city over?  Dumb stuff like that 
> kept pulling me out of it.

Well, surprisingly good is only a relative term! I did find most of the 
plot devices pretty silly to be honest. Sounds like you had the same 
sort of problems with this one as I had with the second one.

Post a reply to this message