It was my turn to hit the video store for the weekend movie afternoon and evening (something for the kids, something for the adults). The duck had mentioned that he had never seen the Warren Beatty/Madonna movie Dick Tracy, so I found that and then attempted to get the whole five-weeklies-for-a-fiver with the same first letter, but it turned out harder to find five rentable movies starting with the letter D so after Dick Tracy and Duchess I had to step to the left and work through the letter C (Choke and Conspiracy). I was still one short, so War Games 2: The Dead Code seemed like the obvious choice.

My guilty little secret is that I love bad action films, especially when they involve the use of technology. I was actually disappointed when Takedown and Spy Game turned out to be pretty decent films, because the duck and I love nothing more than to laugh our way through a supposedly serious movie that expects the viewer to absorb lines such as, ‘I hope the internet’s waterproof’ without choking on popcorn.  Swordfish is an excellent example of this genre.

War Games 2: The Dead Code punched this ticket for us.  War Games (the original) is probably one of the earliest examples of this genre; although to be fair to its decade most original viewers wouldn’t know that it would be fairly problematic to start global thermonuclear war from one’s bedroom. The sequel, released in 2008, cannot hide behind the same naivety, and I’d rate the film highly purely because of the hilarity involved in watching it.

It would be impossible to name all of the plot errors in this film, as they happened approximately once every 43 seconds.  I did have a few outstanding thoughts and questions regarding the film though:

• Why were there goats and hookers at a weapons trading deal in the deserts of Afghanistan?
• Why does RIPLEY announce that the ‘morbidity rate’ of the missile dropped on said weapons traders, goats and hookers is 98.6%?  There were maybe 30 people in the area where the missile was dropped, and it landed in the middle of them. Who survived, a goat in a coma?
• From the guy who created the computer: “RIPLEY detected this cell through one of her honeypot sites. Attractive, high stakes games hidden in the darker reaches of the internet.”  And everyone nods.  None of the so-called counter-terrorism experts and associated geeky types have an issue with this?  For starters, a ‘honeypot’ is by definition something that is popular and highly attractive to many. So if  ’the darker reaches of the internet’ actually existed, the site wouldn’t be there.
• The government decides that the best way to find terrorists is by setting up a gambling website for them to find, apparently by accident. I mean, really. Terrorists are characterised by their love for online gambling? Why wouldn’t they just track potential threats based on search engine hits? Oh, right. Because that would be boring.
• Why can’t an apparently intelligent ‘computer whizz’ can’t tell the difference between a photo and an animation?
• How does a teenage boy know what ‘layering’ is, in regards to his neighbour’s brother using his bank account to launder money?  And why on earth would the neighbour’s brother think that the best way to hide money is to transfer it in and out of his brother’s bank account (who has the same last name as him)?
• How does a teenage girl attach a ‘mousetrap’ to the school’s website?  A device that somehow turns on her webcam so she can talk to anyone trying to ‘hack’ into her school account?
• Why would someone want to own a mobile phone that reads the content of new text messages out loud when they arrive? Especially a teenage boy. Awkward moments in front of the parents begging to be experienced.
• How do Americans gain instant access to Canadian security cameras? And how do the Canucks feel about this horrifying revelation?

Anyway. If anyone likes to spend their two hour film time pointing and laughing (well, three hours when you include all the time you have to pause because you can’t hear the dialogue over the laughing), this film is for you.