“I.T.” (2016) follows Mike Regan (Pierce Brosnan), who is desperate to make his private company go public on the stock market. The temp, Ed Porter (James Frecheville), rescues Mike during a presentation so Mike invites Ed into his home to fix his home internet problems, but Ed mistakes Mike’s assignment for social overtures. Think “Fatal Attraction” corporate edition.
Unless you love any of the cast members, you probably should skip “I.T.” It is the kind of movie that touches on a multitude of topics such as mental health issues, stock offerings, technology, mental health issues, but even an acolyte in those areas will be skeptical that the film got any detail right. The filmmakers are projecting their first impressions about wealth, business, stalkers, medicine and technology then throwing it on screen. There is no situation that feels rooted despite the extra features indicating that one of the filmmakers using his life as inspiration for the story. For instance, when Mike is checking out his new car and reading the instruction manual, he is sitting shotgun, which no one in the history of new car owners would do. Why is Mike seated this way? So Ed can pass by, sit in the driver’s seat and gain access to the GPS, which he upgrades to military grade GPS, whatever that means.
“I.T.” uses their positions as a metaphor for the film’s real agenda. It is not enough that Brosnan, who still looks fantastic, plays Mike, and that Mike is handsome, has a wonderful family and financial success. The film uses Ed as antagonist so Mike can get his mojo back because he is clearly anxious over this business deal, his daughter’s independence and burgeoning sexuality, his wife’s mortality, and his ability to tap into his earlier chutzpah for a second act. There is this fear that success has made him soft, which is symbolized by his reliance on technology and servants. Can he (literally) beat the scrappy young man and return to his self who built his empire and get back in the driver’s seat? The movie devolves into a primal state where Mike must beat his ass to achieve success again, which is ridiculous considering some of his problems should not evaporate when he defeats Ed. The movie starts on a sunny day and descends into storms and darkness. It feels like a male Lifetime movie.
The strangest part of “I.T.” is that Mike’s goal for business redemption is to create an app for renting airplanes, but he is so averse to technology that he does not even know how to use a coffee machine. He seems like the last person who would promote an app. The film has a fuddy duddy vibe that technology is insidious, young and foolish whereas in Mike’s day, people could touch things and did things that matter. When Mike busts out a classic car that would feel at home in “Supernatural,” which complements Ed’s beater because both cars have no smart components, the movie feels as if it made the point that Mike is back. Mike does things himself and rips apart the smart home components from his house with his bare hands.
“I.T.” is a bit pervy too, but could have worked as reboot of “Demon Seed” (1977). Instead of artificial intelligence evolving, Ed as the mind behind the technology could have worked. I came for the storyline (ha) and Brosnan, but most of the film ogles over Kaitlyn (Stefanie Scott), Mike’s seventeen-year-old daughter. Ed seems less interested in Kaitlyn than an unnamed waitress, but he sees that she is the family’s weakest point so he uses her to get closer to Mike. I would have preferred a tighter storyline where Ed and Mike are the primary relationship, initially and mutually drawn to each other then repulsed as Ed seems to usurp him. The film never entertains such a flirtation between friendship, father and son dynamic and/or homoerotic attraction because Mike always keeps Ed at arms’ length. The film vacillates from Kaitlyn being sort of friendly with Ed, fiercely defending him then horrified that her dad even considered talking to him. The writers did not know what to do with a teen girl.
No shade intended towards Frecheville in his portrait of Ed. Any issues that I had with the character are based on writing alone, however as a person who followed Milo Ventimiglia after his diminishing fame in “Heroes,” but before his resurgence in “This Is Us,” Ventimiglia could have pulled off the sleezy dirtbag with escalating intimidation in a way that disturbed and touched the viewers as he did in “The Divide.” Instead “I.T.” relies on ableist tropes about Ed being mentally ill and needing prescription drugs to function. Visually he is depicted as a poor man’s Neo dancing naked in front of a tower of screens in his empty loft. His reign of terror felt remote.
At least “I.T.” looks slick and sleek though the palette is a bit monochromatic and is not vibrant. Anna Friel as Rose, Mike’s wife, is probably the most realistic and human character in the film. Her open disgust and suspicion of Ed made me yearn for her to hijack the film and have the actual showdown against Ed. It is not that Brosnan did a bad job, but he is asked to show a limited range of emotion whereas Friel finds ways to inject as much emotion as she can as she chops vegetables or does some such womanly task. Her open hostility contrasts nicely with her traditional activities. In the extra features, it was obvious that Friel had better insights about the story than reflected on screen. She does her best to elevate the dame in distress, but does not avoid getting sexualized in the denouement, which reeks of potential sexual assault though nothing happens. Watch her crying in the dark making sad sandwiches with Kaitlyn.
My favorite part of “I.T.” was when an unrecognizable Michael Nyqvist does his best Donald Pleasance as Dr. Loomis in “Halloween” (1978) impression. Nyqvist plays a cleaner, Henrik, who coaches Mike on how to deal with the threat. He brings such a weird vibe to the film that I wanted him to be the protagonist. Think a technology “Equalizer.” While his advice seemed dubious, I was fine with it because Nyqvist sold it with his imposing presence and soft, certain voice. Henrik says, “He’s really quite sick, but he is also a bad man, Mr. Regan.” This line is dumb, but he makes it sound as if he is insightful. I don’t know how he did not start laughing while reciting some of his lines.
Biggest plot hole of “I.T.”: how Mike and Henrik knew about Ed’s crush. In an already dreadful film, it is the cardinal sin of the film that makes everything fall apart. The plan is so dumb, especially Mike’s last step, that I cannot believe that Mike told everything to Henrik because Henrik would not have let him do something so foolish.
“I.T.” has a weird police subplot where Mike becomes the underdog, and the police side with Ed because Mike is doing blatant illegal crap against him while sounding like a crazy person. To be fair, the latter makes sense because of the context, but Mike is a suave guy and did not get this far by losing control. The film is so determined to frame Mike as alone when he is a wealthy man who can afford a team of lawyers, shady government types and handlers that it feels silly, especially since the plot drops abruptly. The film just wants Mike to have no recourse and put his back against the wall so he has an excuse to beat someone up. Mike can only earn his success by proving that he is a man. Eye roll.
