007资深影迷点评《幽灵党》

    一年前，当索尼电影公司的员工打开电脑时，出现在他们眼前的是皱着眉头的骷髅头，伴随着冲锋枪扫射的声音。这宣告着该公司的IT系统被黑。网络黑客对这家电影公司声势浩大的入侵，就这样拉开了序幕。

    本周三，最新一部詹姆斯·邦德电影在位于索尼纽约总部第七层楼的影院提前试映。最先出现在大屏幕上的，是散落满地的人骨——这是墨西哥城亡灵节的仪式——然后响起刺客用半自动步枪射击的声音。索尼制作的《幽灵党》，也就是007系列电影的第24部，就这样拉开了序幕。

    也许有人会误认为，这部007电影中的骷髅和子弹与索尼被黑事件如此相似，其中一定别有深意。然而实际上，遭到黑客泄露的剧本已经包含这些情节，这也许真的纯属巧合。

    当时，索尼电影公司的IT员工没有能够及时切断电源，黑客的恶意软件从一台机器跳到另一台机器，殃及到整个公司，并传到其他大洲，横扫索尼一半的全球网络。公司6,797台个人电脑中的3,262台、1,555台服务器中的837台的数据被全部清除。为了确保被清除的数据无法恢复，攻击者们甚至还加了一点额外的毒药：一种特殊的删除算法，用7种方式覆盖原先的数据。这种算法启动后，恶意代码还摧毁了计算机的启动程序，致其“脑死亡”。恶意软件启动后不到一个小时，索尼影业公司就被打回了磁带录像机的时代。公司退化到了使用传真机，在留言板上发布消息，用纸质支票给7,000名雇员发钱。

    《007幽灵党》这部电影确实探讨了网络安全、数据隐私和政府职权等问题。如果你认为这些剧情是在呼应英国正在审查的立法提案，那也情有可原。例如，一份正在英国议会审议的法律草案，建议授予情报机构和执法机关人员在国内全面监听的权力。对于任何看过这部电影的人来说，这一切听起来可能就十分耳熟了。

    请放心，我不会剧透，但我要重申许多愤怒的网络安全专家的建议：在人们的私人通讯设备中开个后门，是个很糟糕的举动。在所谓的好人利用这些后门的同时，坏人一样也会设法利用。

    回到《幽灵党》这部电影，它确实非常好看，尽管剧情还有改善的空间。故事显得有点杂乱脱节，人物不断从一个国家跳转到另一个国家，进行着令人目眩的国际旅行。编剧试图把故事与丹尼尔·克雷格扮演的邦德系列作品联系起来，结果却让主线叙述乱作一团。不过007系列的关键元素同以往一样精彩——飙车追逐、飞机对决、剧烈爆炸、美人诱惑，没错，还有马丁尼酒。

    我的结论是：这部电影让我震撼，但没有打动我，至少和《007大破天幕杀机》相比是这样。

    （财富中文网）

    译者：严匡正

    审校：任文科

    I like the film like the spy likes his martinis.

    When Sony Pictures employees booted up their computers a year ago, scowling skulls and the audio-recorded ratatatat of submachine gun fire announced that their IT systems had been gutted. So unfolded the movie studio’s colossal hacking. (Read Fortune’s epic three-part investigation into that fiasco here, here, and here.)

    When the screen lit up inside the seventh floor theater of Sony’s SNE -1.06% New York headquarters on Wednesday night for an advance viewing of the latest James Bond adventure, the scene revealed a skeleton-scattered landscape—a raucous Día de Muertos fiesta in Mexico City—followed, eventually, by the pewpewpew of an assassin’s semi-automatic rifle. So opened Sony-made Spectre, the twenty-fourth installment of the secret agent series.

    Perhaps one would be mistaken to read too much into the coincidental display of bones and bullets in Sony’s digital ransacking and the Bond movie’s prelude. Hackers had leaked a version of the script already containing these plot points in the course of their vandalism. So the stagecraft might just be a harmonious accident.

    The film does grapple, however, with questions of cybersecurity, data privacy, and government authority. One would not be mistaken then, in reading the story as a serendipitous commentary on very real legislative initiatives under review in the United Kingdom at this very moment. A draft bill wending its way through the parliament, for instance, proposes to grant intelligence agencies and law enforcement officials sweeping surveillance powers within the country. To anyone who sees the film, this may sound familiar.

    Rest assured, I won’t spoil what happens in the spy’s fictional universe, but I will reiterate the exasperated advice of many a cybersecurity expert: Building backdoors into people’s private communications is a bad practice. Villains will find ways to exploit this access just as much as the supposed good guys can. (Side note: if you’re looking to read more on proposed cybersecurity laws, keep an eye out for the next issue of Fortune magazine, where I plan to have the download on a U.S. cybersecurity bill called CISA that recently passed in the Senate.)

    To return to Spectre, the film is exceptionally entertaining, though the plot leaves something to be desired. The story often feels disjointed—leaping from country to country on a dizzying world tour. An attempt on the part of the screenwriters to tie the narrative strings together on the Daniel Craig-acted Bond series resembles a knotty threadbare tangle. But the glamorous aspects of “007” espionage are as enthralling as ever—the car chases, the helicopter fights, the explosions, the seduction, and yes, the martinis.

    My review can be summarized thusly: I was shaken, not stirred. (At least in comparison to Skyfall.)