Not having seen the movie, not having read past the spoiler alert, I find the argument that Eagle Eye should be derided because it rips off other action movies, well, ridiculious. Action movies rip each other off all the time. Think about this- how many new ways can you show a person fighting another person, shooting at another person, blowing up another person, blowing up things?

Action movies, like romantic comedies, like sports movies, like tearjerkers, are a genre of film Genre-according to my dictionary-is defined as "a category of artistic compositions characterized by similarities in form, style or subject matter." (Oxford American College Dictionary). Art--painting, literature, theatre, film--has since its inception, been influenced by itself. Eagle Eye is surely not art, but it does rely on a long tradition of the actioners before it.

I could give the examples that Die Hard 2,3,4 and Bourne 2,3, Batman 2,3,4,5,6, Star Wars 2,3,4,5,6, and hundreds if not thousands of films that were NOT sequels relied on the same plot, formula, but that would take too long. Shakespeare's major plays, the ones he is loved for 400 years later, were all inspired by other works or history. Suffice it to say, it's not the idea that's important, it's how you execute it.