The Circle

الدائرة الحلقة 11-S1E11

I was a big fan of Dave Eggers' A Hologram for the King. It was a fantastic read for enjoyment and to analyze. The film adaptation also did not disappoint. When The Circle was announced as a film I immediately checked out the book. To my disappointment, the film wasn't as interesting an got to bogged down to its technological ventures and wasn't exactly the best read. However, I held out hope that the film would be able to impress, especially with the star studded cast at the helm. Emma Watson plays Mae Holland an ambitious young customer service rep who joins The Circle, a cutting edge technology based company that seems to be growing at fast pace and changing the future. The thing is, the technological leap of the company leads to massive privacy concerns and the company seems to be capable of more than what initially meets the eye. First off, I will say that the scathing reviews I've seen for the film are somewhat unwarranted, however the film is far from perfect and could have been much better. The plot may seem like its minimal or nonexistent but this wasn't really my concern. I was more concerned with things being introduced into the film that have no real importance later in the film. John Boyega's character is a glorified cameo that seems to just be there as a big name. In the book the character is mysterious has a much larger effect on Mae's life. The ending of the film leaves much more to be desired; there needed to be more explanation onto what the reveal was and anything about repercussions. The film is littered with talented people but unfortunately the writing and the structure of the film really lets them down. Its a misfire really, and the film needed to be much better and have a stronger central message. I feel like parts of the film and scenes were left on the cutting room floor. The film isn't exactly terrible but its most certainly unfulfilled and really could have left a stronger impression. 6/10

Hands down, one the absolute WORST films I have ever seen. I say that having seen "The Fish that Saved Pittsburgh", "Choo Choo and the Philly Flash", and "Smokey and the Bandit III". It makes "Cannonball Run II" look like "Citizen Kane". Tom Hanks has about six scenes and about twenty lines. Putting him on the poster is fraud.

Kept spoilers 'light' and used only as needed to describe the opinion of the film. This film sticks front-and-center an indisputable fact that technology unchecked can and will go to the extreme. I suspect (unproven) that Ms. Watson signed on to do this film as it holds a moral and carries a social lesson. If you have children, teens, friends oblivious to the fact that the internet and streaming are NOT private, then you must get them to go see this movie - and the social message is the reason why I rate this as an "8". Leader of the company (Tom Hanks) and Chief Tech Officer (Patton Oswalt) deem everyone except themselves should be transparent, including government. When a political obstacle arises in a Senator, of course they dig up and release the dirt on them found in their 'social sins', then sponsor a candidate that is willing to be transparent in every email, every call, every action, every bill, etc. (Naivety at its best, as no company or government can operate 100% transparent.) In the end, the good persona (Emma Watson) turns the tables on the powerful leaders in front of an audience and makes them susceptible to the very elements they want others subservient to. I don't usually care for Tom Hanks, but he did a good job in this film - with an outstanding low- level "we're f'd" comment once realizing the tables have turned. Ms. Watson continues to grow in her acting skills and shines even brighter than Mr. Hanks in a few scenes (but not overall). Patten Oswalt plays the tough bad-guy in his outstanding short scenes, and fit the role perfectly. The role of John Boyega (as Ty) left a bit to be desired (a 2D character that should have had more depth provided), but liked his acting much better in this film, compared to his role as Finn in Star Wars: The Force Awakens; he did well.

Set in the near future "The Circle" tells a horror story of the social media age involving an omnipotent American corporate, pitched somewhere between being Facebook-like and Google-like (note, lawyers, I just said "like"!) Emma Watson ("Beauty and the Beast") plays young intern Mae who, partly through the aid of family friend Annie (Karen Gillan, "Guardians of the Galaxy", "Doctor Who") but mostly through her own aptitude, lands a foothold job in customer services for the company. With the lush corporate campus fast becoming home, Mae is quickly singled out as having "executive potential" by the charismatic CEO Bailey (Tom Hanks, "Bridge of Spies") and his more taciturn sidekick Stenton (US comedian Patton Oswalt). Progressively brainwashed into believing the company's intrusive snooping (a favourite motto is "Secrets are Lies") is all for 'the greater good', Mae champions the cause until a tragedy rocks her world and her company beliefs to the core. Whenever I watch a film I tend to form my own opinion first before checking out what the 'general public' on IMDb think. In this case, I must confess to being a bit surprised at our divergence of views: a lot of people clearly hated this movie whereas I confess that I found it very entertaining. Certainly with the alleged role of Russia in influencing elections around the world via social media, the film is most certainly topical! Many reviewers seemed quite upset that Watson's character is such a 'doormat', in that her views are so easily manipulated by the corporate machine. But not every woman – as indeed every man – can or should be a Joan of Arc style role model in every film: why should they be? I actually found her indoctrination into "the Circle way" as quite convincing, especially a creepy scene where two corporate lackies (Cho Smith and Amir Talai) say that they're not checking up on Mae's social life, but…. Watson enjoys extending her post-Potter repertoire well, but the talented John Boyega ("Star Wars: The Force Awakens") is completely wasted in his role as Ty; the Wozniak-like genius behind The Circle's technology. The script gives him very little to do other than stand around and look grumpy. The film is sad in being the last movie appearance of the great Bill Paxton ("Apollo 13") who plays Mae's sick father and who died of complications following heart surgery two months before the film's release (the film is dedicated "For Bill"). Tragically, Mae's mother in the film, actress Glenn Headly ("Dirty Rotten Scoundrels") also died suddenly at the age of 62, also due to heart problems, a couple of months after the film's release. It's surprising the film doesn't have a "curse of The Circle" tag on it. The film was directed by James Ponsoldt, who also wrote the screenplay with novel-writer Dave Eggers ("Away We Go"). I particularly liked the on-screen use of captioning (posts) which was reminiscent to me of last year's "Nerve", a B-movie film I rated highly that also had a string social media theme. While the ending of the film is a bit twee – a movie definition of "being hoisted by your own petard" – it's overall a thought provoking piece sufficiently close to the truth as to where society is going to raise the hairs on your neck. (For the graphical review, please visit bob-the-movie-man.com or check out One Mann's Movies on Facebook. Thanks.)

Call me the inevitable exception to the rule but I liked Circle. The story is a familiar one - something seems too good to be true, and winds up being so. In this case, it is a business called the Circle that takes intrusive technology to the next level. Miniature cameras are used to let others watch each other twenty-four hours a day, it is as if the whole world has become one big family. At first it seems like an excellent idea – people can be rescued when they otherwise would have died, criminals that had gone "off the grid" can be apprehended, life can be made simpler, more secure. Of course, there is the inevitable down side namely the obliteration of privacy. No matter where you go, you matter what you do, someone-body-thing is always watching you. There is in inevitable argument over how much surveillance is too much, is the security worth the price of freedom. I noticed this movie has received several negative reviews. I will admit this is not a conspiracy high-tech Jason Bourne style movie, there are no international assassins or cold blooded corporate executives trying to rule the world. Rather, the movie asks several questions. Is, say, the internet good or bad? Should we increase our security or put a limit on things. It makes you think.

This movie is cheesy in all the wrong ways. The dialogue is just cliché and awful. The acting (aside from Bill Paxton who is only on screen for like 3 mins) is horrendous. I mean some of these people can actually act, but they are either just phoning it in or something else was going on. Either way, this is just complete crap. The story was so ham-fisted and obvious that it just makes you cringe the whole way through. Avoid at all costs.

I was really looking forward to seeing this when it popped up on my streaming service. Such an interesting concept (how technological advancement will effect humanity) and a good cast. One problem. The plot was grossly under developed and the ending was weak and predictable. First big issue, the main character seems to have a complete 180 on her beliefs halfway through the movie without a plausible reason (honestly I was waiting for her to have been drugged or something). Second big issue, you don't understand what the bad guys motivation is. Are they die hard believers? Are they just doing it for money and power? And how are they so ridiculously stupid that they'd allow themselves to be taken down so easily?! Now the sneaky thing about this film is that they develop the plot JUST ENOUGH that the story will keep you engaged the entire time (and these days that's rare). Problem is that if you were looking for something a little deeper and philosophical on such a complex and important topic you would walk away feeling unsatisfied.

"Knowing is good, but knowing everything is better." Bailey (Tom Hanks) How much information is too much? The Circle shows in a direct and melodramatic form that the saturation point is here. Mae (Emma Watson) is hired by a tech-centered firm, an amalgam of Apple, Facebook, and the CIA. Their inclusion-full-knowledge mantra culminates in Mae's agreeing to have complete transparency, a Truman Show for our time. Bailey is the Steve-Jobs guru, whose weekly assembly for the campus is a model of group think and cultism, launching from the newest technology to the newest invasion of privacy. The willingness of the audience to embrace everything from the unethical farming of information to his obviously self-serving anecdotes suggests Jim-Jones cool-aid-audience imbibing. The film is an attention-getting, absorbing object lesson in neglecting critical thinking. The film's provocative theme about full disclosure includes the implied dialectic between the common good and privacy. Knowing where criminals are, such as in our sex-offender laws, is good in the case of creeps but scary when innocent citizens are the object. Two incidents close to the protagonist illustrate the effects of private invasion, one for survival, the other for denying the efficacy. The former is about saving Mae from drowning because of surveillance and the other about the world seeing her aging parents having sex. No one could wish not to have life-saving surveillance; no one could want parental transparency 24/7. The Circle is frequently simplistic, e.g., having records that allow automatic registration for voting but also require voting, ignores invasion of privacy and personal choice. None of this polemic completely negates the efficacy of social media and constant contact. However, transparency, the film suggests, invades and makes circus-like a privacy our Constitution implies. The camera spends too much time on Mae's bland, wondering stare and meaningless conversations that would be better spent arguing the mission of the Circle. At least it's a start toward better regulation of social information both public and private.