Can I get my 100 minutes of my life back please? Good god! Came home from a long day of teaching to find my wife had this on. Tired I sat down with her to watch this.
It's one of the worst films I have ever seen. Seriously.
My great hope was that suddenly the silhouettes of two robots and a human would enter stage right and proceed to hilariously dismantle this atrocity in hilarious fashion, scene by scene.
We used to say of a weak movie that it goes straight to video. This one needs no time in the vault before being pilloried on Mystery Science 3000.
1
This review is perfect except for two problems; I did not read it before I decided to rent the film, and it is entirely too positive.
5
Mic drop.
IMHO, the movie far outstrips this review in both intelligence and provoking thought. This movie raises and addresses important issues raised by our culture of needing to know everything. And I'm a bit tired of reviewers thinking it's their job to throw rocks. That has become so prevalent that I generally do not pay critics much mind when choosing which films to watch.
1
I've gotta agree, Apollo 13 was a terrific film. This one looks like a mashup of "The Social Network", "Eagle Eye", and dashes of style from "Da Vinci Code". Bleah.
I am stunned by reviewers finding so many good things to say about inconsequential, fatuous films like 'The Fate and the Furious' and the 'Gifted'. They even have the temerity to publish a glowing advance in this issue of the Times of the utterly stupid 'Guardians of the Galaxy' franchise. 'The Circle,' though not a great film, is an infinitely better enterprise than most on the screen now. Emma Watson and Karen Gillan are exceptional in their roles. Despite certain flaws, 'The Circle' seizes the compelling ambiguity between transparency and privacy, enough to keep the audience wrestling with it long after they leave the theater.
2
Why does Forest Gump, I mean Tom Hanks, (if you get the gist) take on roles like this one in "The Circle"?
Bad reviews and rightly so.
Bad reviews and rightly so.
1
Just saw The Circle. Meh. Predictable. Devoid of tension. And one character, played by John Boyega, was like one of the dead-but-not-dead dead persons brought to life in the book "Lincoln in the Bardo." Boyega was in the movie, in the plot, but not really a part of anything going on on the screen. Just odd.
Hollywood cannot stand an unhappy ending. Fair warning: plot spoilers follow: In the book, Mae helps "complete" the circle, and it ends with her friend Annie in a comma, while Mae wonders how The Circle can burrow into her very thoughts. In other words, the book ends with the bad guys winning. But in the movie, it's the exact opposite: Mae brings down The Circle by hoisting them with their own petards. You want transparency? Fine, Mae says, here's transparency--every e-mail, including the super secret ones, are now public. So the movie ends with the good guys winning. Once more, Hollywood takes the complex and renders it simple, if not simplistic.
Found the movie very thought-provoking.
Look forward to reading the book.
Wish there were a Rotten Tomatoes site critiquing Critics, to give them a dose of their own medicine: pretentious pedantry by people who see too many movies to relate to a general audience.
Signed,
First Year Epistomologist, PhD
Look forward to reading the book.
Wish there were a Rotten Tomatoes site critiquing Critics, to give them a dose of their own medicine: pretentious pedantry by people who see too many movies to relate to a general audience.
Signed,
First Year Epistomologist, PhD
5
Black Mirror on Netflix has made multiple theatrical-quality episodes about our digital age/future that are so poignant and forward thinking, this movie comes too little too late. I am scratching my head as to why the studio optioned this minor work bun Eggers instead of one of his better books.
1
I enjoyed this movie, and I thought about it afterwards much more than I do about most movies. It was much better than most of the reviews indicate.
Yes, it has flaws (such as Ellar Coltrane's acting, which was largely stuck in one stoner-like grin). Yes, it has elements that don't make much sense, or which seem artificial -- but so do most movies that get much better reviews. More importantly, unlike most of the movies we see today, it is about something important. Although it's a fantasy, it's about something real -- the way Silicon Valley is changing our lives and constantly spying on us. There are people claiming that the type of "total transparency" into every one's lives this movie explores will become necessary for the survival of humanity.
It's a shame that this movie got the extremely low rating of "17" on the very influential Rotten Tomatoes web site. As a result of that and its bad reviews in general it opened to largely empty theaters, when the vast majority of movies that get much better ratings are ones that glamorize murder, thievery, shallow sex, explosions, car crashes, and otherwise destructive or unfulfilling behaviors.
Yes, it has flaws (such as Ellar Coltrane's acting, which was largely stuck in one stoner-like grin). Yes, it has elements that don't make much sense, or which seem artificial -- but so do most movies that get much better reviews. More importantly, unlike most of the movies we see today, it is about something important. Although it's a fantasy, it's about something real -- the way Silicon Valley is changing our lives and constantly spying on us. There are people claiming that the type of "total transparency" into every one's lives this movie explores will become necessary for the survival of humanity.
It's a shame that this movie got the extremely low rating of "17" on the very influential Rotten Tomatoes web site. As a result of that and its bad reviews in general it opened to largely empty theaters, when the vast majority of movies that get much better ratings are ones that glamorize murder, thievery, shallow sex, explosions, car crashes, and otherwise destructive or unfulfilling behaviors.
4
This reviewer seems almost incapable of getting through a sentence without a reference to someone or something other than the film under review. He didn't like "The Net" and he is very familiar with "Invasion of the Body Snatchers" (which, in a fascinating aside, he tells us was filmed in the Bay Area), and a Joshua Cohen novel (who?) called "Book of Numbers" and the HBO series "Silicon Valley. Also one of the actors had a more substantial performance in a Richard Linklater movie in which he was literally filmed over the course of an entire decade of his life. You think? Oh yes, and there is a black character in the movie played by an actor other than Denzel Washington, so the reviewer limited his critique to how good an impression of Denzel Washington the actor was able to do ("very creditable," it turns out, if also moderately racist to say so). Finally, because Bill Paxton and Tom Hanks are also in the film, he closes the review by recommending an entirely different film about astronauts - "Apollo 13." He also writes: "But it’s plain, not much more than 15 minutes in, that without the story’s paranoid aspects you’re left with a conceptual framework that’s been lapped three times over by the likes of, say --" No. You don't get to remove central elements of a film and then unfavorably compare it other works. Imagine this guy's review of Hitchcock's Vertigo (which, by the way, was also filmed in the Bay Area!) - "But it's plain, without the story's paranoid aspects . . ."
9
There are two things one garners from this review. First, that we should very much worry about living in a surveillance state, and second, that The Circle is not a great movie. I haven't seen the film and therefore can't comment on the latter, but would like to make an observation about the former.
We really should be very afraid of living in a society with ubiquitous, ever increasing, surveillance, both by government and private enterprise.
Quick: what well known company monitors everything we do on their web site, is rather opaque about it, does not provide any sort of opt-out, and includes this language buried in their privacy policy: "In the future, we may sell, buy, merge or partner with other companies or businesses. In such transactions, we may include your information among the transferred assets."
Answer: The New York Times
So, people, you really should be worried. Many choose to sacrifice privacy for convenience. But this should be not be mandatory; those of us that wish to maintain a level of personal privacy should find it easy and transparent to do so.
Europe is doing more to protect its citizens that the US. The right to reasonable privacy must be a legal right enjoyed by all citizens.
And the New York Times should practice what it so often preaches, and provide opt-outs from monitoring for its subscribers, who are, after all, paying customers.
We really should be very afraid of living in a society with ubiquitous, ever increasing, surveillance, both by government and private enterprise.
Quick: what well known company monitors everything we do on their web site, is rather opaque about it, does not provide any sort of opt-out, and includes this language buried in their privacy policy: "In the future, we may sell, buy, merge or partner with other companies or businesses. In such transactions, we may include your information among the transferred assets."
Answer: The New York Times
So, people, you really should be worried. Many choose to sacrifice privacy for convenience. But this should be not be mandatory; those of us that wish to maintain a level of personal privacy should find it easy and transparent to do so.
Europe is doing more to protect its citizens that the US. The right to reasonable privacy must be a legal right enjoyed by all citizens.
And the New York Times should practice what it so often preaches, and provide opt-outs from monitoring for its subscribers, who are, after all, paying customers.
3
If privacy is what you want, then conduct your business in cash, read your newspaper in print form, and don't browse websites like the NYT. Or if you feel the need to visit nytimes.com, make a fake profile.
I don't recall much "great dialog" in the book either. In the book Mr Egger's characters were somewhere between flat and unappealing. Precisely what you see in real life tweets.
One of the more interesting themes in the book was capturing the life histories of the founders and uploading it into those giant machines in the basement. I hope that made it into the movie, It was under-developed in the book.
One of the more interesting themes in the book was capturing the life histories of the founders and uploading it into those giant machines in the basement. I hope that made it into the movie, It was under-developed in the book.
Terrible, terrible!!! I attended the launch at TFF, and got annoyed not only by this bland movie, but seeing Tom Hanks on stage not even acknowledge and pay tribute to Jonathan Demme who passed away that same day. Knowing how essential was the character he offered to Hanks in Philadelphia. Few words to the audience wouldn't have hurt! A shame...
4
Is this a review of a movie or are we comparing/contrasting the book and the novel??? "playing a character who was vital in the book but whose role has been reconfigured..." So what!! Many ticket buyers have not read the book. Why so much time spent on the book??? "That maxim also appears in the novel....." And??? So??? Who cares!!!
9
Seeing the movie tonight, so Mr. Kenny's critical observations may be on target. Doesn't sound promising. His comments about the novel are not on target. The book is very good and is really 1984 re-told in the Age of Social Media. See my review in the Huffington Post:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/joseph-a-domino/privacy-is-theft-an-orwell...
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/joseph-a-domino/privacy-is-theft-an-orwell...
3
'any first-year graduate student in philosophy could demolish it'
Um, this is true of pretty nearly every word out of the mouth of Steve Jobs, Elon Musk, or any of the other tech kiddie 'visionaries' who are, to borrow a phrase from H.L. Mencken, 'the new hot dickety'. (I could borrow many other phrases from Mencken, and I wish he were alive to give his opinion of Google, FB, et al.)
I, for one, thought the novel was great. But then, I have only 2 FB friends - three, if you count the dead one.
Um, this is true of pretty nearly every word out of the mouth of Steve Jobs, Elon Musk, or any of the other tech kiddie 'visionaries' who are, to borrow a phrase from H.L. Mencken, 'the new hot dickety'. (I could borrow many other phrases from Mencken, and I wish he were alive to give his opinion of Google, FB, et al.)
I, for one, thought the novel was great. But then, I have only 2 FB friends - three, if you count the dead one.
16
You lost me at "epistemology". The Times, which I love, at its elitist worst.
12
In this case faux elitist--because no sophisticate would have written that line or used that word in this context.
2
"At what point did the Circle put a hiring freeze on anyone conversant with epistemology?" Really? I did my PhD in History and had professors who weren't conversant with epistemology. (They were, for the most part, unreconstructed empiricists.) That's the criticism this reviewer wishes to level at Eggers? Perhaps we should ask, at what point did the New York Times put a hiring freeze on writers (and editors) conversant with common sense? The line from the book "knowing is good but knowing everything is better" is, in context, downright brilliant. I'm barely a Dave Eggers fan, but let's give credit where it's due.
21
I think the point though is that the movie/book's apparent ambitions merit this kind of criticism. William S. Burroughs offered a pointed way of evaluating art (not an entirely original one): what is the work trying to do? how well does it do it? I think given what the Circle is trying to do, the point about it's epistemological simplistic is fair game; you may disagree with the claim's accuracy, but I don't think raising questions about epistemological sophistication is altogether out of bounds given the film's premise.
1
Knowing everything might seem brilliant--but is impossible. Unlike baseball which is touted to be much like life--a Murphy's Law conviction--with the exception that baseball is mainly honest--the only thing stolen is a base or a sign. Without knowing everything--now that is brilliant. Glad you liked the movie. The NY Times has me hesitating.
I thought Emma Watson's in and out British Accent was annoying. Because of the constant close ups, you could see the British inflections in the way she moved her mouth so even when her accent sounded American, her mouth wasn't playing the part. And I agree the John Boyega's role was bizarre.
6
@Diego Oh dear. How shocking.
I can't disagree with Mr. Kenny's conclusion about the movie's heavy-handed implausibilities, carried over from the novel, where they didn't work either. But Emma Watson gives a nicely detailed, outreaching performance, as if she actually believes in the self-contradictory story that's unfolding around her -- devouring her is more like it. One doesn't quite understand how she manages to remain poised, but her committed acting pulled me through the movie. Otherwise, aside from some funny, plummy high tech visuals, the movie comes to very little. Eggers has some promising ideas, but he hasn't dramatized them effectively, in print or onscreen.
11
Having seen the movie tonight, I felt it was a smart cautionary tale. If you like movies that make your think, this is a good one to check out. It is not an A+ movie, but it is not the C- movie Mr. Kenny makes it out to be. Go see it with an open mind. You will be glad you did.
25
Have you watched Black Mirror?
I read The CIRCLE when it published and thought it very insightful about our rushing to technology to stay "connected" 24 - 7 and digitized our every experience to share with our "Friends" across the world - no matter how mundane ... a good book... ahh, Big Brother
10
I listened to the audiobook narrated by Dion Graham, who did amasterful job in bringing the book to life, and didn't sound portentious, as so many book readers tend to do.
Initially, I pictured Mae as Asian (based on the name, and details of her life - only child, dutiful daughter, in computers etc.) and if I were casting the movie, I would have cast her as Asian.
It sounds like the movie is heavy handed, which is a shame.
Initially, I pictured Mae as Asian (based on the name, and details of her life - only child, dutiful daughter, in computers etc.) and if I were casting the movie, I would have cast her as Asian.
It sounds like the movie is heavy handed, which is a shame.
7
Having enjoyed Egger's novel and Director Ponsolt's last three features, I'll bracket Kenny's pretty much blanket pan until I've seen the film.
7