The Circle

Major Spoilers.

Is this movie trying to be what it appears to be trying to be -- a movie about a good idea taken too far -- or is it trying to be what it is -- the most disturbing and effective anti-technology, anti-mob-rule, pro-personal freedom horror movie I've ever seen?

It's a tough call, but to say it meant to be as horrifying as I found it would be to give it more credit than I'm willing to attribute...

What I expected based on the trailer and critical reception was a technology-cult movie, starring Emma Watson, with Tom Hanks as the seemingly-nice but really rather evil cult leader, and supported by John Boyega and Karen Gillan, that turns into an espionage-esque thriller in the end, a la Eagle Eye or Enemy of the State. Avoid-the-surveillance-to-save-the-world kind of deal. That wasn't it at all.

So here's what really happens: Mae (Watson) starts the film with a friend from her neighborhood, Mercer (Ellar Coltrane) who's notoriously off the grid and opposed to using social media. Mae gets an enviable job at The Circle, which essentially combines all social media and internet-things into one interface. She lives on-campus, and is strongly encouraged (and passive-aggressively peer-pressured) into taking part of the social media interaction with co-workers. It basically part of the job to be socially active in the community.

There was an underlying "off" element to it that was intentional. By the end I had no clue what it meant by it.

In her effort to further her popularity in this community, she shares a photo of a deer-antler chandelier Mercer made for everyone to appreciate. Next thing you know, he comes to her work to complain that he's received a plethora of hate-mail including even death threats from her followers, accusing him of being a deer-murderer. He doesn't kill the deer himself, it's hurting his business, and it's making him much more web-present than he's comfortable with. As they talk and she apologizes (she had no idea that would be the outcome) Circle community members gather around them, filming with their phones and calling him "deer killer" to his face. The scene is unsettling to say the least. But... casually.

Soon after, despite her thinking it all odd, and despite making friends with John Boyega, who it turns out, invented the interface and hates what it's being used for, she slips further and further into the social aspect, until, one day, for no determinable reason (or maybe I just can't remember) she does a thing called "going fully transparent" in which she wears a live-streaming camera on her shirt 24/7. This rockets her up in popularity, alienating her friendship with Annie (Gillan) who got her the job in the first place. She starts going to board meetings and participating in the furthering of the business.

One second she's scoffing at it, the next she's more involved than anyone.

A few ideas later, she's giving a presentation to the community, in which, because of the size that Circle users and her "fully transparent" stream-watchers has grown to, she makes an experiment. Can her millions of followers with their cameras track down a fugitive from justice? She starts a timer and it takes them ten minutes to locate and arrest an escaped convict. Then she asks for a suggestion from the crowd: who else should they find? Mercer, they say. She says no. They start a chant. Tom Hanks intervenes, and "encourages" her to give them what they want. Fine. She starts the timer, and less than ten minutes later, Mercer is dead; following a car chase with phone-wielding busybodies.

After that Mae goes home for a while to reevaluate her life. What was wrong with The Circle that it caused such a tragedy? Four days later she returns, goes full transparent again, and using her smarts and the pressure that her great following endows her with, essentially forces Tom Hanks (And Patton Oswalt? For some reason?) to join her in her full transparency, having already hacked their emails (even the super-duper-ultra-secret ones) and sent them out for the whole Circle community to see. The film ends with her having assumed control over the whole company by power of popularity alone, and revealing plans to force the whole world into participation and transparency.

Because people behave better when they're being watched; because secrets are lies; because withholding information from people is equivalent to stealing from them, and because participation in society is vital. Wow. For a moment, as the upbeat pop music played over the colorful pastel palate of the credits, I was downright angry. Then it occurred to me: perhaps that was the intention. If not for the upbeat credits and my conviction that Emma Watson would have never agreed to play that character if she saw her how I saw her, I might be fully convinced.

There's NOTHING this movie says that I agree with. I can't figure out what was meant sincerely and what wasn't!

So much sits so wrong, not just the part where she caused her friend's death and then doubled down on the promotion and distributing of the tool used to bring about his demise. She outs Hanks by force, and we the audience are never even told of anything he did wrong. Her friendship with Annie is repaired by Annie, when she quits her job and returns to the simple life in Scotland. She seems finally happy. Mae is happy for her. Then she immediately goes on with her final plan. She even plans forced participation in voting. And none of these things are argued against except that they will make you sick to think of them.

What I most found disturbing though, was the talking points that secrets are lies, (there's no rebuttal to that portrayed) and that not sharing an experience you've had with someone is really stealing from them. That's why Mae goes full transparent actually (there, I remembered). After she confusingly breaks the law to go kayaking at night, tips over and is only rescued because of surveillance cameras, she realizes that people wouldn't break the law if they were watched constantly, but even more importantly, realizes that because she didn't film her kayaking experience and share it with people (particularly those who are incapable of doing such a thing) she was selfishly stealing from them.

So, this movie says (and never offers a counter to this argument), if you watch a sunset, and don't take a picture for your Instagram feed, you're actually stealing from every person who would have seen it. The movie says this with such a serious, literal, "theme vocalized" tone that I'm having a hard time believing it meant it any other way. Based on the tone I picked up, it seems completely like the movie's intention was to show the ups and downs of technology, but ultimately to show how it's more good than bad. It succeeds in doing the opposite; but only by being terrible at doing the first.

The worst movie ever.... and it reads like prophesy.

Maybe the intention was to turn it all into the most subtle horror story of all time. Even then it's just plain bad. The plot is too convoluted, events are forced and senseless, the acting is terrible, the characters either bland (Mae) or wildly underused (everyone else) and it's completely lacking in style. It has the style of your average bland romantic dramedy, but there's no romance and the drama is sci-fi horror played like simple drama. Mae's actions are impossible to characterize or get behind, yet she's ever presented like a true heroine.

Perhaps two years ago when it was made it did come across as more extreme and obviously presenting a bad scenario, in which technology is used to destroy lives only to be further embraced for the damage by the masses -- but today it almost sounds... genuine. And that's the scariest thing of all.

Upcoming Movie Roundup - April

March's highlight was %100 Kong: Skull Island for me with a visual feast of epic fun, buffet-style. (Read my very pleased review here!) I also saw Beauty and the Beast which was only just as good as it needed to be. (Read my review here to see where it went wrong and what it got right.) I still want to see Life, but a theater trip for it is currently up in the air.

Iron Fist was released on Netflix, and we watched it slowly and just finished it, more than a little disappointed. But there was a great superhero show after all -- in February's Legion. It recently wrapped up every bit as well as it began: appropriately crazy, beautiful, and terrifying.

This month I'm feeling a little cynical towards all the new releases, with no must-sees -- but at the same time, plenty of potential. So time will tell if my cynicism is warranted or not! What looks good to you this month, and what was your highlight from March? Let me know in the comments!


Colossal
Apr 7th; R
It's definitely an original idea that I would think would have to potential to be funny, but it's hard to tell whether the potential is fulfilled or not -- the trailer itself isn't funny at all, and the gimmick may cause more problems than it does provide humor. The trailer gives away a lot, but I still have questions about the mechanics of the premise. I don't care for Anne Hathaway at all, but she's balanced out by Dan Stevens who I'd watch in anything. Plus, however much like a rom-com it appears to be, it's still technically a sci-fi too, and that helps a lot. Mild interest here.




Gifted
Apr 7th; PG-13
This movie is full-on drama which is probably the least appealing genre out there to me, and yet it still looks interesting -- and not even because it starts Chris Evans. In fact, the thing that really grabbed my attention when I saw first saw the trailer was Jenny Slate playing a serious, apparently likeable character! I really want to see her do that. The story is just about as interesting as a drama can get, but I can foresee cliches and sappiness as well; it all depends on how it's told.




The Fate of the Furious
Apr 14th; PG-13
I caught up on the Fast and the Furious franchise before the 7th one came out and still didn't bother to see it in theaters, so that's probably a good indicator of where I'm at with this one, too. I also understand continuing on without Paul Walker, but a lot of the film's appeal is gone without him at the center of everything. Otherwise this looks to be a solid entry in a solid and long-running franchise. They're not getting lazy and sticking to the same fourmula by switching Vin Diesel to villain side (not that he's REALLY a villain of course) and the stunts are appropriately larger than those in the last movie. I expect this will keep the fun, popcorn-action series rolling along.




The Lost City of Z
Apr 14th; PG-13
I heard about this one because Tom Holland is in it, and was under the impression for a while that it was a fantasy movie of some kind. Then I found out it's based on a true story which is a big change. I'm not often a fan of true stories, and I'm not a fan of Charlie Hunnam either, who plays the lead. However, for people who are fans or those who don't care, the film does look good -- artistically filmed and artistically told -- and may very well be a worthwhile watch.




Norman
Apr 14th; R
Another that has Dan Stevens in a supporting role. Richard Gere is in the lead and apparently branching out from how we know him with an indie character piece. The characters seem complex and the plot doesn't feel overly familiar, and it has that dark but quirky indie style to it... but honestly if I ever happen to watch it it'll probably only be because of Dan Stevens... and probably also because it was free and I had nothing more interesting to watch.




Free Fire
Apr 21st; R
Sharlto Copley, Brie Larson, Armie Hammer, Cillian Murphy, Sam Riley, non-stop R-rated action-comedy. They had me at Sharlto Copley. Definitely the most wacky movie to come out this month, and also the sort of movie that doesn't need a good critic score to be enjoyable for those inclined. It's obviously meant to be ridiculous. It's R-rating is a little more than I'd prefer to have to deal with, but with this cast and the craziness of the trailer, it's gonna keep nagging me whether I see it or not.

Language warning for this trailer! I tried very hard to find a green band one, but I think in order for one to exist it would have to have no dialogue...




The Circle
Apr 28th; PG-13
Creepy. And this one's based on a book -- has anyone read it? After being disappointed with Emma Watson's Belle I'm not stoked at the idea of seeing her again, but maybe this will be a chance for her to redeem herself. I am eager to see John Boyega in something else though, and Tom Hanks and Karen Gillan are also in the cast. Being based on a book gives me a lot more confidence in the plot's quality than I might normally have. So far all signs point to this being the highlight of the month, though I'll need to be convinced a bit more before I shell out for a ticket. Maybe I should read the book...

Upcoming Movie Roundup - September

August was a no-go. It was such a no-go that I didn't even watch The Little Prince off Netflix. Netflix. Could have watched at any time and all I did was watch Stranger Things three more times. Not that that was really a bad decision or anything. That show is the greatest.

September has a handful of movies with interesting trailers, but no must-sees currently. I won't be surprised if I don't go to the theater again this month, and that makes me sad.

Does anything look good to you this month? And have you seen Stranger Things yet? You absolutely must!


The 9th Life of Louis Drax
Sep 2nd (limited); R
This one is pretty interesting just because the trailer was very unexpected. I did not expect a creepy sci-fi element. It's also a mystery and a drama, but the supernatural side is really the most appealing aspect to me. Since it's coming out tomorrow there are reviews already, and it's not looking particularly great.




Sully
Sep 9th; PG-13
Not that this isn't an incredibly neat story or anything, but I wonder if it really warrants a full-length film. It seems like they're adding a lot of drama (via "the untold story") just to push up the run time -- to a whopping 96 minutes. Of course Clint Eastwood is a great director, and Tom Hanks is a great actor, so maybe they can make it all worthwhile for more than just a shot at some Oscar attention. The trailer is definitely of a first-rate brand!




London Road
Sep 9th (limited); NR
This movie is so strange I just had to include it. Watch the trailer to see for yourself because it's hard to describe, but it's a musical -- an actual stage musical being adapted for the screen -- about the small, oddball town of Ipswich when a high-profile murder case made them the center of attention in 2006. And it's a musical. And the music is so strange. Seriously just watch this trailer. Olivia Colman and Tom Hardy lead the cast.




Snowden
Sep 16th (limited); R
I'm not really privy to the controversy about this dude, but putting the true story part aside, this trailer makes this film look like an excellent, tight and suspenseful thriller (even though the main genre it's labeled as is "drama"). That, plus Joseph Gordon-Levitt, and I'm sold. If it proves to be what it promises I'll be looking for it on VidAngel.



The Magnificent Seven
 Sep 23rd; PG-13
This is to me the most interesting release of the month. Which is a little sad considering it's a remake and I'm sick to the teeth of terrible remakes. However, I haven't actually seen the original Magnificent Seven, so that helps a lot, and maybe this will be one of the few that actually is a worthy remake. I love the cast, and the trailer -- even with the modern music that is odd but fitting. I definitely want this one to turn out good, but I won't be getting my hopes up anytime soon.




The Dressmaker
Sep 23rd (limited); NR
On the surface this one seems odd -- a little too odd. But I really enjoyed the trailer. The fashion, the mystery, Kate Winslet... it all has an air of originality to it, and that makes me want to see it. Isn't Liam Hemsworth quite a little bit too young to play this part though. Maybe he's playing older and Kate is playing younger. Like I said, odd.




Deepwater Horizon
Sep 30th; PG-13
Ah, true stories of disaster. You know this is gonna be the biggest drama an action film ever was. And still I list it here. Maybe because it's one of the bigger releases of the month, maybe because it looks like there may be some neat action after all, maybe because Dylan O'Brien is in the cast... who knows.




Miss Peregrine's Home for Peculiar Children
Sep 30th (limited); PG-13
I read the book, but strangely it didn't make me all that interested in seeing this movie. Asa Butterfield as Jacob will probably be perfect, but otherwise the adapting doesn't have that since of love and devotion you look for in franchises like this. The lead girl has someone else's powers, and the other character is cut out completely? What's up with that? Anyway, I will probably watch this, it's just a matter of when -- as determined by how good or bad it is considered to be by fans and critics.

Upcoming Movie Roundup - October

Last month went as expected, with a trip to the theater to see The Scorch Trials, which I thoroughly, thoroughly enjoyed, and Before We Go from the comfort of the TV room sofa. October has one huge must-see that I've been waiting for rather desperately for the past two weeks or so, and a couple promising others that may be a good DVD watch sometime. But first things, first...


The Martian
Oct 2nd: PG-13
So much yes. So much. I'm really surprised at myself for how incredibly excited I am for this movie. It's the first movie whose anticipation has actually made me forget about Star Wars 7. Even Rogue Nation only made me temporarily forget after I'd seen it. I wrote a whole post about my high anticipation and expectation levels that you can read here -- but here's the short version: Matt Damon is Mark Watney, an Ares astronaut, who, through an unfortunate series of events is stranded alone on Mars without his crew (Jessica Chastain, Michael Pena, Sebastian Stan, Kate Mara, and Aksel Hennie), without communication, and with food and supplies meant only to last 31 days; he must use his smarts (and real science) to survive. The cast also includes Chiwetel Ejiofor, Sean Bean, and Kristen Wiig. The book was brilliantly smart and thrilling, and the Ridley Scott film promises to be faithful adaptation, and a compelling science-fiction-meets-science-fact adventure. Can. Not. Wait.




Pan
Oct 9th: PG
It looks like a cute, fun, adventurous remake of Peter Pan, and the origin story gives good opportunity to get creative with the story as well. Early reviews coming in are not nearly as positive as I would like, and are turning me off from wanting to see it in theaters, but they're not quite bad enough to keep me from wanting to see it altogether. I just have to see Hugh Jackman being the film's villain Blackbeard, and Garrett Hedlund as the young, not-yet-Captain Hook -- minus the hook (we'll for how long!) I guess I just won't expect too much out of it.




Crimson Peak
Oct 16th: R
If I watched horror movies. I don't, (certainly not this kind) and don't think I could -- even for Tom Hiddleston and Jessica Chastain and Mia Wasikowska -- but this one looks like a real quality horror movie, which is the only kind that ever tempts me in the slightest. And it has such an elegant, beautiful style... but then is so disturbingly creepy. If I watched horror movies... Here's the trailer, but don't watch it -- cause it's scary. :P




Goosebumps
Oct 16th; PG
Okay, I never read any of these books as a kid (perhaps that had something to do with my aversion to horror movies now?) so I don't have any sentimental attachment to this movie, but for some reason I still have a nice, mild interest in this. Of course it looks totally silly and cheesy, but sometimes when it's done right those things can make a movie really fun to just enjoy and laugh at and not really think about. And you need a movie like that every once in a while. Jack Black and Dylan Minnette star.




Bridge of Spies
Oct 16th: PG-13
Steven Spielberg's Cold War drama starring Tom Hanks. So the chances of this being a well-made film are pretty much %100. And well-acted. And well-scored. And dramatic. So this one's really a no-brainer, but I don't currently have any real interest. I love Spielberg's movies, and period dramas are great, and Tom Hanks promises to be as great as ever, but I'm just not too excited about this being more of a political drama war-movie, instead of an more action-centered war-movie. The trailer does show some bits of action, but nothing really big. So I'll just have to wait and see if it really is a straight drama, and if it is, just wait until a war drama is what I want to see!




Suffragette 
Oct 23rd(limited); PG-13
Okay, so this movie looks well-made and everything, plus it has a great cast including Carey Mulligan, Meryl Streep, and Helena Bonham Carter, but honestly, it looks like it's absolutely nothing more than propaganda for extreme modern feminism, and that just completely ruins it for me.




Burnt
Oct 23rd(limited); NR
A Bradley Cooper chef movie! This one has quite the supporting cast too -- Sienna Miller, Alicia Vikander, Lily James, Emma Thompson, Daniel Bruhl... It says it's a dramedy, but from the trailer it looks more like pure drama. Still, it's about cooking, and stars Bradly Cooper. It's one of those "wait and see" cases I suppose.



What are your movie plans for this fall month? Tell me in the comments!

Larry Crowne

This review is Spoiler-free.

Larry Crowne (Tom Hanks) gets fired from his job as a salesman at U-mart. After retiring from the Navy he spent his life working hard at this job, trying to climb the ranks, only to be told that his lack of a college education is what left him in the dust of more educated but much less talented and devoted workers. And now, times are tough, so they cut him loose. He thought he was going to be employee of the month again.

That's life for ya.

In serious need of a job, but determined not to let anything get in his way this time, he trades his gas-guzzler suburban for a moped and signs up for classes at the local community college -- an economics class, a writing class and a speech class, the three first building blocks for a successful businessman -- but one of those classes would even go so far as to highhandedly change his life.

Speech 217: The Art of Informal Remarks. Taught by a sullen and sarcastic Mrs. Tainot (Pronounced Tay-no, not Tay-not) (Julia Roberts), who has a deadbeat husband (Bryan Cranston) and a pretty serious alcohol problem.

The plot of this movie builds up like real life. Events happen, never really anything big or dramatic, but by the end they have built into something pretty substantial. Though it's not hard for Larry's life to improve once it get as low as it is at the beginning, it's quite rewarding to watch him reevaluate himself and start down a fresh path with a fresh optimistic outlook, and find happiness there. This movie has nothing huge or life-changing to say, but what it does say it says sincerely and with plenty of entertainment.

These two. Mostly, her.

My favorite part is the characters and there's an awesome cast to play them, right down to the supporting characters. Tom Hanks is always charming, and watching him transform from frumpy and dated nerdy goof to cool and lively gentlemanly hero is more fun than I expected it'd be. To instigate his physical change is Talia (the amazingly diversely-talented Gugu Mbatha-Raw) a young, laid back free-spirit who invites him into her scooter gang, and is constantly buying him new, cooler things from haircuts to watches. Her boyfriend (Wilmer Valderrama) is not a little bit jealous and makes for many amusing situations.

In the classroom, Mrs. Tainot is quite the character and the movie is nearly just as much about her as it is Larry. Life doesn't push her reset button for her, and she must figure out how to do it herself while navigating random inconvenient complexities and teaching people how to speak all the while. The few students of her class are all unique characters, even the smallest ones, and I love that. The best is the dumb skater dude played by Rami Malek. He may be totally stereotyped, but he's also totally hilarious and totally my favorite.

Ah, education.

I also must mention Larry's neighbor (Cedric the Entertainer) and his wife (Taraji P. Henson) who run a 24/7 yard sale in their front yard, because, wait for it, they won a TV game show. Plus George Takei teaches Larry's Economics class. Yep, if nothing else this movie knew how to create some wacky and charming characters.

Besides starring, Tom Hanks actually directed and helped write this one too, and I say great job to him. The writing is sharp and memorable, and the directing is solid if free of a particular style. The story has some very unique qualities to it that are less about making a traditional comedy sure to attract crowds and more about telling a small but meaningful story honestly, and letting the charm and entertainment come through naturally. There was only one instance in the whole film that felt forced, and I was amused and charmed in every scene. Some of it is seriously funny, and lots of it has an understated thoughtfulness to it, so it makes you think and then sticks with you.

Did I mention there is a smidgen of romance? Yup.

This film has a bit of a bad rep for being dull and many reviews to back that up, but I honestly think that reaction is only because of wrong expectations. There is nothing at all wrong with Larry Crowne, except that it wasn't what people expected it to be (something groundbreaking that redefines the comedy genre probably -- people have high expectations of Tom Hanks, and why not?). It doesn't redefine anything, but sometimes the hero doesn't have to save the whole world for the movie to be great and that is absolutely the case here. Give a little attention to this charmer (though it may give you a frumpy first impression) and reap the unexpectedly sweet rewards.

Saving Mr. Banks

The author of Mary Poppins, P. L. Travers has quite the experience dealing with Walt Disney and Co. as he courts her for rights to her beloved novel. She entertains them because she needs the money a movie deal will give her, but she really doesn't want to sell, especially if they're going to make as many changes to the story and characters as she's afraid they will. She's very particular that everything stays exactly how she imagined, and we slowly learn why though flashbacks of her childhood in early 1900's Australia, and then watch her protest and drag her heels in 1960's Los Angeles while bubbly assistants, scriptwriters songwriters and Disney himself obtusely parade her "Disneyfied" story in front of her.

"No, no, no!" is her favorite expression.

So the movie slowly sifts though poor Mrs. Travers' mixed and jumbled emotions as she clings hesitantly to the movie rights while Disney gently tugs on them. And it does it in a more interesting way than I originally thought it would. Half the movie is very much a behind-the-scenes look at the making of Mary Poppins, and being a fan of the movie for as long as I can remember, I found that interesting and fun.

But I also know that a considerable amount of it didn't actually happen. Like in a scene where the writers have had a breakthrough, and present her with something she actually not only approves of, but likes so much that she temporarily comes out of her shell and starts dancing around the room with the screenwriter. It was sweet; it made me smile, but I was simultaneously thinking "no way this actually happened."

I certainly hope that some of the amusing parts weren't made up though!

Emma Thompson and Tom Hanks' performances were highly praised, so I expected quite a bit out of them, and wasn't disappointed. They both gave quality, detailed and devoted performances. However, as the movie went along, I became more interested in a few supporting characters. Like Paul Giamatti, who obviously was fantastic, (when is he ever not) had a great character to delve into as Mrs. Travers' driver. By the end of the movie he is undoubtedly the most endearing character, and rubbed off on the grumpy Travers a little too.

I also enjoyed B.J. Novak and Jason Schwartzman as the brothers Robert and Richard Sherman who wrote the music for the film. Their endeavors to please both Disney and Travers (mostly without even knowing what is was Travers actually wanted) were very amusing. I applaud their efforts, even if in reality they had half as much trouble as the movie depicted, because the results, as we know, are now iconic.

Behold: the creators of Supercalifragilisticexpialidocious!

Of course we all know what happens -- we've all seen the result. And very few can deny it's a wonderful result. Mary Poppins is popular today because of Disney and the magic his team worked. We feel for Mrs. Travers argues to keep the film as she wants it, but at the same time we are not nearly as attached to her book as she is; all we want is for her to give in so those poor people can just make that wonderful childhood movie. Methinks the lady doth protest too much -- her desperate arguments and revealing flashbacks are certainly dramatic, but there was too much of it, and I was having so much fun enjoying the lighthearted "behind the scenes" moments that whenever it turned serious, I just wished it would go back to being fun and stay that way.

Saving Mr. Banks has plenty of sweet, sentimental insights into the mind and past of the creator of Mary Poppins -- all sprinkled with a little pixie dust -- but there's just not enough magic here to make anyone reach for this film instead of the one it celebrates. And I suppose that's how it should be.