By: David Waterman
This month’s movie focus is on The Circle. There are limited spoilers contained and even though this movie wasn’t very satisfactory, you can decide for yourself.
Reason 1: Emma Watson and Tom Hanks have appeared in movies and television shows winning awards for years. The Circle will not win any awards for them. Watson’s acting consists of her staring at computer screens as if suddenly they will answer life’s deepest mysteries, and Hanks job is to look brooding in dark scenes. Their acting is not necessarily the problem, but the way it is applied to the story is not in any way elegant.
Reason 2: This story has been heard before, and done much more brilliantly. The idea of an all- knowing society and the pros and cons of its control has been fleshed out in numerous excellent executions such as “1984” by George Orwell, or even the comedy series “Silicon Valley” on HBO. As a satire comedy, this movie could have succeeded brilliantly, but in its current state of dark brooding cultish themes and generic dialogue, it simply bores.
Reason 3: Based on the 2013 novel of the same name by Dave Eggers, book-to-movie adaptations are not always the smoothest of transitions, but the jarring absences of plot connection are clear in the movie. John Boyega plays Ty, a character who has a penchant for speaking in auditoriums and seeming much more important than he actually is. This leaves the impression that the novel used him much more effectively.
Reason 4: Dialogue leaves much to be desired, especially when it comes to confrontation. Arguments are clumsy and feel incomplete at every turn. The main expression of Hanks’ character that is expressed as a maxim is “knowing is good but knowing everything is better.” While this could be transformed into a chilling and paranoia inducing statement, it just ends up being lackluster.
Verdict: With an underdeveloped, but interesting concept, use the ticket money to buy Apollo 13 or The Perks of Being a Wallflower, which are much higher quality films from Tom Hanks and Emma Watson respectively.