Netflix And Chill: The Circle (2017)

I didn't mind The Circle, but I didn't really enjoy it either, and I am going to say that the fault here needs to be shared between the pair of us. The film doesn't quite do enough with the main ideas it is working with, but I may have enjoyed it a bit more if I'd watched it back when it was first made available in 2017. The intervening years have simply shown us more and more reasons to distrust tech-bros and offensively rich and powerful individuals, which makes The Circle much less tense and more predictable than it would have been in a world before people like Bezos and Musk started to act increasingly like parodies of James Bond villains.

Emma Watson plays Mae, a young woman who is helped in to a dream job by her friend, Annie (Karen Gillan). She ends up in the Circle, a tech company that has seemingly unlimited power and resources. It's a bit odd though, considering how people are encouraged to interact online and fully commit to the Circle way of life. The pill is sugar-coated by the big boss, Bailey (Tom Hanks), who can acknowledge how silly some of their practices appear, but continues to present his vision of a tech-reliant utopia in a way that is convincingly benign. Some start to worry about the implications, however, as the Circle starts to reach further and further into the lives people all around the world.

Based on a novel by Dave Eggers, this was adapted from page to screen by a pairing of the writer and director, James Ponsoldt. Eggers has worked on other movies, and Ponsoldt has a mixture of projects in his filmography (with his best work being made for the small screen), but none of them manage to find the best way to handle this material. What should be a standard dream-turns-sour scenario, with the added threat of super-charged tech to make things more complicated, is turned into a disappointingly dull drama in which things go quite well for many of the characters . . . until they stop being so blissfully naïve. The biggest problems stem from the way things are plotted, but it doesn't help that the cast is relatively weak.

As much as I enjoy Emma Watson, she hasn't quite managed to convince in any of her post-Potter main roles, despite trying her hand in an interesting variety of projects. She's not bad here, but she's also not a strong enough screen presence, and is outshone by almost every supporting cast member (including Gillan, Hanks, Patton Oswalt, John Boyega, and Glenne Headly and Bill Paxton, who do wonderful work in the role of her parents). Mind you, few of those people I just mentioned are the best people for their roles either. Gillan has to overdo a heap of nervy paranoia throughout the second half, Hanks seems far too nice to have reached his position in life, and Oswalt isn't given enough screentime to make his character anything more than an obvious schemer who does some hand-wringing and metaphorical wiping of his damp brow as the plot heads toward the final scenes. Boyega does well, but his relatively small role here feels as if it doesn't deserve his talents.

It's ironic that I'll be sharing this review around in the usual places, ensuring that it ends up in certain social media spots, linking to it on IMDb, and potentially making some money from clicks that are generated via Google. Considering what the film posits, maybe I am part of the problem. Okay, I admit it, I am definitely a part of the problem. We all are, but many of us are savvy enough to shape our own corner of the internet to exactly how we want it to be, with the help of ad-blockers, data usage options, and ongoing attempts to balance out the negatives with more positives. There are very few legitimately good options nowadays when it comes to conscientiously maintaining an online presence. But at least I can use this platform to belatedly warn you against wasting your time with The Circle. It's not terrible, but it never manages to become more than harmlessly dull and average.

4/10

If you have enjoyed this, or any other, review on the blog then do consider the following ways to show your appreciation. A subscription/follow costs nothing.
It also costs nothing to like/subscribe to the YouTube channel attached to the podcast I am part of - https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCErkxBO0xds5qd_rhjFgDmA
Or you may have a couple of quid to throw at me, in Ko-fi form - https://ko-fi.com/kevinmatthews
Or Amazon is nice at this time of year - https://www.amazon.co.uk/hz/wishlist/ls/Y1ZUCB13HLJD?ref_=wl_share

Boyhood (2014)

Boyhood is a film that took around twelve years to make. Written and directed by Richard Linklater, the central idea IS that timespan. But if that was the only thing making the film worthwhile, a central gimmick that could have just as easily gone horribly wrong, then it wouldn't have been quite as well-received as it was. Thankfully, Linklater assembled a fine cast, came up with some interesting obstacles for his characters to overcome, and ended up creating something that runs for 165 minutes while never outstaying its welcome.

Ellar Coltrane plays Mason, the boy whose life viewers are invited to watch over an extended period of time. He's living with his mother (Patricia Arquette) and sister (Lorelei Linklater), enjoying occasional visits from a father (Ethan Hawke) who was AWOL for a sizable chunk of time, and finding out about life. That's really all there is to it. As the title lets you know, this is about boyhood.

Linklater has always been a writer-director able to create entertaining movies around a core of recognisable truths. That talent is invaluable here, helping the movie to stay far away from the pile of navel-gazing pretentiousness that it could have been. Boyhood pretty much allows you to take away from it as much, or as little, as you want to. There's plenty of drama, and many scenes that people can accuse of having "nothing happen", but there's also plenty of humour, plenty of warmth, and a number of key moments that people will be able to identify with.

Coltrane does well in the central role, which is essential for a film revolving so much around his character. He's not the best actor in the world but, crucially, he always seems quite at ease and natural in front of the camera. Lorelei Linklater isn't quite as naturalistic, although she's perfectly fine in her role. Arquette and Hawke both seize this unique opportunity with both hands, delivering performances that serve as great reminders of their considerable talents. Marco Perella and Brad Hawkins have the unenviable task of portraying flawed men who end up in Mason's life, and Zoe Graham is a young girl who provides him with his first bout of heart trouble (in terms of love, not any medical issue).

I could go on and on about this film. Almost every scene provides some kind of cinematic pleasure. Is it perfect? No. Some of the characters are slightly overdone (especially the one played by Perella), the last half hour feels disappointingly, although perhaps also inevitably, anti-climactic, and the soundtrack, as good as it is, often makes each song feel like what it is - a marker for the passage of time. Of course, those minor failings become even more insignificant when considering the ambition of the film. I'm sure most people will consider me picky for even bringing them up.

This is one of the best movies of the year, I have to agree with the many others who have already said the same thing. It's just not THE best.

9/10

http://www.amazon.com/Boyhood-Blu-ray-DVD-Digital-HD/dp/B00MEQUNIW/ref=sr_1_2?s=movies-tv&ie=UTF8&qid=1419694445&sr=1-2&keywords=boyhood