“Alien: Covenant” movie review

Posted on by
Reply

Alien: Covenant returns to its roots in horror. In 1979, Ridley Scott convinced audiences around the world that “in space, no one can hear you scream.” And the newest film in the line of prequels leading up to the terrifying events aboard the Nostromo, attempts to make up for the rejection of 2012’s Prometheus as a true prequel to Alien. Fortunately for fans of the franchise, Alien: Covenant is mostly successful at delivering what audiences loved about the original and missed in the subsequent Cameron and Fincher movies–the trademark horror of the xenomorph and facegrabbers. Starting off like Prometheus and finishing more like the original Alien, the newest film in the nearly 40-year-old franchise will have you screaming, cringing, and completely immersed in blood-curdling terror. That is, until you realize that only some questions from Prometheus are answered, and all new questions about events in this movie are generated and left unanswered. That appears to be Ridley Scott’s Achilles heal: always leaving more questions unanswered than providing closure or exposition, thus prohibiting the movie from being as great as it certainly had the potential to be. With one more film between this current installment and 1979’s Alien, perhaps there will be far fewer unanswered questions and provide the history for which fans are looking.

On a colonization mission, the complement of the Covenant is traveling into deep space towards a new planet that earth’s humans hope to make a new home. After encountering some severe spacial turbulence enroute to the destination, the crew of the Covenant intercept a transmission from an uncharted planet that, according to the sensors, appears to be a complete paradise. After some deliberation, it’s decided to head for this new planet. Most of the time, when something is too good to be true, it usually is. Led by the new captain Oram (Crudup) and first officer Daniels (Waterson). After an attack from an alien species, the crew is rescued by David (Fassbender), a synthetic android-like human, who is the only remaining survivor of the Prometheus expedition from some years earlier. Unbeknonst to the crew and scientists of the Covenant, they are about to come face to face with the most terrifying nightmare imaginable–make that–an unimaginable fight for survival when paradise turns to hell.

One of the first technical elements that fans of Alien will notice is the opening title sequence. It is reminiscent of the manner in which the opening credits and title of the original were revealed in the emptiness of space on screen. I appreciated this homage to the original because it set me up to prepare for an Alien movie and not a second Prometheus. Perhaps that does not seem important to non-fans; but to make a long story short, while Scott was in the conceptual phase of a sequel to Prometheus (prequel to Alien), he was told by the studio that audiences didn’t want another Prometheus–they wanted Ridley Scott’s Alien. And now the rest is history. In order to best understand the flaws of Alien: Covenant it’s necessary to understand the similar flaws of Prometheus. One of the many diegetic and technical problems with Prometheus was the fact that there was little direct connection to Alien and it felt like a whole new franchise and not an extension of the original. This lack of connection is best represented by the number of unanswered questions dwarfing the answered ones. Essentially, audiences only learned about David’s origin and, to a lesser extent, why that particular planet. But enough about Prometheus, we are here to talk Alien: Covenant.

Although vastly improved, Covenant also leaves audiences with many unanswered questions; albeit, it is successful at making up for many of the diegetic flaws of the preceding film. To get into the questions would reveal too much about the film and perhaps hint at some spoilers, so I won’t go into specifics. But enough about the flaws of this otherwise exciting and well-produced film–just know that the writing is weak but hopefully will be better in the next installment. The most impressive elements of the movie are related to the cinematography, editing, and visual effects. From the sweeping landscape shots to intimate closeups of the xenomorph and its victims, Covenant is absolutely visually stunning. There is even a mild romantic encounter between David and a member of the Covenant crew that was shot incredibly well and strategically placed in the narrative. Where the story is weak, Scott makes up for in creating an impressive cinematic experience for long-time and new fans alike. There are even shot sequences that are taken directly out of Alien. Often times, I am extremely critical of computer-generated effects and characters versus practical effects and animatronics–and for good reason–nothing can replace the way real light bounces off real objects and is really captured by the glass lenses on a camera. Furthermore, it’s rare that a character react in genuine fear to an object, villain, or murderous alien that is not really present on set. However, the combination of CGI and practical effects in Covenant is breathtaking and convincingly real. You will almost feel the facegrabber latching onto you and the xenomorph’s wet acid-breath on your skin.

Aside from the unanswered questions still residing in the minds of those who have seen the film, Covenant fails to live up to Alien in another rather conspicuous way. For everything that this film did right and make up for (in respect to Prometheus), it lacked any memorable crew members–more specifically–this film differs from Alien by not developing Dani(els) to be the strong female character that she had the potential to be. Dani could have been Covenant‘s answer to Sigourney Weaver’s Ripley in Alien. One of the diegetic elements that is most talked about and is often the topic of horror film humanities classes is the breaking of gender roles and heteronormative expectations by Ripley in Alien. Perhaps that is why Alien is almost avant-garde in the cinematic experience whereas Covenant is impressive but does not typify the art of cinematic storytelling nor contributes to groundbreaking character-types. Beyond strong female lead, the film simply fails to leave the audience with any one memorable character period. No one will be talking about any one particular character years from now. Both the unanswered questions and the lack of memorable significant characters can be traced by to one root cause: flawed writing.

If you loved the original Alien, then you will mostly enjoy Alien: Covenant. The experience is equally terrifying as it is beautiful. Whether you have seen Prometheus or not will not affect your enjoyment factor in this film. If you have seen Prometheus, then I would suggest watching the Ridley Scott short film The Crossing because it ties Prometheus to Alien: Covenant. Think of it as an extended prologue. This short film helps audiences to make the connection between the two films in hopes that it does answer some otherwise unexplained circumstances and events. After watching this film, I have an urge to rewatch the original in order to begin making those direct connections between this one and Alien. With one more film to release to finalize the events between Prometheus and Alien, I am eager to have my remaining questions answered. Bottom line: Alien: Covenant demonstrates Scott’s newfound commitment to return audiences to the space horror that makes the original so iconic.

Immerse Yourself into “Pandora: the World of Avatar” at Disney’s Animal Kingdom

Posted on by
2

Prepare for an expedition into one of the best examples of themed environment immersion at Disney’s Animal Kingdom (DAK). Journey to the planet Pandora to experience the sights, sounds, and beauty of the world of the Na’vi. Whether you are there for the rides or the sheer spectacle of it all, you will no doubt immensely enjoy your experience at Pandora. For those who may be worried that the extreme separation of time from the first Avatar movie and still a couple years from the next one(s) mitigates the full experience of this world based upon that which was created by director James Cameron, no need to fear. Whether you have seen the movie once or multiples times or even enjoyed the movie or not, the Disney Imagineers who conceived this themed land, based upon the movie, designed it to be equally enjoyed by fans of the franchise and those who may not have even seen the film. In theory, that approach works very well; however, the disconnect from the movie and perceived disconnect from the future films does little to immerse you into the story of Avatar. After previewing the land, I am left wondering if the land would have been more appropriately titled Pandora: World of the Na’vi. Personally, I did not care for the movie–found it to be Dances with Wolves meets Fern Gully meets Pocahontas; but we are here to explore this new land, not the movie. My point is, if you are looking to feel as if you are part of  a story, then you may be a little disappointed in some of the important experiential factors of a themed entertainment land; however, despite the separation between this land and the cinematic franchise, the enjoyment factor is still exceedingly high. For fans of Soarin at Epcot, Pandora’s new attraction Flight of Passage will blow your mind and take flight simulator attractions to a “whole new world.”

Before we get into further details about Pandora, I want to take a moment to point out a little known rock formation that rests just above the river park guests cross over on the journey from Discovery Island to Pandora: the World of Avatar. Those who are familiar with the park’s early (pre-open) days, you may recall that what became Camp Minnie-Mickey, home to Festival of the Lion King (former CM at the Lion King show here), was originally slated to be a mythological creature land. Even more interesting, the Dragon Challenge coaster (formerly Dueling Dragons) at Universal’s Islands of Adventure was originally built and intended for this mythological land at DAK. Anyway. The rock formation I spoke of is in the shape of a dragon’s head. It was built there when the land was going to be home to dragons and other mythological creatures, but of course the theme of the land changed. With Disney’s attention to details and aversion to cross theming between lands (to avoid contamination of the experience), one might have thought that the rock formation would have been removed–not so. All through the days of Camp Minnie-Mickey and even today, the dragon head is still there. In fact, one might say that the land has come full circle, as Pandora is a mythological world and the Banshees appear closely related to dragons.

From the moment that you first enter the land, you will instantly feel transported to a far away world, rich in flora and fauna. Imagineers worked diligently to make sure the outside world–even DAK itself–was completely left behind. Those that live in Florida are no strangers to lush greenery; but for those who come from desert climates, mid-Atlantic, or northern parts of the country that are not green year-round, Pandora will serve as an escape from the dry or cold harsh world to a land flowing with crystal clear water and flowers of all shapes, colors, and varieties. There is little left of Camp Minnie-Mickey, and rightly so. However, if you pay close enough attention to walkways, you might see some of that old world in this new one. Make sure you have plenty of room on your phone or your camera’s SD card because you will want to take dozens of pictures on your first visit. There is so much to see on your first visit to this land. While many are talking about the floating mountains–and those are pretty dope–I am more excited about the exceptional lighting and forced perspective of the mountains off in the distance. Up until this point, Universal Studios always boasted more realistic forced perspective in its parks; but, this new land at DAK proves that Disney can integrate forced perspective just as well–if not better. I also appreciate the layout of the pathways. The pathways are laid out in such a way that the land feels larger than it actually is; furthermore, the different elevations also lend to the realism of the world and providing various perspectives and vantage points form which to gaze upon the exquisite design. Who doesn’t love a great water feature? There is something about moving water that is instantly refreshing, and there is plenty of moving water, water falls, and water creatures in Pandora.

Pandora: the World of Avatar offers two attractions: Flight of Passage and Na’vi River Journey. Each ride offers a completely different attraction design. Compered to other attractions in the Disney parks, both the new rides at Pandora have entrances that are organically woven into the environment. This adds to the natural beauty of this lush planet and the aversion to the effects of industry on the landscape. Located on opposite sides of the land, the layout will aid in crowd movement and control during the spring break, summer, and holiday seasons when the parks are at their busiest. Pandora’s Flight of Passage is a brilliant flight simulator design in the vein of Soarin and the Na’vi River Journey is a boat ride, a classic Disney design, in the vein of Pirates of the Caribbean and the new Frozen Ever After.

Flight of Passage was epic! The suspension of disbelief was incredibly real. Disney Imagineers have really outdone themselves this time. It’s no secret that Soarin is one of the top draws at Disney World and that Harry Potter and the Forbidden Journey is still one of the top attractions at Universal Studios. Essentially, Imagineers took the ride platform of Soarin and combined it with the feel of Forbidden Journey and threw in some Spider-Man (Univ/IoA) to create an amazingly innovative ride experience. Only suffering from high demand, low capacity, sluggish turnaround time (hmm, now that I think about it, that’s kind of a lot), this attraction will convince you that you are flying on the back of a banshee (the English name for the ikron in Na’vi language). Matched with an avatar that allows you to move about Pandora as a Na’vi, you then make your way into the flight chamber to board a jetski like device that allows you to maneuver your banshee throughout the skies and caverns of Pandora.

If you allow yourself to breakaway from the 4D simulation (4D because there are aromas, wind, and water effects), you’ll notice that the ride design is similar to Soarin in that there are multiple levels of these ride stations in front of an IMAX screen. The big reveal is done exceptionally well because as the screen is revealed, there are several busts of bright white LED light that conceal the movement of the wall in front of you. Unless you are looking for the mechanisms that create the magic, you’ll not notice the wall ascending or descending. One of, if not the, longest rides at Walt Disney World, this attraction lasts several minutes and each second is filled with high-flying adventure. Honestly, it is the most incredible simulator style attraction that I have ever been on–and I’ve been on a lot. Prepare yourself for a wait time of up to 4hrs standby (standard queue) or 6hrs (extended queue) for this attraction when it opens. If you are in the standby queue, the research facility that you get to walk through is certainly a site to behold as well. And don’t miss one of the most lifelike animatronics in aqua suspension as you make your way through the line to the launch facility.

Perhaps you’re afraid of heights or even the most organic-feeling flight simulators make you not feel the greatest. Then, make your way over to a classic Disney ride design reimagined for Pandora. The Na’vi River Journey is a serene, gently moving boat ride along a tranquil river surrounded by plants and animals bursting with bioluminescence. If you’re lucky, you may even catch rare glimpses of the Na’vi along the way, hidden in the foliage. Featuring some of the technology first debuted on Epcot’s Frozen Ever After, this boat ride offers a time to relax and simply absorb all the gorgeous plant and wildlife of the planet Pandora. While most of the non-plant life is clearly rear mapped projection, there is an impressive animatronic Na’vi shaman chanting as you glide by on your boats. Everything from the smells, to the sights, and sounds of the Na’vi river will convince you that you are in fact traveling down a mystical river. With no height restriction, this attraction is perfect for a family or group with young ones who may not meet the height restriction on Flight of Passage.

Pandora also offers two quick/casual service restaurants with robust menus of food and drinks. Unfortunately, I did not have the opportunity to experience the restaurants because they closed about 15mins before the preview ended. I’ll definitely have to go back and try the food and drinks as they looked absolutely scrumptious.

Over all, I was impressed by DAK’s newest land! Was it worth a nearly five year wait? That is certainly up for debate. But, the end result is beautiful and provides Animal Kingdom with a new draw that will hopefully figure into the next set of movies in Cameron’s Avatar universe to be released in a couple years. Whether you choose to see it as a botanical garden or Rainforest Cafe on steroids, or the most amazing experience you have ever immersed yourself in at a theme park, you are definitely going to enjoy everything that Pandora: the World of Avatar has to offer. I highly recommend booking FastPass+ for the rides as soon as your 30 or 60 day window opens (30 for passholders and 60 for on-site hotel guests) as the lines for both these attractions will be incredibly long. Hopefully the Cast Member and Passholder preview weeks will aid in mitigating the initial flock to the attractions and not force the rides to use the extended quests right out the gate or close the lines before park close. Ordinarily, Disney does not offer previews in the same manner that Universal Studios, SeaWorld, or Busch Gardens do, so this is a welcomed sign of the growth of passholder and Cast Member appreciation.

“13 Reasons Why” television review

Posted on by
1

A fascinating approach to the exploration of the butterfly effect in terms of how that theory plays out in interpersonal relationships. Or, the most comprehensive anti-bullying PSA out there. Unless you have been off the social media grid, there is little doubt that you are unaware of the impact and following of the Netflix original show 13 Reasons Why. Although it took a few weeks for the show to really catch on, once it became a topic of memes, Tweets, and other social media posts, the popularity of the show spread quicker than a viral meme. Responses to the show have been quite polarizing. There is the camp that feels strongly that the show provided an organic unfiltered approach to the gradual mitigation of one’s psycho-social health upon constant negative encounters with peers and bullying; likewise, there is the camp that feels equally strongly that the show glamorizes the ultimate pay-back effect of making peers and authority figures feel responsible for an individual’s decision to commit suicide, and therefore plants the idea that you can exert the pinnacle of revenge by telling your story after the fact. At the end of the day, one’s response to the show will depend on how one interprets the rather meta narrative. Beyond the contentious diegetic components of the show, the production value and editing are superior to other YA shows and even movies.

It’s been quite a while since I reviewed a television show, so I though that this one would be quite interesting to delve into. I’ll be up front and state that I belong to the camp that feels the show is a mirror to bullying and those who suffer psycho-socially moreso than the camp that feels the show supports the belief that it’s perfectly acceptable to blame others for how one feels. Not that I do not see evidence of the latter–I do–but I think the danger in that camp is throwing out the important anti-bullying messages too. Again, it comes down to how YOU interpreted the show’s narrative. The beauty of shows like this one–like this one, in that there is much left up to interpretation–is the simple fact that it gets people talking about a taboo topic or topics that are seen as difficult to talk about. Doesn’t matter the camp to which you may belong; this show accomplished what I believe it set out to do: get people talking about bullying, relationships, and sexual assault in an organic way. Whether you feel that Hannah (Katherine Langford) was justified in her decision, was selfishly seeking attention and desired revenge, or the one that best describes me: disagree with her decision to commit suicide but understand how she got to that point, 13 Reasons Why provides audiences (mostly those in their 20-30s) with ample material to explore the narrative itself and the impact it has had upon the present cultural climate.

Much like in the same vein as the prologue in Shakespeare’s Romeo and Juliet in which we are prevued, through dramatic irony, to the unalterable fact that “two star-cross’d lovers” take their lives and [the audience] will spend the next two hours watching events unfold upon the stage thus learning how and why, Netflix’ 13 Reasons Why begins with the unalterable fact that a young lady has taken her life, and you’ll spend the next 13 episodes learning just why. While the show in question may not completely align with a Shakespearean tragedy, there are many similar components in the story. Moreover, had the show been shot in grayscale and set in the 1950s, it could have easily been a film noir. As it were, it can be classified as a neo noir show. But what keeps audiences engaged with each and every episode is the anxiety that builds up in regards to just why is Clay (Minnette) on those tapes, because everything the audience sees is the nicest guy next door that you could ever meet. There is also a ticking time bomb plot device mildly used because there are only six double-sides tapes and one single (13 sides in total); so the closer we get to the end, the more tension builds. As I cannot comment on the best-selling novel by Jay Asher because I have not read it, the writing of the television adaptation is absolutely brilliant–it’s designed to be addictive and succeeds in keeping eyes glued to “whatever device you are using” to watch the show. Interestingly, just like Clay cannot put the tapes down, neither can many out here put the show down.

Throughout the story, we encounter significant peers and authority figures in Hannah’s life that either directly or indirectly contributed to her decision to end her life and leave the tapes. Yes, I am aware that ultimately she made the decision–that is not what I am arguing for or against here. My point is, we encounter different people who each possess unique character attributes, flaws, and personality traits that impacted Hannah’s psyche. Exploring each character could be entire reviews in and of themselves, so I will be brief. You have characters ranging from disclosing secrets for the sake of showcasing art to not being brave enough to stop something horrible, from stalking those who you feel are more popular than you to something as simple as abandoning your friends at “FML” coffee sessions, and even a character who is so blinded by friendship that they cannot see and return the love of another, finally there is a character who cannot hear cries for help, for those cries are falling upon deaf ears. Each character represents a different character archetype. Along the lines of films and shows that personify the seven deadly sins, this show personified character traits that should be avoided in order to not contribute to someone’s overwhelming negative outlook on life. In short, do not be a dick. Treat one another with respect and love.

(This paragraph contains some mild spoilers) Although one of the characters has two tapes, each tape focuses on a particular person and the thing he or she did to add one more marble to the scale, slowly tipping it. For those who have dealt with perpetual taunting, teasing, or bullying or experienced it while going through K-12 school and living with the emotional scares as an adult, the show does an excellent job of not shying away from the little things, as well as the big, that each break you down a little at a time. Furthermore, the show also provided audiences with brief glimpses into what drives a potential school mass shooter to begin plotting his or her revenge and that one student’s suicide can prompt another because of the hurt someone else may be facing that feels unbearable–or brought on by the guilt of having contributed to the former’s decision to kill herself (Hannah). I think what hurts the full potential of the show’s ability to call for positive change is never taking a stance on Hannah’s suicide–never does a character state that what Hannah did was wrong, or that it deeply hurt those who DID love and respect her. Of course, the moral implications are topics best saved for another day and another forum.

Upon reading the news of a sequel, I cannot escape the fact that this story does not need a sequel–it IS a complete story; however, there could be “13 reasons” why the attempted suicide in the show during the final episode happened or why another character began to plot for a school mass shooting. Those are potential spin-offs that take place within the same universe and with the same characters. In terms of the show’s production value and editing, I was impressed with the subtle nuances of the present day versus the flashbacks. As a rule of thumb, I do not usually care for flashbacks. I mean, if you spend most of your time in a flashback(s), then let THAT be your main story. That being said, 13 Reasons Why successfully integrates the flashback into the diegesis because it makes the present story just as interesting to watch as the past stories. I also loved the color temperature changes from the present to the past. The stylistic editing techniques employed enable the audience to know when they are watching a flashback versus present day. In addition to the editing, there are also wardrobe, makeup, and costuming differences as well. Over all, this show is definitely one to watch in order to fully grasp just how much the little negative interactions or experience with one another can add up to leave someone feeling like there is no way out or whether or not they have the strength to go on.

“Guardians of the Galaxy: Vol.2” movie review

Posted on by
6

Par for the course and predictable. This movie review was written by R.L. Terry ReelView contributor and writer/producer Leon Z. Coming to you all the way from Germany where Guardians of the Galaxy Vo.2  was released last week, I thought you would be interested to hear from someone other than me this week–think of it as a fresh perspective. Meanwhile, I will be watching it in Tampa tomorrow evening at 7.

“Set to the backdrop of ‘Awesome Mixtape #2,’ Marvel’s Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2 continues the team’s adventures as they traverse the outer reaches of the cosmos. The Guardians must fight to keep their newfound family together as they unravel the mysteries of Peter Quill’s true parentage. Old foes become new allies and fan-favorite characters from the classic comics will come to our heroes’ aid as the Marvel cinematic universe continues to expand.“
-Marvel Studios

Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2 is a bit of a disappointment when compared to the first one. This might be because the novelty factor the first one had for being a funny superhero movie is gone, or because it’s just very predictable and lacks excitement and emotional engagement. Pretty much all of the CGI action extravaganzas fall flat because there is never any real danger for the characters so the viewer does not care about them. There were times in this movie where the action was pretty much all CG, which I didn’t care much about since nowadays pretty much everything can be done with a computer but audiences don’t seem to get enough of it. But fortunately, the filmmakers are not overly reliant on those scenes. The movies strong points are its humor and character development. Although most of the setup and payoff jokes are very predictable, there are still many jokes that hit. Since the movie is primarily about Peter “Starlord” Quill meeting his father, there is actually some character development; and not just for him, but also for the other guardians–well except for Groot, Rocket and Drax so basically just Gamora, but some secondary characters from the first one like Yondu and Gamora’s sister, Nebula an although some of it is clichéd it still works, mostly.

Most of the emotional moments are genuine, but some of them are a little to on the nose.

The movie also introduces new secondary characters like Peters appropriately named father Ego and his companion Mantis, which are moderately interesting, Mantis probably more so than Ego because her interactions with Drax, which cause a lot of laughter.

What drags the movie’s quality down significantly is that it is just so predictable and cliché, which makes you care a lot less because you already know what will happen most of the time.

Overall, I would recommend this movie to Marvel fans and casual moviegoers; but for more hardcore cinephiles, this movie–if at all–is a one time watch.

Written by Leon

“The Circle” movie review

Posted on by
Reply

Tries for a perfect circle, but winds up more like an oval. Full of endless circular logic and irony, director James Ponsoldt’s The Circle depicts the story of a not-so-distant future, or perhaps an alternative present, in which one company dominates digital media, data gathering, and surveillance services. Based upon the four-year-old novel by author Dave Eggers, you’ll notice some stark similarities between this motion picture narrative and the smash hit TV series Black Mirror. The biggest difference between the two is that The Circle is fast-faced and poorly written whereas Black Mirror is a slow-burning but well-written anthology series. In addition to the similarities between the aforementioned, there are certainly elements of The Truman Show in this movie as well. With a powerhouse cast, brilliant composer (Danny Elfman), and excellent editing, The Circle appears to have what a blockbuster needs; however, the hollow characters, poor character development, fractured subplots, and overall diegesis hold the film back from reaching the impact that it could have had. Having taken a digital media and privacy class in graduate school, and published a few articles, this is a film that I was looking forward to in order to analyze how the social commentary or commentary on the human condition regarding reasonable expectations of privacy and big data were integrated into the plot. Sadly, the screenplay was not strong or developed significantly enough to provide big data and privacy discussions.

Mae Holland (Emma Watson) hates her job at the water company, so she is incredibly excited when her friend Annie (Karen Gillan) lands Mae an interview at The Circle, the world’s most powerful technology and social media company. Mae’s fear of unfulfilled potential impresses the recruiters at The Circle and she lands the opportunity of a lifetime. After Mae puts herself into harm’s way but rescued, thanks to The Circle’s newest surveillance and data gathering system, she is encouraged by the company founder Eamon Bailey (Tom Hanks) to take a more active role in technology development by participating in an experiment that puts Mae’s life on display for the world (in the vein of The Truman Show) to see. Once Mae turns on that camera, she has more “friends” than she ever imagined and becomes an instant online celebrity. Unfortunately, this decision will affect those closest to Mae and the negative ramifications will reach far beyond her inner circle and begin to impact humanity at large. Sometimes, people just don’t want to be found or be “social.”

For all The Circle has going for it, the weak screenplay keeps it from being the blockbuster that it so desperately wants to be. A great movie typically begins with solid writing, and that is what’s missing here. After five minutes (or so it seems) of opening title logos, perhaps that is indirect evidence that there were just too many hands in the pot, each trying to take the movie’s narrative in a different direction. Much like Frozen plays off like two different movies crudely sewn together, The Circle appears to be one movie for the first two acts, but takes an unexpected and unfulfilling turn in the third. A couple of conspicuous unanswered questions come after Mae meets TrueYou designer and founder Ty (John Boyega). He designed the platform that launched The Circle. At one point he asks Mae to meet him in a secret tunnel (where all the servers are stored) and tells her that “it’s worse than I thought.” Great opportunity to introduce intrigue, suspense, and more. The problem is that the audience is never told what Ty finds or what happens with what he found. You can remove that whole subplot and the movie remains the same. There are other subplots that are nicely introduced, but never carried out as well. Any or all of them can be removed and the film proceeds the same. Not good. If you can remove several subplots or unfulfilled turning points and the film’s diegesis remain largely untouched, then you have poor writing. The third act in and of itself leaves audiences with a hurried ending that does little to provide closure to the narrative; however, it does support the film’s circular logic and irony. Hardly satisfying.

In terms of the allegory here, The Circle is a Google-like company with Apple’s technology. Eamon Bailey is a Steve Jobs type innovator with characteristics of Mark Zuckerberg and Google’s Eric Schmidt. Thankfully, The Circle does not represent any one company, but rather combines all the most notable innovations and technological achievements of Google, Apple, Facebook, Instagram, and more into one globally dominating company. Antitrust issues are introduced early on, but again, that’s never fully developed. The movie highlights many issues faced by private citizens, governments, and digital data driven companies today; therefore, it sets the foundation for a movie that could have been thought-provoking, but the writing hinders that ability. The irony in the movie is for every digital answer to streamlining services or bolstering conveniences, a little privacy is eroded each time. Pretty soon, if one shares enough information, the idea of privacy is extinct. Privacy was central to the plot, but it just wasn’t handled in the most effective way. Concepts such as “off the grid,” self-proclaimed “celebrity,” and “calls to action” are displayed and discussed in the film, connecting this augmented reality to real-world issues each of us encounter or think about. One particularly interesting theme in the movie is deep friendship. Unfortunately, this was not fully fleshed as is the case with most of the movie; but still, it does get touched upon.

Exploring digital media and privacy is something I have written on within the last couple years. More specifically, I explore how entertainment media companies collect big data, and the privacy issues faced therein. In 2016, I published a short series of articles on the Walt Disney World Magic Bands entitled “Magical Data Collection.” You can read those articles by clicking HERE.

If you were hoping for another film like the brilliant Social Network, then you will undoubtedly be disappointed. Films such as The Circle should be memorable, but unfortunately this one is very much forgettable. Coincidentally, the movie itself is as hollow as the plot and characters.

Written by R.L. Terry

Edited by J.M. Wead