A murder inside the Louvre, and clues in Da Vinci paintings, lead to the discovery of a religious mystery protected by a secret society for two thousand years, which could shake the foundations of Christianity.
During the Cold War, an American lawyer is recruited to defend an arrested Soviet spy in court, and then help the CIA facilitate an exchange of the spy for the Soviet captured American U2 spy plane pilot, Francis Gary Powers.
When Mae is hired to work for the world's largest and most powerful tech and social media company, she sees it as an opportunity of a lifetime. As she rises through the ranks, she is encouraged by the company's founder, Eamon Bailey, to engage in a groundbreaking experiment that pushes the boundaries of privacy, ethics and ultimately her personal freedom. Her participation in the experiment, and every decision she makes, begin to affect the lives and future of her friends, family and that of humanity.
It make you think about what you should already know
First of all, watch this movie together with "Searching" (2018), whose plot is (wanted to be) the celebration of the immense potential of Google engine, good enough for doing everything you need w/o leaving a room, searches for your missing daughter included (the idea of "no need to leave your house anymore" scared me much more than The Circle, because to me this is not a potential but a nightmare, unless you are constrained in a bed).
The film has puzzled me because while I do understand its goal, it failed in making the problem look real, at least to the vast majority of compulsive social users. He wanted to be a kind of "j'accuse" against facebook (no hypocrisy please, the movie is about Facebook and Zuckerberg and, as someone said, Steve Jobs, whose focus was tech and money and not data collection) and its desire to plunder data from users too happy to share everything. My fear is that the average "social media -addicted user" would think "cool, I'd love to be online h24 and participate in a man-hunt".
Mae's character does not arouse empathy and Emma Watson's pose (it made me think of Hugh Grant) was somehow dull.
Tom Hanks is a perfect synopsis of Tim Cook and Mark Zuckerberg. Maybe too much. I believe that the vast majority of the young people who saw the film did not perceive the message, just "the usual exaggeration of people resilient to internet". Pushing too much on drama, made the message weaker because most people would think "ok, it is a movie. BTW, take a pict of the funny fat guy seated in front of us eating meat".
Last but not least if you want to deliver a "message" you must be sure of being credible and not just another case of brain washing. Let's talk about Ty Lafitte. The only positive character ... is "coloured". Quite strange that while I cannot remember in the movie Indians or Pakistans, Chinese or Russian (people usually associated, because it is real, with Geek roles) the producers decided that the Geek (and somehow a hero) was supposed to be afro-american.
When a movie whose goal is to denounce the intrusiveness of internet and social media, the hypocrisy of the single thought, and the "social driven democracy", ... appears to be totally flat with the recent Hollywood agenda whose claim is "no Afro-American has to be cast as a bad guy, it should always appear as a positive character, better if it is the only one ", then credibility goes to hell.
2 of 2 people found this review helpful.
Was this review helpful to you?
| Report this