Anon (I) (2018)
User ReviewsReview this title
Anon is raw sci-fi, without amazing effects and stunning fights. It's story is more actual than ever.. or at least it should be. In a society, where we "feel the need" to be "connected" all the time.. without second thoughts about possible consequences in very near future.
In short: good actors and good idea well presented. Makes you thinking after movie ends -which is the main point of good sci-fi. I give it 8 stars.
If I would have seen a score of under 6 there is no way I would have watched this. This may be a (my) needle in the haystack, but I am going to give more series/movies a chance before I look their average score, and reviews up. I still can't believe this is under an average score of 7. Under 6 is downright shocking.
So as I said, I like the tricks and special effects involved, but that was truly the only thing I really LIKED. Everything else was average or above average at most. The acting was fine, considering it had some respected actors in it. The cinematography outside the special effects and what not was also very average, nothing to be amazed at like certain genius cinematographers. Honestly it wasn't a fantastic film, but it also wasn't terrible and 1 star like some people are saying, I enjoyed MOST of it, kind of got bored towards the end, but the first couple of tricks were fun, and I'll give them that.
Has many similar themes and echoes of Minority reports, although the direction is quite considered. This really helps to build the sense of a dystopian world that is reminiscent of Orwell's 1984, but as a result it doesn't have the pace of Spielberg's movie.
Not Niccol's best, but it's very watchable and has some really interesting ideas that will stay with you after the movie has finished
Ignore some of the other reviews on here. Ridiculous to judge a movie on the basis someone is smoking indoors.
Referring to the topics of online surveillance and shadow total data verification by certain government agencies, the New Zealand director, however, does not risk digging a little deeper than what is originally offered to the viewer. "Anon" comes out with such a great generalization, the world of dominant conventions, starting from an unnamed place of action and ending with key plot points and characters. Substitution of reality here takes place not only in the eyes of Freeland, but also in the viewer - Nikkol seems to be returning to the scenery from his "Time", only changes the basic concept, introduces new, albeit unremarkable characters. Divorced, middle-aged detective with a classic set of tragedies of the past, depression, reflection, fatigue and alcoholism and his main opponent - lonely girl-hacker, sociopath, despises open society to which the glass walls of the world without privacy pressuring other stronger. The remaining types of the at least the templates, as well as conservative construction of the plot itself, in which everything is moving along predefined routes - from exposure, acquainting the viewer with the peculiarities of the activities of the protagonist and ending isolation, designed to cast a shadow over all this seemingly harmonious ranked utopian society.
Having on hand an excellent idea that could be developed well thanks to a fantastic assumption - around the clock functioning in the mind of each interface, Nikkol prefers to focus on things simpler. His "Anon" is basically a standard technotriller, in which the level of intrigue is reduced to a minimum, and to study the geometric proportions of the scenery is much more interesting than watching the actions of the characters. The film after the introductory first act is too quick to make a transition from words to deeds, with every step of starting to lose touch with their own reality. Technical details, if negotiated, are only casual, and the content side is gradually surrendered under the onslaught of minor, but more curious details. Study eclectic interior loft hacker opposed to the local geometry of the totalitarian urbanism, or notice how during a given scene the characters for various reasons, look away somewhere amusing, but this impression is not vyvezesh. Niccol brings his directing style - as if detached from the observation with the academic alignment staging diluted oblique angles and close-ups with a reduced degree of emotions only adds to the feeling of total emptiness of what is happening. Of course, "Anona" could save the final twist, which can turn the languidly lined intrigue into another optical illusion for the dejected viewer, but in this component the plot only finally recognizes its helplessness. The need to believe what they saw in order to protect the system from collapse here is simply a banal attempt to avoid compromise, and cause-and-effect relationships remain without due attention. Nikkol decides to play in symbolic postmodernism, completely guarding the viewer from any answers, but his thoughtful defaults look more like the lack of an ideological opportunity to develop his own concept or lead him to a logical collapse. Increasing paranoia stabilizes by itself, mysterious algorithms and databases remain in the form of graphical links of digital paths, and all motivation turns out to be an ordinary model. After all, maybe Nikkol is right - it's easier to get rid of the general in the finale and to impress the viewer that he already knows the answer, than to directly tell him the obvious conclusions. Accidents are nothing but whim, encryption of data is not reliable and it's much easier to permanently disable the interface and get rid of annoying advertisements and dice with useful information, because memories somehow always remain with us. To delete a record, according to the characters of the film, is much easier than to get rid of its contents, and at some point it seems that a little more, and the story will hit at least in the parable, but this information anti-utopia seems to be still unrevealed.
I hope the best for the film and I don't regret watching it.
It's not a "I want those hours of my life back" movie but it's nothing I would recommend as a must watch.
Themes such as cash vs electronic payments, visual pollution in augmented reality, warrant-less police searches, and instant total recall are simply revealed through everyday activities with minimal philosophical analysis. Clive Owen plays tortured Clive Owen masterfully as he did in 2006's Children of Men. Amanda Seyfried reprises a disaffected, emotionless hacker reminiscent of her other role as a disaffected, emotionless billionaire's daughter in "In Time".
It is a timely reminder of the dangers of technology in the age of Facebook and Equifax. Unfortunately, it deviates too much into gratuitous sex and nudity, and not enough time is spent on how a society came to accept totalitarian control over their lives. Recommend a watch, but know that female members of the household may be offended.
There are way too many script cliches and tacky one-liners to a point it distracts from the plot. Of which there seems to be little of as the movie progresses. The promising start seems to get watered down drastically with the bad script and mediocre delivery (sometimes it's hard to distinguish which is at fault). Cheap nudity is abound, a shoehorned sex scene (Amanda Seyfried's trademark), all the tell tale signs of low confidence in the plot's interest levels. The problem with the plot is that even the gratuitous nudity couldn't keep it afloat.
The dead son sub-plot was an interesting touch that wasn't explored enough. Instead of deepening the character it was brushed off as leverage for cheap tension. Somehow more hookers seemed more important to the plot's progression than building the characters.
The decisions made by the main character (Sal) are at best baffling, I don't understand that character nor was I able to relate to him in any way.
I will not watch this movie again nor will I recommend it to anyone.
On a visual level, the stark environments are desaturated even further in editing, adding to the underlying tension of the film. Sets are concrete, institutionalized and imposing structures, which could have been symbolic but aren't fully realized within the plot. Societal regression might even be considered as a visual element considering the nostalgia that persists in characters' near-constant smoking and drinking in suits cut in a style that is reminiscent of the 50's. Sadly, there is barely a woman in the film who isn't there to take of their clothes and spread their legs. It might be considered a shame that women couldn't find a role in in this movie without having to have sex for it.
The lynch pin for psychological thrillers of this kind could be said to be in the pondering of greater societal questions. In this case there is some thought to the impact of current technology and the implications of cybernetics and transparency that isn't without merit, though as a story there isn't a grand reveal or a strong conclusion.
It's a shame, the setting and concept of the city and technology could be the basis for some really good material. The premise did remind me of some of Phillip K Dick's stories. Sadly the writer took his idea and tied it together with a long string of cliche. There's a gritty cop with a troubled past, a corrupt governing system, an ineffective senior cop and a poorly thought through overexplained plan to catch the villain. No subtlety at all, no development of character.
If you are able to switch off from the poor dialogue and just enjoy the story for the setting and concept, it's not unwatchable. I'm afraid that's all the praise I can give it.
Imagine a world where everything you see is collected in your brain and stored as a digital record, which can be accessed sometimes with your permission, and sometimes without. It's a world where everyone is accountable for their actions, because their actions cannot be hidden. We can immediately imagine the benefits of such technology because lying, cheating, stealing and murder cannot occur in an environment where everyone's digital record can be accessed, and evidence of consciousness of guilt gets written and stored on your digital brain, which can then be either downloaded or shared telepathically.
However, in the real human world, the desire to lie, cheat, steal and murder does not go away, simply because there is technology to uncover one's deeds. In the real world, people want privacy for non-nefarious as well as nefarious deeds. And in Anon, this is where computer hackers come to engage and sell their services. One such hacker specializes in erasing client's records, as well as the records of those who interacted with her client in planning or engaging in criminal, and sub-criminal deeds. The only problem is that there is a serial killer killing off the hacker's clients and framing the hacker for the murders.
Anon is both an original and clever movie which addresses the philosophical question of how much information should the government have regarding your personal life, your thoughts and your memories, all at the expense of privacy and anonymity. It forces the viewer into a creepy world where your personal thoughts are public, and that nothing is secret, or even worse, that your record can be altered.
I'm not sure if Anon is as much original as it is simply taking existing technology and extrapolating where tech companies, and a police state would love to have tech go. Because it has not been done before, and subtly integrates into the discussion, the tension of the technology privacy debate, and a serial killer, Anon, gets high marks for originality. This simply has not been done before.
Anon, however, doesn't go the whole mile. Anon disappoints in that it had the potential to be a truly superb film. The failure to show the political, social and economic struggle as to how the world got to the point of implementing such technology is a catastrophic failure in that it suggests that this level of intrusion is simply the new normal, and that there is, and was never outrage behind its implementation. WTF. It also, fails to discuss or elaborate the potential for such technology to be weaponized or simply create world wide anarchy.
Additionally, I took issue with (1) slow pace of the film (2) underdevelopment of the serial killer (3) somewhat monotone acting and (4) seemingly lack of suspense and drama, given the potential issues which could have been incorporated into the film.
The above issues notwithstanding, it is the kind of movie, you get drawn into to watch and listen, because there are some good nuggets in the script. Given the message, I'll watch it a second time, and maybe a third, even though the ending was both anti-climatic, and disappointing.
The film is really slow, a lot of people just staring at walls and sitting on chairs while they look at video logs in their heads. A very cheap rip-off of Black Mirror.
There is no action, not even running. i think people in this film are sitting 80% of the time and all scenes are usually just people around a table :)
No impressed at all.
First this film has a solid performance by Clive Owen. I appreciated his work in "Children of Men," and this performance is just as good. I seems deadpan, but I empathized with his character, particularly as certain memories begin to be wiped from his sight (literally).
This idea of "wiping memories" is another reason why I recommend this film to you. The effects are unbelieavable when these effects are showing how we are networked--and the scary part of this movie is that these special effects REALLY to mirror our digital lives today. Think of how hard it would be for anyone of use to go "off the grid" with the footprints we leave EVERY WHERE. This film explores this idea both with its effects and its theme.
Lastly, I recommend this film because it is SOOOO "film noirish." I know the debates over whether noir is a genre or style. Doesn't matter to me. This film capture either and for this "flashback" to another time is one reason this film is solid for me and can be for you if you will allow it the time to work its magic on you.
I have to confess that I saw this video on my computer and thar lessens the impact. I wish I had seen this on a big screen in a theater to relish to details. If anyone is interested in a university thesis, I would recommend simply analyzing the huge amount of text that is shown and assessing what this information communicates. OR you can deconstruct the film by saying that this information is really not information that is useful. See how this film makes one think? Give it a try and enjoy this heady film!