The Circle

First Hit:  Wonderfully interesting in many ways including how close we are to actually having this technology being available today. I grew up being much more private that I am today. Today’s technology makes being open and transparent much easier. This film is about technology and how it could be used to control, expose, and create full transparency among people. It also exposes some of the privacy and freedom of choice issues that we, as a race, may have to face.

In 1999 there was a Ron Howard film called 'Edtv' with Matthew McConaughey in the role of Ed, who was filmed by a camera crew while he lived his life and eventually got the girl despite being exposed this way. What made this interesting was how much equipment and production was required to film this one man.

It's all different in 'The Circle'. Here the company resembles a conglomeration of Apple, Google, and Facebook and the technology they develop is the star. It is a social media platform that also provides other services.

Mae (Emma Watson) is stuck in a part-time customer service department for a utility company. Her mom Bonnie (Glenne Headly) and dad Vinnie (Bill Paxton) want their daughter to be happy, but she’s been hanging around because Vinnie has Multiple Sclerosis. Her high school boyfriend Mercer (Ellar Coltrane) still pines for Mae and is more interested in a life without technology.

Mae gets hired by ‘The Circle’ because her friend Annie (Karen Gillan), who has a high level position with the company, gets her an interview. Drinking the Kool-Aid of ‘The Circle’ philosophy, Mae slowly gets inducted to the group by going to the company parties, staying in the company dorms, eating the company food, and participating online with the supposed “friendships”. Getting a company physical, she ingests a small device that will track her and provide the company with her vital data.

At a company meeting they announce a small inexpensive camera which they begin placing all over the country. The camera provides 'The Circle' clients with ways to view and experience lots of different places and never leave their seat in front of their computer screen or phone screen.

The founders, Eamon Bailey (Tom Hanks) and Tom Stenton (Patton Oswalt), promote openness while there is a slight sub-current of wanting control and data on everyone and everything. The cameras are part of this data collection. By recording the camera data and the data from their employees ingested monitors, the collection becomes very personal very quick.

Because of the cameras, Mae is saved from drowning in San Francisco Bay. This emotional event further convinces Mae that ‘The Circle’ is on to something and volunteers to be the first person to be online fully transparent 24/7 except for the 3 minutes when she’s on a toilet or when she's sleeping. Of course now she has millions of followers and as people do today, many make snide, dumb or derogatory comments about Mae as well as others who make supportive comments.

Mae comes up with ideas to take this one more step and suggests that everyone become part of ‘The Circle’ and if you are, then you’ll automatically be registered to vote and will be required to vote. One of her co-workers, Ty Lafitte (John Boyega), shares information with Mae which supports concern for The Circle’s plans for the data they are collecting. She also discovers that Ty is the third founder who no longer has an active part in the company.

The ending scenes are great because it starts to bring up the concept and issues around true transparency for all people, including the founders. The questions this film brings up are important to all of us because almost all of the technology shown in the film is available. Would you act better, or as your better self, if everything you did was being able to be seen by everyone else? Would you be OK with everyone having the ability to view all your communications with anyone? Is total transparency of everyone the best path? Or, do we need to have individual privacy?

The film puts forth this question and actually it is a great question because the technology is just around the corner to make ‘The Circle’ happen soon.

Watson is great. She did a wonderful job of portraying her own questions about what she was getting into and then shifting to be the person who leads ‘The Circle’. She had great transitional moments and she performed them very well. Hanks was perfect as CEO because he’s just so nice and believable. You wouldn’t think there was an underlying theme that wasn’t transparent. Oswalt was excellent as the COO because he, more than Hanks, showed a sense of an underlying darker theme. Paxton was wonderful in his final film role. His performance as a man with MS was spot on. Gillan was strong as the overworked believer who started seeing her power fade. Coltrane was wonderful as Mercer the guy who just wanted to live his life his way. Headly was very good as Mae’s mother. Loved how she created support for her husband and empathy for her daughter. Boyega was strong as Ty, the architect of ‘The Circle’ and saw the issues early on. James Ponsoldt and Dave Eggers did a wonderful job of creating a script and screenplay that reflected the way people act today with their mobile devices and bringing up the deeper questions about transparence and control. Ponsoldt did a great job of using his actors to show how companies in Silicon Valley coddle their employees; with transportation, food, parties, concerts, and activities.

Overall:  A very interesting story and it brings up questions that will have to be addressed and resolved soon.

Free Fire

First Hit:  Not many screenwriters and directors attempt to shoot an entire film in one room and this film shows why. Part of the issue with shooting a film in a one room, with a few scenes outside the room, is that the room set has to be dynamic or amazing and/or the characters have to be inspiring and so engaging that the audience is on the edge of their seat. Some films focus on one or the other while most of the rest try to focus on both. This one appears to focus on character development but by limiting any movement in the set because people are in a gunfight and pinned down, the difficulty in making the characters interesting, is pronounced.

What we have is two factions. One group wants to buy some M-16 rifles and another group wants to sell guns. The deal is filled with mistrust as the rifles that get delivered to the meeting place, a broken-down warehouse, are not M-16s. This creates tension between the two factions.

What blows this up is one of the guys Stevo (Sam Riley) who’s on the team buying the guns for the IRA, got beaten up by Harry (Jack Reynor), one of the guys from the seller’s team. Harry beat-up Stevo because he said some very rude things to his sister. When they each recognized each other they start to fight and the two sides begin shooting at each other and thus begins about an hours’ worth of shooting in a small confined space.

During the shooting the sides call out to each other and some of their past association comes to light.

There are very amusing parts and quips along the way which worked, however, the fight was too long and it ran out steam about 20 – 25 minutes into the gun battle. Although the ending wasn’t predictable, it didn’t mean much because I didn’t care a whole lot.

Regardless of the film, if there is nothing to root for, care about, or associate/connect with, then the experience dies and the film fades from my mind just as soon as I get up out of my seat.

The actors that stood out during this film were: Armie Hammer (as Ord) the strong arm. Brie Larson (as Justine) as the smoother between the two groups. Sharlto Copley (as Vernon) another strong arm. Others, like Riley and Reynor, were good, however this film didn’t quite lend itself to strong acting, just short quips and brief explosions of anger or shooting. Amy Jump and Ben Wheatley wrote a quippish script. Wheatley as director did get something out of the limited script, but after 20 minutes of the OK corral in a broken down warehouse the film just fizzled out.

Overall: This film had possibilities but in the end, it failed on all levels.

Unforgettable

First Hit:  Unforgettable was completely forgettable. The beginning is OK, there is some suspense with Julia Banks (Rosario Dawson) leaving her job, packing up and heading to Los Angeles from San Francisco. There are questions in her expression as her best friend and former boss gently nudges her about how she’s feeling. Her friend continues to reaffirm that Julia is always welcome back to San Francisco. This seemed to set up that Julia is wounded from her past.

We learn that Julia has been a battered woman, and her two-year restraining order on her ex-boyfriend, Michael Vargas (Simon Kassianides) who is out of jail for his past actions, is ended. She’s headed to LA because she met and fell in love with David Connover (Geoff Stults). David has a wonderful daughter named Lily (Isabella Kai Rice) who is the result his broken and difficult marriage with Tessa (Katherine Heigl). When Julia and Tessa meet, it is obvious that there is something not quite right with Tessa.

Tessa still pines for David and will do anything to get David back, and this sets up the most mechanical, predictable back and forth confrontation between Julia and Tessa, with Lily and David being the foils they use.

Each scene is predictable, whether it be in the police station when Julia is being interviewed, when Tessa demands that Lily act a particular way in front of everyone, and when David trying to keep the peace between all of them.

I don't like when there are scenes in films that have no closure, don't add to the film's plot or direction, or are forgotten about as the film moves along. If you're going to put a camera on it, then make sure it is complete, has value or gets completed later in the film.

One such scene is seeing Julia carefully pack her suitcase, put the suitcase on the roof of the car. During her trip to LA, the suitcase falls off and her clothes scatter. This includes a special hat given to her by her best friend. We never get closure on this and we're left with lots of questions. Did she care about losing all her clothes? Did she care about the hat? Where did she get clothing when she got to LA?

As the film moves along and suspense winds up, I became more disinterested. It was taking way too long to create suspense and it was way too probable.

Dawson was OK as the battered woman trying to make her life better and embrace a positive relationship. Thought that her dialogue with Lily was really strong and created an effective relationship building sequence. Heigl was very effective as the slightly twisted, controlling and uptight woman who’s past reflected her character. Stults was OK and I don’t know if the part was bland or he was bland. It just seemed that he would have had more energy towards what was transpiring. Rice was perfect. She showed this by the different ways she acted towards and reacted to Julia and Tessa. Kassianides was very effective as stalker. Christina Hodson and David Leslie Johnson wrote this screenplay. Although there seemed to be enough material, it seemed either overwritten or poorly conceived. Direction by Denise Di Novi was in error for being mechanical in its presentation. Meaning, nothing was surprising. Additionally, Di Novi was in error for trying to put too much into the film and move away from; saying more with less.

Overall: I couldn’t wait for this film to end.

the Fate of the Furious

First Hit:  With improbable situations, circumstances and action, it was funny enough to make me stay till the end. There is very little about this film that is remotely believable. I won’t mention them here but when you watch it, you’ll know what I mean.

Somehow in the saga of these Furious films, Dom (Vin Diesel) grew close to someone which created a situation where the result has him go against his "family." Anyone who’s seen these series of films, Dom makes “family” the main thing that no one goes against. So, for Dom to go against his family, the situation must be a big deal.

Introducing him to this situation is Cipher (Charlize Theron) whose role is to be the smartest person on the planet, wants to control the world by living on a plane using high tech tools and have the ability to take control of any computer on the planet. By doing so she plans to use Dom to carry out some of her physical missions and she has just the motivation to make him turn away from family.

The government intelligence agency headed by Mr. Nobody (Kurt Russell) and his new underling Little Nobody (Scott Eastwood) want to find out why Dom stole a concussion device. To do this they pull the rest of the family together and add Hobbs (Dwayne Johnson) and Deckard (Jason Statham) to the mix and spare no expense in wrecking expensive cars, tanks, and guns to find Dom, and why he betrayed “family”.

One of the funniest themes through the film was why Tej (Chris “Ludicris” Bridges) was only ranked 11^th on the most wanted list. He throws a fit about this throughout the film.

With no expense held back on making a film that blows up a whole bunch of stuff, wrecking a fleet full of cars, has a submarine chasing cars, and kills a pile of people, F. Gary Gray took Chris Morgan’s script and made it fun.

Diesel was good. I’m not much of a fan of his character because it is always the same one no matter the film. Theron makes a very good bad girl. She pulled this off and was believable (or as believable as one could make this part) enough to not have me cringe. Russell is great. I loved his popping in and out of the film bringing lightheartedness and smarts. Eastwood is fun as the new agent learning the ropes. Johnson is, well, Johnson. His brutishness and size, especially when he’s walking through the prison in the orange jumpsuit, says it all. He can be intimidating. Statham, although not the size of either Diesel or Johnson, has a look and swagger that makes him an equal of the other two in perceived strength. Bridges is really fun and whether he’s unhappy at being 11^th or in the cold weather, he makes everyone smile. Michelle Rodriguez as Letty is carrying on the role she created in the earlier films. She does tough/soft well. Tyrese Gibson as Roman does a great job of being the guy who thinks things through for the team. Nathalie Emmanuel as Ramsey is a perfect complement to Gibson’s "Roman" as part of the team’s brain trust. Morgan’s script was haphazard, had holes in it, and didn’t tie together well but it was fun. Gray must have had fun directing this crew given the script he had.

Overall:  Do not expect this film to make much sense, but it is funny enough, and has enough fun chases to keep you in your seat.

Tommy's Honour

First Hit:  I liked the historical and romantic aspects of this film. Tom Morris (Peter Mullan) is thought of as the father of golf and golf courses. Although he owns St. Andrews land, is the green’s keeper of The Royal and Ancient Golf Club of St. Andrews, he and the club is controlled by the Captain of the club, Alexander Boothby (Sam Neill). The Captain heads a consortium of men who run the club and the betting on golf games at the club.

Tom has accepted his station in life, green’s keeper, caddie, golf club maker, golfer, and golf course land owner. His son Tommy (Jack Lowden), however, doesn’t believe he needs to be relegated to this lower station in life, and his resentment shows in many scenes.

He and his father often played golf together representing the wealthy who bet on them, resulting in huge cash winnings to the bettors. They, in turn, gave Tom and Tommy a small cut of the winnings. Tommy thought this whole arrangement was wrong and demeaning and struck out to change the relationship between the bettors and the players. He wanted to be in control of the winnings and give the bettors their due after the tournament.

Along with wanting to change those social norms, Tommy also met Meg Drinnen (Ophelia Lovibond) a slightly older woman who was a waitress in a restaurant. He falls in love with her despite his family’s reticence to accept her. As their relationship grows and his golfing prowess becomes well known throughout Great Britain, Tommy’s mother Nancy (Therese Bradley) searches for and finds out about Meg’s past. Social convention of the time stated that Tommy should not marry Meg, but Meg’s kindness and strength win the family over.

I loved the scenes they use to attempt to show what golfing was like in the late 1800's; teeing up with sand, the clubs they used, greens that were not manicured, and playing in all types of weather (rain and snow). I liked seeing the old balls and clubs used but wondered about and wanted to know more about the slots in the club face when it was brought up by a competitor.

Mullan was wonderful as the father. His pride for his son just barely showed through which would have been perfectly appropriate for the time. Lowden was OK as the son. My issues with this role was that the film didn’t show any of the hard work that must have gone into him being the best golfer of the time. It takes more than just swagger. I did think that he did a great job as Meg’s lover and husband. Neill was strong as the Captain. His arrogance with his position was appropriate. Lovibond was divine. Her kindness, humbleness, and strength was perfect for the role. Bradley was wonderful in an antagonistic role. Her softening towards Meg was perfectly done. Pamela Marin and Kevin Cook did an OK job of creating an interesting script. I would have preferred more information about St. Andrews and the work that Tommy had to put in to become the winner of The Open tournament so many times in a row. However, in covering the love, dedication, and support of family was well conceived. Director Jason Connery did a good job of creating and showing characters from this script. However I couldn’t get over how little practice Tommy did to be so good at golf. I played golf in my younger years and know how difficult the game is to learn.

Overall:  This film and story is about love, the history of golf, social classes, and family, not a bad story to tell.