The Circle

Art often imitates life, and there is a certain degree of poignancy to “The Circle” in today’s frenetic social media circus. Based on the novel of the same name, author Dave Eggers fabricates a Bay Area tech giant, stealing attributes from companies that rhyme with boogle, pacenook, fapple, and assorted Silicon Valley success stories. The Circle treats its employees like royalty, but it comes with a price. It always comes with a price.

Emma Watson plays Mae Holland, a bright-eyed, bushy-tailed millennial, who has ambitions like most to achieve the perfect job without putting in the time or energy. It’s just her luck that she lands the gig at The Circle without anything more than having a friend who at the age of twenty-something happened to be one of the top executives. It’s fiction though, so it’s believable. As Mae learns the ropes, she begins to fall prey to the game being orchestrated by the CEO, Eamon Bailey (Tom Hanks), and her life begins to spiral out of her control.

Tom Hanks delivers a fantastic performance as usual. He lends his star power to a ripe role of obvious duplicitous motives, but I was hoping for a bit more. Maybe a masterful monologue or climactic speech somewhere near the end. It didn’t happen, and Hanks played it a bit too smooth and cool overall, which made the role a bit of a waste despite his larger-than-life presence in just about everything he does.

John Boyega, Karen Gillan, and Patton Oswalt play the supporting players in mostly unobtrusive and unremarkable roles. Boyega’s character in the book was much richer and had untapped potential in some of the more critical plot points, but he was kept mostly in the shadows, which was a bit of a head-scratcher. Given his recent rising star with “Star Wars,” I would have thought they would have added a few more scenes for him.

Director James Ponsoldt (“Smashed,” “The Spectacular Now,” “The End of the Tour”) adapted the source material with author Dave Eggers, and I was disappointed in how they chose to translate it to the screen. They kept much of the story arc and characters intact, and incorporated memorable scenes that may not have necessarily been vital to a successful film, but there was so much potential to improve on the concept. “The Circle” is a film ripe to take the platform of the novel and elevate it to a higher level, unfortunately, they dropped the ball.

There’s always a real jolt of sadness when you see an actor on screen who has recently passed away. It’s particularly hard when it’s someone you have grown up watching. Bill Paxton plays Mae’s father, and in a role that is full of verisimilitude in that he is struggling with multiple sclerosis and is medically fragile, I was even more caught up in my own emotions.

Social media exposure and privacy issues are truly what’s at the core of the film. Where is the line, and how do we know when we cross it? What are the ramifications for the future, and who is responsible for ethical oversight? Tech companies are delivering products and services at such a profitable and innovative pace that it’s hard to keep up as a consumer or a spectator, which makes this a somewhat haunting predicament.

The book was quite entertaining, and I suppose viewing the film without having read the novel may have been a bit more entertaining than I give it credit for. It was nice to see Paxton one last time, and Hanks is great as usual. Emma Watson didn’t sell her poorly crafted role however, and that had a big impact on my impression.

Be patient, the good films are coming soon. Summer blockbuster season is upon us and it starts May 5th. Skip “The Circle.” Read the book. 5/10.

Free Fire

“Free Fire” is a nice break from the mainstream-targeting fare that’s consumed the theatres over the past few weeks, and it even provides an impressive cast for a meager $10 million budget. What it lacks in special effects, story arc, character development, or objective cinematic quality, it makes up for in bullets. Lots and lots of bullets. Fortunately, every character is carrying pockets full of ammo to keep reloading and firing all over an abandoned warehouse.

Set in Boston in the 1970’s (although there’s nothing to indicate Boston on-screen), a pair of IRA members (Cillian Murphy and Michael Smiley) are attempting to procure guns from a couple of quirky gun runners (Sharlton Copely and Babou Ceesay) with the help of a pair of confusingly present mediators (Brie Larson and Armie Hammer). The unreliable hired muscle inevitably causes a suddenly escalated conflict, and a shower of shelling ensues.

“Free Fire” is gonzo action that elicits serious cinematic nostalgia, and it works purely because of the setting. .38 caliber pop guns makes this film more like classics (“The French Connection,” “Serpico”) than the modern gunfight films like “Smokin’ Aces” or “Heat.” Everyone gets nicked up in the kerfuffle and it almost develops a dark comedy feel more than an action film due to the sheer volume of gunshot wounds and the persistent aggression.

Director Ben Wheatley, who wrote the screenplay with his wife, Amy Jump, does a pretty commendable Joe Carnahan/Guy Ritchie impression, and the sharp, crude dialogue moves along the action at a pleasantly brisk pace. The characters are written with a shallow generic stereotypical quality, and I was a little dismayed that we never got to know any of them beyond their respective obscenity of choice and personal vices.

Cillian Murphy, Armie Hammer, and Jack Reynor carry the film strongly, while Brie Larson stands by simply looking pretty with very few lines of dialogue. Sharlto Copely stands out like a sore thumb as the flamboyantly overdone Vernon, who is given some of the more humorous lines, complete with his unmistakably thick South African accent, but he never really fits with the tone or vibe that the director has created.

Although highly stylized and undeniably gimmicky, “Free Fire” holds your attention extremely well. The action starts early, and doesn’t let up until the very end, with quick camera rotations between characters and some commendable choreography.

One thing I couldn’t get behind was that there was little continuity of alliance. The gunfight also manifested some general rules of gentlemanly sport, but there was a mixed communication of what was acceptable behavior; shooting in the back? Holding fire to reload? Helping a downed friend? Sometimes. Also, most of the characters were just a bit too cool under the pressure of impending death. I get that the mood is light, and the levity of humor has to supersede the realism, but it lost a bit of engagement in the process.

All in all, I was moderately entertained by “Free Fire” and the characters created. I wasn’t disappointed as there is a relatively low expectation from the start in this theatrical dead zone leading up to the start of the summer season (“Guardians of the Galaxy, Vol. 2” on May 5th). If you’re looking for something fun, this will suffice but don’t expect more than a good old fashioned shoot ‘em up. 6/10.

The Fate of the Furious

The eighth film in the shockingly successful franchise has arrived, and unfortunately, there is no end in sight. The eight films have grossed just under four billion dollars worldwide with production budgets totaling just over one billion (the-numbers.com). It’s a no-brainer from the studio perspective, but I find myself wondering, what is it about this franchise that keeps people coming back time and time again? It can’t be Vin Diesel or Michelle Rodriguez, or the A-list stars that keep getting thrown on this monstrosity of a franchise. Dwayne Johnson, Jason Statham, Charlize Theron, Kurt Russell have joined the mix over the years, and we could only speculate what F9 has in store for us. Might I suggest some Jackie Chan involvement?

Fast cars, absurd action, and expensive effects. That’s it. There’s nothing particularly magical to this formula for success. People love seeing things blow up, and people love fast cars.

Vin Diesel has seemingly developed a cult following as Dominic Toretto; cooler than James Bond, better behind the wheel than Mario Andretti. He has a soft spot for family (and he keeps reminding us this). It’s ludicrous, and I don’t mean Chris Bridges, who plays the computer nerd in the ever-growing group of renegade drivers, both in size and reputation.

The team is given top secret missions by the mysterious Mr. Nobody (Kurt Russell in his wheelhouse), and this time, Dominic goes rogue. But why? Evil genius computer hacker Cipher (Charlize Theron) has her talons deep into the team, and they need exotic cars and cringe-worthy one-liners to stop her from launching nukes.

Jason Statham, Dwayne Johnson, and Charlize Theron lend their star power to what would be equally successful without their involvement. Statham got to show off his martial arts moves, Johnson got to show off his herculean physique, and Theron was surprisingly sinister and convincing, although her character’s motives are what makes this film flimsy and unbelievable.

To my chagrin, Scott Eastwood fills the archetypal role of the late, beloved Paul Walker. He plays Little Nobody, Kurt Russell’s apprentice. Young cop with idealist views who develops a strong sense of the one thing missing in his life; family. It’s remarkable the similarities their characters had, and by the end, he is embraced by “the family” and will likely sit at Paul’s empty seat for the remainder of the franchise. I found this a little hard to swallow. Paul Walker was an irreplaceable part of these films, and it was made very public how much he meant to everyone involved, and they just seemed to have moved on rather quickly.

F. Gary Gray takes over the director’s chair from James Wan, and he does a great job incorporating piles of cars, massive explosions, a submarine, and more. I felt like I was watching a high-definition 1980’s action film for most of the time. I’ll let you decide if that’s a good thing.

To say the story is ridiculous is a hyperbolic understatement. The plot has so many holes, I found myself looking around to the other amused patrons thinking did they really just do that? It’s terrible, but that’s the point, and it’s almost as if Michael Bay stopped by the set to give some pointers. “The Fate of the Furious” is fun action, but it’s a terrible film. Watching Vin Diesel attempt to act seriously is painful, and Statham and Theron were the only humans involved who gave this picture any life.

At a long, drawn out two hours and fifteen minutes, I found myself getting antsy, despite the Dolby experience at the newly renovated Woodinville AMC theatre (I highly recommend the experience). You know exactly what you’re getting with one of these films, and the cars were pretty cool. The story was sub-par, even by “Furious” standards, and I did miss Paul Walker. 5/10.

Ghost in the Shell

Let me preface by saying I don’t know much about anime or manga or the whole cyberpunk genre other than it’s extremely popular, and “Ghost in the Shell” has been a rumored project for live action film since it was written in 1989 (I had to look that up). What is familiar is the visionary look at a high-tech, lowlife future society where robots, cyborgs, and automation overshadow humanity (“Blade Runner,” “The Matrix,” “Total Recall”). You get the idea.

“Ghost in the Shell” begins with the massive monopoly Hanka Corporation showcasing their new cybernetic toys. We’re in a future where every human part is replaceable for a price, leaving very few pure humans left, and they are pushing the limits of technology in the creation of Major (Scarlett Johansson), a human brain with synthetic everything else. She’s the secret weapon of a group called Section 9, which is kind of the special forces for Hanka.

Rupert Sanders (“Snow White and the Huntsman”) directs based on source material by Masamune Shirow. I do wonder if the whitewashing was part of the original story, but a big name is a big name, and Johansson is bigger than any of the Asian-American actresses out there. Money talks louder than political correctness in film, so don’t expect any apologies. Without background knowledge, you might not know better, but there is a distinct Asian influence in the unspecified megalopolis which makes the casting a bit suspect.

Supporting Danish player Pilou Asbaek is Batou, Major’s only true friend, and for my money, he steals the show. Don’t get me wrong, Johansson is great, and rocks the skin-tight synthetic suit with sheer confidence like she did in “Avengers” and “Lucy” and… about ten other films. It’s kind of her thing at this point, but Batou establishes the lighter than expected tone as an unexpected, no-holds-barred good dude, and I couldn’t quite decide whether it was refreshing or a detractor from the bleak and visionary setting. I settled on refreshing, but it diminished the return on the overall quality of the film.

The retro futuristic world was clearly beautifully imagined and rendered, and the aspect of that universe which has kept Hollywood’s interest is the visual effects magic. Perhaps that’s what has taken them this long to adapt the story. The effects are stunning. The action on the other hand, is a bit disappointing, and the story is less than original.

I left the film entertained but unimpressed. Rupert Sanders delivered a strong effort that I imagine made the original writer proud, but I was expecting a much darker vision. More violence, more despondence and hopelessness, more fear and sorrow. Not to be too bleak, but that’s what makes these films so compelling in my view. I want a total immersion into the future, and I want to leave the theatre hoping that these things don’t come to fruition. I didn’t feel that way with “Ghost in the Shell.” I left thinking, “that was fun.”

Action film fans will probably enjoy the few fight sequences (many of which are spoiled by the previews), but be bored by the story and lack of sufficient character development. It also seems much longer than the 107-minute runtime, but that might have just been me. In a nutshell, I would wait for it to come to Netflix or TV. This is the type of film I have fond memories of as a kid on rainy summer afternoons lying on the couch, surfing through channels, nestled under a blanket, drifting in and out of sleep. It’s that kind of movie. 5/10.

Life

One thing that makes a sci-fi film great is the realism it can provide. If the future is not-so dystopian, or if the technology is not-so far off. “Life” captures that framework nicely, establishing a setting that we could imagine possible.

Six astronauts aboard the International Space Station prepare to receive a soil sample from Mars, hopeful that what they find can provide insight into the mysteries of the universe. Highlighting the crew are flight engineer Adams (Ryan Reynolds) and Dr. Jordan (Jake Gyllenhaal), whose personalities couldn’t be more different. Dr. Derry (Ariyon Bakare) gives us a quick science refresher when a sample is animated, in a wonderful sequence of high school biology lab work. Then, things go awry. The crew scrambles to both understand this alien organism as well as survive its unexpected havoc, all while living in a claustrophobic, hazardous environment where anything can go wrong at any time.

Right from the start, I was captivated by the fantastically creative camerawork blended seamlessly with the top notch visual effects. There is something about zero-gravity that is fascinating, and director Daniel Espinoza (2012’s “Safe House”) handles it with aplomb. It’s the effects that bring this film (and the organism) to life. Dazzling and gruesome at times, “Life” is unmistakably a thriller, but it’s also quite beautiful.

Writers Rhett Reese and Paul Wernick (“Deadpool,” “Zombieland”) give us familiar archetypes on board the ISS; reluctant hero, comic relief, father figure, brave leader. Nothing is new, and yet, I was disappointed that Gyllenhaal’s character wasn’t developed just a bit more. There were hints to a past story that was never really unpacked and it would have added more depth and increased tension if even five or ten minutes were devoted to him earlier. His acting is terrific as usual, and this isn’t the type of film he usually attaches himself to, but I was impressed.

The score. The score was phenomenal. I can’t recall a thriller in recent memory that had sound that equally matched the visual mood being created by the director and actors. As the film began to crescendo to its foreseeable but utterly heart-pounding ending, it was reminiscent of John Carpenter’s “The Thing” (see it if you haven’t). The pulsing bass intensifies to what is a really satisfying and chilling conclusion.

Clearly there is an attempt to attract a female following with the mildly photogenic Reynolds and Gyllenhaal attached, but be warned, there is no eye candy. This is more like seeing “Saving Private Ryan” to see the dreamy Matt Damon. The men are sweaty, grimy, and fully-clothed and anyway, the real star is the creature. Masterfully crafted to be both docile and ruthlessly primal, it is something we’ve never seen before; less menacing and more mesmerizing.

What separates “Life” from so many others in the genre is the completeness of execution. The story is the weak link, but everything else rises to compensate. Effects and music highlight what could have very easily been typical in every sense of the sci-fi genre, but instead, it’s a remarkable film that will kick off a great year in science fiction.

The tagline is “We were better off alone.” You will be better off watching this film, enjoying the ride, and savoring the final few minutes. Let the chills sink in, and enjoy the fear. 8/10.