A woman lands a dream job at a powerful tech company called the Circle, only to uncover an agenda that will affect the lives of all of humanity.A woman lands a dream job at a powerful tech company called the Circle, only to uncover an agenda that will affect the lives of all of humanity.A woman lands a dream job at a powerful tech company called the Circle, only to uncover an agenda that will affect the lives of all of humanity.
- Awards
- 4 wins & 1 nomination total
Nick Valensi
- Beck Bandmate
- (as Nicholas Valensi)
Julian von Nagel
- Julian
- (as Julian Von Nagel)
Amie McCarthy Winn
- Marion
- (as Amie McCarthy-Winn)
Featured reviews
No wonder the millennials hate this movie.
This is not the best movie you'll ever see, but it's better that one would conclude reading all the hate reviews that flooded IMDB. The plot and acting are decent, camera and editing nothing to write home about but bearable, overall slightly better than average movie. The movie tells the story of the generation created to live in a minute, not even a day, manipulated so easily by people and organizations that prey on this mental flaw, or vulnerability, to be politically correct... It's a grim future.
"Knowing is good, but knowing everything is better." Bailey (Tom Hanks)
How much information is too much? The Circle shows in a direct and melodramatic form that the saturation point is here. Mae (Emma Watson) is hired by a tech-centered firm, an amalgam of Apple, Facebook, and the CIA. Their inclusion-full-knowledge mantra culminates in Mae's agreeing to have complete transparency, a Truman Show for our time.
Bailey is the Steve-Jobs guru, whose weekly assembly for the campus is a model of group think and cultism, launching from the newest technology to the newest invasion of privacy. The willingness of the audience to embrace everything from the unethical farming of information to his obviously self-serving anecdotes suggests Jim-Jones cool-aid-audience imbibing.
The film is an attention-getting, absorbing object lesson in neglecting critical thinking.
The film's provocative theme about full disclosure includes the implied dialectic between the common good and privacy. Knowing where criminals are, such as in our sex-offender laws, is good in the case of creeps but scary when innocent citizens are the object.
Two incidents close to the protagonist illustrate the effects of private invasion, one for survival, the other for denying the efficacy. The former is about saving Mae from drowning because of surveillance and the other about the world seeing her aging parents having sex. No one could wish not to have life-saving surveillance; no one could want parental transparency 24/7.
The Circle is frequently simplistic, e.g., having records that allow automatic registration for voting but also require voting, ignores invasion of privacy and personal choice.
None of this polemic completely negates the efficacy of social media and constant contact. However, transparency, the film suggests, invades and makes circus-like a privacy our Constitution implies.
The camera spends too much time on Mae's bland, wondering stare and meaningless conversations that would be better spent arguing the mission of the Circle. At least it's a start toward better regulation of social information both public and private.
How much information is too much? The Circle shows in a direct and melodramatic form that the saturation point is here. Mae (Emma Watson) is hired by a tech-centered firm, an amalgam of Apple, Facebook, and the CIA. Their inclusion-full-knowledge mantra culminates in Mae's agreeing to have complete transparency, a Truman Show for our time.
Bailey is the Steve-Jobs guru, whose weekly assembly for the campus is a model of group think and cultism, launching from the newest technology to the newest invasion of privacy. The willingness of the audience to embrace everything from the unethical farming of information to his obviously self-serving anecdotes suggests Jim-Jones cool-aid-audience imbibing.
The film is an attention-getting, absorbing object lesson in neglecting critical thinking.
The film's provocative theme about full disclosure includes the implied dialectic between the common good and privacy. Knowing where criminals are, such as in our sex-offender laws, is good in the case of creeps but scary when innocent citizens are the object.
Two incidents close to the protagonist illustrate the effects of private invasion, one for survival, the other for denying the efficacy. The former is about saving Mae from drowning because of surveillance and the other about the world seeing her aging parents having sex. No one could wish not to have life-saving surveillance; no one could want parental transparency 24/7.
The Circle is frequently simplistic, e.g., having records that allow automatic registration for voting but also require voting, ignores invasion of privacy and personal choice.
None of this polemic completely negates the efficacy of social media and constant contact. However, transparency, the film suggests, invades and makes circus-like a privacy our Constitution implies.
The camera spends too much time on Mae's bland, wondering stare and meaningless conversations that would be better spent arguing the mission of the Circle. At least it's a start toward better regulation of social information both public and private.
What a monumental waste of A-class actors!
On paper, this film ticks all the right boxes: topical sci-fi, great actors in fitting roles, plot ingredients that should create great suspense...and yet, it completely fails to deliver at all levels.
I wanted to like this film, so I ignored the first few warning signs: the characters start off a bit one-dimensional, a slightly uninspired representation of Google/Facebook/Amazon-ehm I mean-"The Circle's" headquarters...But then came a couple of scenes that could (no exaggeration) be right out of a CollegeHumor parody video - except they were meant to be serious- and I knew something had gone really wrong with the script and direction.
15-20 minutes into the film everything becomes completely predictable. There isn't a single moment that has you on edge or wondering what's coming next, because everything is as blatant and simplistic as it could be. There's nothing novel about any of the characters or the major plot points. What is worse, the script just can't stop preaching:
"losing all our privacy is bad...mmkay?"
"big corporations shouldn't spy on us all the time...mmkay?"
"sacrificing your personal life in the name of a morally dubious career can have regrettable repercussions...mmkay?"
-NO SH!T movie! Thanks for letting us know, because, you know, we didn't have to write enough 10th grade essays about these things!
Bottom line: I know it's tempting, but don't watch unless you have time to waste. It's not even "so-bad-it's-good" bad, it's just incredibly dull.
On paper, this film ticks all the right boxes: topical sci-fi, great actors in fitting roles, plot ingredients that should create great suspense...and yet, it completely fails to deliver at all levels.
I wanted to like this film, so I ignored the first few warning signs: the characters start off a bit one-dimensional, a slightly uninspired representation of Google/Facebook/Amazon-ehm I mean-"The Circle's" headquarters...But then came a couple of scenes that could (no exaggeration) be right out of a CollegeHumor parody video - except they were meant to be serious- and I knew something had gone really wrong with the script and direction.
15-20 minutes into the film everything becomes completely predictable. There isn't a single moment that has you on edge or wondering what's coming next, because everything is as blatant and simplistic as it could be. There's nothing novel about any of the characters or the major plot points. What is worse, the script just can't stop preaching:
"losing all our privacy is bad...mmkay?"
"big corporations shouldn't spy on us all the time...mmkay?"
"sacrificing your personal life in the name of a morally dubious career can have regrettable repercussions...mmkay?"
-NO SH!T movie! Thanks for letting us know, because, you know, we didn't have to write enough 10th grade essays about these things!
Bottom line: I know it's tempting, but don't watch unless you have time to waste. It's not even "so-bad-it's-good" bad, it's just incredibly dull.
Well, it was a bit of interesting to see this movie. I was thinking
that it would be a total thriller from beginning till end. However, it
turned out that the movie was more drama than thriller. It was
categorized as techno-thriller which I think was a term used to
describe a movie where the thriller was more on technology side.
Unfortunately, I found that the movie was not having a lot of thrill.
There was no mystery that was very intriguing to find out. There was brief moment of suspense before the end, but that was it.
The premise of the movie itself was actually very promising. We were put under the impression in the beginning that it would be a very interesting dark mysterious story, but till the very end, it was not that mysterious. I understand that the movie was adapted from a novel titled the same written by Dave Eggers. Based on the very brief synopsis of the novel, I think that the movie would have been better had it been honoring the storyline from the novel as it seemed to be more interesting (the novel itself was having better review than the movie).
In term of the characters, I felt that Tom Hanks portrayal of a boss to this very large corporation was very good in the beginning, but not really good at the end. While Emma Watson fresh from her last blockbuster hit Beauty and the Beast was surprisingly good in hiding her British accent. This was also the last movie that Bill Paxton played in. His portrayal of a person having the illness was spot on and made us feel sorry for him. Another one that I think quite stood out was the characters of Annie and Mercer, while the rest did not really gave impressions.
Anyway, I think the idea of the story was quite good and up to date and supposed to make us re-think about the privacy issue in social media.
So it was rather sad to see the movie did not provide a real spark, apart from the brief part towards the end of it. I cannot say that I totally enjoyed the movie, but neither can I say it was a really bad movie. It was just average for me. If you are looking for some smart techno thriller movie with lots of suspense and thrills plus mysteries, then I think this movie did not really up to that level yet. But if you want to see something different, or maybe want to see Tom Hanks & Emma Watson in the same screen together, I guess you could try and see this one. The choice is yours.
Unfortunately, I found that the movie was not having a lot of thrill.
There was no mystery that was very intriguing to find out. There was brief moment of suspense before the end, but that was it.
The premise of the movie itself was actually very promising. We were put under the impression in the beginning that it would be a very interesting dark mysterious story, but till the very end, it was not that mysterious. I understand that the movie was adapted from a novel titled the same written by Dave Eggers. Based on the very brief synopsis of the novel, I think that the movie would have been better had it been honoring the storyline from the novel as it seemed to be more interesting (the novel itself was having better review than the movie).
In term of the characters, I felt that Tom Hanks portrayal of a boss to this very large corporation was very good in the beginning, but not really good at the end. While Emma Watson fresh from her last blockbuster hit Beauty and the Beast was surprisingly good in hiding her British accent. This was also the last movie that Bill Paxton played in. His portrayal of a person having the illness was spot on and made us feel sorry for him. Another one that I think quite stood out was the characters of Annie and Mercer, while the rest did not really gave impressions.
Anyway, I think the idea of the story was quite good and up to date and supposed to make us re-think about the privacy issue in social media.
So it was rather sad to see the movie did not provide a real spark, apart from the brief part towards the end of it. I cannot say that I totally enjoyed the movie, but neither can I say it was a really bad movie. It was just average for me. If you are looking for some smart techno thriller movie with lots of suspense and thrills plus mysteries, then I think this movie did not really up to that level yet. But if you want to see something different, or maybe want to see Tom Hanks & Emma Watson in the same screen together, I guess you could try and see this one. The choice is yours.
I was a big fan of Dave Eggers' A Hologram for the King. It was a fantastic read for enjoyment and to analyze. The film adaptation also did not disappoint. When The Circle was announced as a film I immediately checked out the book. To my disappointment, the film wasn't as interesting an got to bogged down to its technological ventures and wasn't exactly the best read. However, I held out hope that the film would be able to impress, especially with the star studded cast at the helm.
Emma Watson plays Mae Holland an ambitious young customer service rep who joins The Circle, a cutting edge technology based company that seems to be growing at fast pace and changing the future. The thing is, the technological leap of the company leads to massive privacy concerns and the company seems to be capable of more than what initially meets the eye. First off, I will say that the scathing reviews I've seen for the film are somewhat unwarranted, however the film is far from perfect and could have been much better.
The plot may seem like its minimal or nonexistent but this wasn't really my concern. I was more concerned with things being introduced into the film that have no real importance later in the film. John Boyega's character is a glorified cameo that seems to just be there as a big name. In the book the character is mysterious has a much larger effect on Mae's life. The ending of the film leaves much more to be desired; there needed to be more explanation onto what the reveal was and anything about repercussions.
The film is littered with talented people but unfortunately the writing and the structure of the film really lets them down. Its a misfire really, and the film needed to be much better and have a stronger central message. I feel like parts of the film and scenes were left on the cutting room floor. The film isn't exactly terrible but its most certainly unfulfilled and really could have left a stronger impression.
6/10
Emma Watson plays Mae Holland an ambitious young customer service rep who joins The Circle, a cutting edge technology based company that seems to be growing at fast pace and changing the future. The thing is, the technological leap of the company leads to massive privacy concerns and the company seems to be capable of more than what initially meets the eye. First off, I will say that the scathing reviews I've seen for the film are somewhat unwarranted, however the film is far from perfect and could have been much better.
The plot may seem like its minimal or nonexistent but this wasn't really my concern. I was more concerned with things being introduced into the film that have no real importance later in the film. John Boyega's character is a glorified cameo that seems to just be there as a big name. In the book the character is mysterious has a much larger effect on Mae's life. The ending of the film leaves much more to be desired; there needed to be more explanation onto what the reveal was and anything about repercussions.
The film is littered with talented people but unfortunately the writing and the structure of the film really lets them down. Its a misfire really, and the film needed to be much better and have a stronger central message. I feel like parts of the film and scenes were left on the cutting room floor. The film isn't exactly terrible but its most certainly unfulfilled and really could have left a stronger impression.
6/10
Did you know
- TriviaBill Paxton and Glenne Headly, who played the parents of Mae, both died the year of the film's release. Paxton died two months prior to the film's release on February 25 due to complications from heart surgery, and Headly died of a pulmonary embolism on June 8, less than two months after the film's release.
- GoofsWhen Mercer is being chased by the drone, there is a camera attached to both the driver and passenger window but in one shot on the bridge the driver-side window is rolled down.
- Quotes
[from trailer]
Eamon Bailey: Knowing is good, but knowing everything is better.
- Crazy creditsA dedication to Bill Paxton at the closing credits which reads: "For Bill".
- SoundtracksMetal Guru
Written by Marc Bolan
Performed by T. Rex
Courtesy of Spirit Music Group o/b/o Spirit Services Holdings, S.A.R.L.
- How long is The Circle?Powered by Alexa
Details
- Release date
- Countries of origin
- Official sites
- Language
- Also known as
- El círculo
- Filming locations
- Production companies
- See more company credits at IMDbPro
Box office
- Budget
- $18,000,000 (estimated)
- Gross US & Canada
- $20,497,844
- Opening weekend US & Canada
- $9,034,148
- Apr 30, 2017
- Gross worldwide
- $40,656,399
- Runtime1 hour 50 minutes
- Color
- Sound mix
- Aspect ratio
- 2.35 : 1
Contribute to this page
Suggest an edit or add missing content