So I saw The Circle a long, long time ago. A time when I wasn’t noting the date that I’d seen the film, a time where I wasn’t reviewing or rating the movie. It’s way down on number 1119 in the list of movies I’ve seen- compared to 1508 as of February 26th, 2025. At an approximate 200 movies a year, the math suggests I saw it about 2 years ago? Even 3 years ago doesn’t seem correct. I feel like I saw the film far longer ago, because I was writing and publishing reviews 3 years ago, and I don’t already have a review for this film. Funny thing, I looked it up- I’ve been publishing reviews since April 17th, 2021!
I want to think that my taste and understanding in films has matured over the years. I know that, when comparing my work from a few weeks ago on Last Shift to my first published review, for Terminator: Dark Fate, you’ll note that the meandering commentary wrought with grammatical errors has now given way to more focused commentary wrought with grammatical errors. That’s growth!
So let’s revisit The Circle. I’d like to begin by admitting my sins: I lust for Emma Watson. Her jawline is… dreamy. Her accent is tasteful. Her mannerisms are quirky. Me likey. So if you’re telling me that there’s movie with my top celebrity crush, also featuring Tom Hanks, Patton Oswalt, Karen Gillian, and my own hometown, then maybe- just maybe- possibly- upon a rare happenstance- a far slung possibility- as a true rarity- upon an absolute impossibility- I’ll hit play.
The film starts strong, and was clearly an inspiration for many portions of the FX show Devs, which features a high-concept sci-fi theme of premonition and alternate realities brought forth by the techies of the Bay Area. The Circle opts for a more contemporary, less far fetched concept of “invasion of privacy versus unification of information via constant surveillance.” The film is based on a book, and I may have known that 400 movies ago, but I’m aware now, and I think that that’s relevant.
I think that the film suffers from very common failures that film adaptations of books suffer from, and that’s ironic considering… y’know… Harry Potter… Hermione… Emma Watson…
The protagonist, Mae, is extremely difficult to place. Her goals, her desires, her needs, her motivations- it’s all lost to the greater concept of the film. Her character is pushed to speak words to progress the plot, with little to no justification of her drive. Immediately after she accidentally harms and scars her family through invasive surveillance technology, Mae pushes for a greater extension of the surveillance company’s powers to intrude on daily lives. Mae continues to push for (a previously unestablished character motivation) extension of democracy and voice for the underrepresented who live under dictatorships.
Perhaps, in the book, the CEO, Eamon, was painted as a dictator more efficiently. Perhaps, in the book, Mae’s motivations were further defined. Perhaps, in the book, her relationship with a pivotal character, Mercer, was more fleshed out. None of that was truly present in the film. All of it was necessary to round out the story. As a result, Mae’s actions feel disjointed and almost random. Emotionally disconnected. Tone deaf?
I talk about adaptations and remakes often, but the point almost always boils down to: does the new version understand the themes of the original? Does the new version understand the point of the original? Does the new version understand what made the original work?
Often, so disappointingly often, the new versions don’t succeed in understanding or emulating the efficiency of the originals. In the interest of innovation, key emotional and story beats are cut, glossed over, or not presented correctly. It’s a funny thing. If you’re holding a book in hand, and don’t understand what’s being described, you can read and re-read the section umpteenth times until the idea forms in your mind. In a film, the director gets one chance. One effort, and then the film moves on. Yes, you may rewind, or skip backwards by 5, 10, or 30 seconds. But it’s not the same.
Film has the added benefit of visually and audibly presenting the adaptation of the story that was initially only presented in a textual format. Visuals and audio tend to resonate quicker and deeper, especially with the right audiences (ie evolved cinephiles). If you’re making a movie, remember that. Make your visuals matter. Make the audio matter. The dialogue, the characters, their actions, their reactions. Make it logical.
The film The Circle loses its focus and forgets that as an adaptation of a book, it needs to remember that it is now a film, and that presentation is far more important than just the theme. Building its characters and resolving its plot is supreme. That said, the film ends abruptly. Mae decides she does not subscribe to the parent company’s philosophies, decides that its CEO is the issue, leaks his emails, and then the movie ends. FYI, Captain America: The Winter Soldier has a similar moment, where the files are all leaked in the interest of transparency and defeat a looming surveillance state- but then there’s still a bit after that. There’s some punching, sure, but we also understand what happens to the world and its people once this major action has been taken. The Circle spends zero time explaining how Mae, the world, and the company, have changed following her actions.
The movie The Circle was a poorly adapted, poorly forethought effort. Even as a standalone movie, without the context of the book, I recall feeling unfulfilled the first time I saw it. Turns out, there is a reason that I forgot I saw the movie. There is a reason I only realized that I’d seen it before when I was filling out my spreadsheet and the words auto populated. The film was
85scenes Reviews 
Leave a comment