Very harsh, rooprect my friend.

Now, I haven't seen this movie since its initial release, but I recall being pleasantly entertained while watching it. One of the main reasons I wished to see it was to see Tom Hanks as the villain, though ultimately I felt he was underwhelming and underused in the role (for a better picture of him as the bad guy, I'd suggest his role as Colonel Parker in 2022's Elvis).

As for Emma Watson? Come now, rooprect. There are many, many protagonists much more witless, considering all the unfortunate heroines who go to investigate the "bump in the night" in any number of horror films, only to suffer awful fates. And by the end of this movie, Watson does win.

A thought-provoking movie, though it never rises to the level of a true thriller; I'd give it a 5 or 6 out of 10. But then again, I'm a generous grader.

@northcoast said:

Very harsh, rooprect my friend.

Now, I haven't seen this movie since its initial release, but I recall being pleasantly entertained while watching it. One of the main reasons I wished to see it was to see Tom Hanks as the villain, though ultimately I felt he was underwhelming and underused in the role (for a better picture of him as the bad guy, I'd suggest his role as Colonel Parker in 2022's Elvis).

As for Emma Watson? Come now, rooprect. There are many, many protagonists much more witless, considering all the unfortunate heroines who go to investigate the "bump in the night" in any number of horror films, only to suffer awful fates. And by the end of this movie, Watson does win.

A thought-provoking movie, though it never rises to the level of a true thriller; I'd give it a 5 or 6 out of 10. But then again, I'm a generous grader.

Haha ok, maybe not the #1 dumbest, but I still think her naïveté was so overdone that the film lost its relevance. You made a great point about Tom Hanks being underused as a villain and I think that's largely due to "Mae" being so dumb that the villain didn't need to try. Instead of Hanks playing a menacing, domineering character (which would've been awesome to see), his entire demeanor is that of a kindly, eccentric uncle who leads Mae over the cliff by laying out tasty bread crumbs and watching her do the rest.

I think the scene that really killed it was an hour into the movie, when you'd think Mae would've already wised up to the perils of total surveillance (her parents had already dumped her and she barely noticed). Eamon Bailey (Hanks) brings her into an upper level meeting where he opens up the discussion about voter registration. He plants the seed that the Circle account already has every voter's personal info, then he literally sits back and smirks while Mae takes the floor and spouts off about merging with the government to make voting mandatory.

In other words, our protagonist Mae becomes the voice of fanaticism while the true villain sips a coffee. Tom Hanks got off the hook easy! A more capable director would've given that crucial moment to him, the antagonist, challenging Tom Hanks to use his acting charisma to sell the scam. Think of the famous scene in Wall Street where Gordon Gecko (Michael Douglas) delivers his terrifying pitch that "greed is good". He sells it so well that the audience begins to believe it.

Here, the dumb character Mae delivers that speech, and it's so obvious that she's launching us over the cliff that the story loses all its power. The film should've shown us how intelligent people can be fooled into giving up their freedom. But instead, by having a dumb protagonist, it becomes a crazy scam that only a gullible young girl would fall for. See how it loses its relevance, whereas a film like Wall Street leaves you terrified at the reality of being controlled by the rich & powerful?