Christian Clayborne

This film is a little rough. While it attempts to be a hard-hitting and insightful look at our social-media based world through the scope of some of the pioneers of the technology; it ultimately comes off as a little more preachy and slightly contradictory to the the actual situation at hand. Many of the experts being interviewed, such as they are, only have appeared to grow a conscience after receiving millions upon millions of dollars. Only then do they decide to label their inventions “toxic” and close the door on there way out, while ceasing to make any counter arguments or offer any insight into the benefits of these technologies. The film is not completely without merit as it does make good points more as to how we take in information and what sources we use (remember kids: memes are not facts and posts with links are not “research”) and it does reflect why fake information spreads so quickly. Because it is easier to ingest a catchy headline rather than look at sources that either support or disprove the thesis presented. And on this level the film actually works. However, it can be difficult to take the film seriously when these mothers and fathers of the social media age are treated as the only whistleblowers and there words are treated as the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth (despite many people in positions far lower have described these issues in great detail. Just watch TedTalks from everyday working class people or “Adam Ruins Everything”). I am conflicted in rating this film because while problematic it has still helped me evaluate my own social media use, and therefore I’ll stick with my “average” rating score of 5/10

I really don’t understand how: 1. This film was not only nominated but won best picture at the 2016 Oscars and 2. How this film is so highly rated compared to other films on this platform. Sure it’s an interesting story with great performances however, it was told in the most boring and uninteresting way possible. The storytelling - basic, the cinematography - unimaginative, the screenplay - fine I guess but on the whole I was very disappointed by the complete lack of charisma from this film. Rachel McAddams performance was easily the best thing about this okay film and that’s all I have to say.

Perhaps one of the most absurd films I’ve seen. It’s hard to believe this was directed by the same man who did “Parasite”. It was rather nuanced, sure it had a lot to say about the treatment of animals and the food industry similar to that of Upton Sinclair’s “The Jungle” but manages to juxtapose that with the somewhat underhandedness of those fighting for those same animal rights and the methods they use to achieve there goals. No one, aside from the main character Mija, is really blameless or at fault. Both sides are filled with people trying to achieve what they see as good in terms of their own moral values and it was quite a refreshing sense of normalcy for what is a relatively strange film.

This film was...rough. Ultimately I really love what they were going for, and credit where credit is due there was a lot of sincerity going into this film from everyone involved and it shows, and I can never fault that. However, I really don’t think we needed 30-50% of this movie. This could’ve easily been cut down to a short film and accomplished the same story beats and plot as what we got. Not that it wasn’t still good, but there were plenty of times when I would feel time scrape by, or when I would roll my eyes because of these characters refuse to move on from each other. The film can become quite tedious to get through. Now that being said this film’s saving grace are the two lead actors. Zendaya and Washington absolutely kill it and bring life to what could’ve been a very annoying exercise in patience. They carried the entirety of the film on their backs, and frankly I would not have been opposed to them receiving Oscar noms for their work. I’m sure it was not easy for them, but they did a wonderful job.

So some people feel like Tom did a better job in Chaos Walking than in this one and I have to disagree. I thought Tom’s performance (and that of Ciara Bravo’s) single handedly made this film go from cumbersome to watchable. That being said, this would’ve been so much better as a mini-series. I don’t know why almost every book adaptation has to be a gosh darn movie because if any of the “chapters” were given adequate time and care we could’ve really had something here. Heck each chapter could be an episode and each episode could be extremely stylized since all of them are similar to movies genres that are prevalent within the public. It’s not the worst thing, but it felt rushed which made it hard to get invested in characters (or at least in the first hour) and after that it’s just whiplash of mood and tone. The obvious movie comparison I found myself making was between this and Beautiful Boy, Both are based on semi-autobiographical books about a younger man’s devolution in to drug use. This is a very unfair comparison because it seems pretty clear one had higher acclaimed actors, better script writing, and more thought put into pacing, and this film could’ve done the same. I’m really just disappointed by the missed opportunities. Also I really hope the motif of “Cherry” was better used in the book because you hear it once in a passing statement in the film (blink and you missed it) and it made me think that was a dumb name for the film.

Cards on the table, I was actually looking to find the newest season of “The Circle” on Netflix. Real quick for those who don’t wanna read. I recognize that i put too much effort in writing a review for a film that have less people who’ve seen it than people in the cast of the film so just know this film is bad and they should feel bad. Thank you for coming to my TedTalk. Check out cclayborne on Letterboxd for full film review.