The title says enough, destroys the entire story.
In this day and age there really is no need to have any characters smoking cigarettes.
The fact that this is a quite distant future simply makes this behaviour even less believable, but adding to it that they're smoking indoors in workplaces takes it too far.
Other than the annoying scenes with the cigs, the movie is watchable enough to kill some spare time but nothing more.
Anon (2018) 720p YIFY Movie
In a world without anonymity or crime, a detective meets a woman who threatens their security.
IMDB: 5.77 Likes
The Synopsis for Anon (2018) 720p
In a near-future world where there is no privacy, ignorance or anonymity, our private memories are recorded and crime almost ceases to exist. In trying to solve a series of unsolved murders, SAL FRIELAND (Owen) stumbles onto a young woman (Seyfried) who appears to have subverted the system and disappeared. She has no identity, no history and no record. Sal realizes it may not be the end of crime but the beginning. Known only as THE GIRL, she must be found before Sal becomes the next victim.
The Director and Players for Anon (2018) 720p
The Reviews for Anon (2018) 720p
Why is there smoking, indoors, in any future?Reviewed byanthonynz2000Vote: 1/10
The title says enough, destroys the entire story.
So let me start off by saying that I understand the film had its problems, but I still enjoyed it, and if you really don't have anything better to watch, then this is a good time-killer. So the idea is neat, people have brain implants connected to the eyes like a cyborg, and someone hacks it, changing reality to become anonymous. And while this idea is very cool and was interesting for about 45 to 50 minutes, but I feel like this would have made a better short film, because that idea is mostly all they have and its drawn out. I like the actors in this one like Seyfied and Owen, and they did a moderately serviceable job in their roles. The first few hacker tricks are neat but it gets old after a while, and I found myself waiting for the ending. I felt the film drags on pulling out the same old trick. But thats just my opinion.
So as I said, I like the tricks and special effects involved, but that was truly the only thing I really LIKED. Everything else was average or above average at most. The acting was fine, considering it had some respected actors in it. The cinematography outside the special effects and what not was also very average, nothing to be amazed at like certain genius cinematographers. Honestly it wasn't a fantastic film, but it also wasn't terrible and 1 star like some people are saying, I enjoyed MOST of it, kind of got bored towards the end, but the first couple of tricks were fun, and I'll give them that.
Anon, a Netflix original movie, stars Clive Owen as a police detective or the future equivalent thereof. The film is set in a world where everyone has every second of their lives recorded to a kind of cloud platform that makes every second of their life available for instant retrieval.
It's only visual information, not thoughts, but it includes literally everyone, even infants, and literally every second of each life, even the first breaths. The exact mechanism is never really gone into (or I just missed it), but it's a McGuffin and not really important. The real point of the film is the impact this technology has had on society.
Cops like Owen's character don't really specialize in a particular type of crime anymore; their proficiency is basically information retrieval. People come in with questions or to report a crime and the detective simply taps into the recordings of witnesses and suspects at will, pulling what they need to solve the crime or answer the question.
Although it's illegal for anyone but the police to access other's footage without permission, a common challenge in this world seems to be "show me your last X minutes", with refusal interpreted as guilt. In other words, this is a world without anything like what we would call privacy.
People have responded to this lack of privacy by developing techniques for evading detection from law enforcement, bosses, spouses, etc. When someone wishes to hide an aspect of their life, they send out a request to the "ether", essentially the dark web, to hire a hacker to bypass security mechanisms and alter their footage. So a cheating husband might turn an evening with a prostitute into a quiet evening alone watching TV, for example.
The trouble starts when people are murdered and it's discovered that the killer is hacking peoples eyes and projecting his/her perspective onto the victims eyes so that no recording of the killer exists. Owen's character takes lead and eventually discovers Amanda Seyfried's character, a hacker who is maybe also the murderer.
I'll skip the rest of the plot. It's a basic murder mystery with a not-at-all surprising resolution. Which isn't to say it's boring or bad, just that there are plenty of other films with similar plots and "twists", so I think it's more interesting to focus on the philosophy, if you will, of the movie.
The subject of privacy has been in the news quite a bit lately because of the Facebook hacks. I think what's interesting is that we seem to be starting to care once again about privacy, following a decade of steadily selling our information in exchange for some convenience software from Silicone Valley.
The recent breaches have highlighted something that we seem to have forgotten for a while, which is that information about our private thoughts and habits represents tremendous power over us. The information can be used to bypass our safeguards and mental protections, altering our perception of the world around us without our knowledge.
In the movie this is literally true; characters who have access to other's private information can control their actual perceptions and use that control to deprive people of life, liberty, and happiness, the rights Western civilization cherishes above all others. It may be a bit heavy-handed, but the point is well made, I think.
I also think it's interesting that this privacy-free world is not presented as a pure dystopia. The movie is careful to show how the technology actually improves peoples lives in many ways, such as the relative lack of crime and the ability to retain memories of loved ones that have passed. It would be way too easy to present this future as a Orwellian nightmare, but the real danger of the convenience for information trade is the seductiveness of it. It's easy, after all, to avoid dangers that seem dangerous. It's the ones that seem like a good deal and have subtle, long-term costs that are hardest to avoid.
But my favorite line in the movie comes from a discussion about why someone would care so much about privacy. Anyone who has ever had this discussion with others has heard the line "Why would you care if you have nothing to hide?"
Who cares if your ISP is tracking your Internet browsing or searches, unless of course you have something to hide. It's a hard argument to counter, because it implies that any resistance is due to you doing something embarrassing, and that therefore your objections don't have any merit. And it works, because no one wants their friends and neighbors to think they are deviants, which is why companies and governments are so fond of it as a deflection.
Anon answers this question quite nicely: "It's not that I have something to hide, but that I have nothing I want to share." Well said, I think.