Somewhere between “amused” and “alarmed.” That is how I feel about the general attention to allocation of resources that goes into a standard doomsday scenario presented on film. Take, for instance, The 355. The film wastes no time in presenting a MacGuffin in the form of a piece of external computer hardware the size of a glasses case that can bypass all network security. The effects? Such a device can immediately shut down city grids and fell airplanes.
OK, so you’ve presented a hand-held machine capable of creating a billion dollars of damage in one keystroke. Impressive. So … it seems like the CIA might put some effort into this one, right? On the scale of horrible things, this ranks higher than about 90% of things you can imagine. And since the machine is not dangerous by itself –like a bomb- more people in on the security will not necessarily lead to greater collateral and civilian damage. i.e. fifty guys at the scene will –worst case scenario- encounter the same or similar body count as five guys at the scene.
And how did the CIA choose to act on this? One two-person team. No containment strategy. No exit strategy. No coordination with other like-minded and similarly at-risk foreign agencies. In fact, when the scene goes all dog’s breakfast, CIA agent Mason Browne (Jessica Chastain) ends up chasing German agent Marie Schmidt (Diane Kruger). Billion dollar weapon and good guys are chasing good guys because of poor communication. Who wrote this?
In fact, this is a fairly frustrating film in general, because while it has some decent starpower, decent action, and a believable scary MacGuffin, it shows me a world in which the reaction to the weight of the MacGuffin is balanced with a carelessness most often reserved for remedial Algebra homework. Our heroes fail to capture or secure the MacGuffin on four separate occasions and each time the response is “let’s add another woman.”
The 355 is titled with reference to Agent 355, a codename for a specific-yet-unnamed female spy during the American Revolution. Oh, I see, this is an empowering film, is it? One from the #MeToo collection if my guess is correct. We start with 
Chastain and Krueger, but fear not, fans of women agents, there will also be Lupita Nyong’o, Penélope Cruz, and Bingbing Fan before we’re done. Oh, I like the rainbow. Are you sure you didn’t want to add some age and disability to your diversity collective?
Look, when your consistent solution to the same problem is “add another woman,” I don’t think that’s quite as empowering as you think it is. But, hey, maybe that’s just me.
I’m on the fence here. I liked the cast and the general theme even if it made no sense. But I can’t get away from the film undermining its thesis at every turn. If this is really about empowerment, show me one woman or one team of women acting tough, smart, and responsible. Otherwise, this comes off as a humorless version of “middle aged Charlie’s Angels.”
Do yourself a favor: if you see this movie coming, do a 180. It’s half the number and twice the pleasure. I guarantee results.
At first, my sleuthing did forsake
For the title seemed one big mistake
Yet the answer came about
I finally sussed out:
There are 355 reasons not to partake
Rated PG-13, 122 Minutes
Director: Simon Kinberg
Writer: Theresa Rebeck, Simon Kinberg
Genre: Pretending big problems can be solved with determination rather than resources
Type of being most likely to enjoy this film: Serious feminists
Type of being least likely to enjoy this film: People who pray this is not a real world
