Many historricle inaccurracies. Very uninteresting movie, no build up. Just some random scene's, This is obviously a home movie or something.
But couldn't they atleast pay more attention into telling the REAL STORY!
I've read Ramanujan's biography and didn't see many deviations in the movie so I'm not sure what you mean. Even things like his attempted suicide, mother hiding the letters, among other things in this film that were dramatic seem to be true based on his actual biographies and encyclopedia information. The movie even used some very specific quotes from the real Ramanujan and Hardy. It depicted him being granted the fellowship pretty accurately and even depicted his death accurately. Even the scene with Hardy on the 1729 taxi was true. So unless I'm missing something, I seriously think you are trolling.
shareThe problem is that the movie looked like it just gave us some random scenes. Were is the actual story? Were is the emotion? The characters? I'm not blind but this movie is really really bland and empty.
shareSerious question: have you ever seen a biopic before?
shareyes I have and most of them are far from the truth, including this one. Most movies are just inspirations but actually never tell the real story. A documentary would be more interesting.
shareErr.. what is the 'real' story? Pray tell. We are all eager to learn.
shareA biopic is never a documentary. I would enjoy a documentary more myself. I'm a doco lover.
But a film will never portray in the same way. One is entertainment (obviously) on a completely different level and a scale.
Sadly though for most people the film becomes the reality and the absolute truth gets lost. At best in a movie I think all you can hope for is that it doesn't stray too much.
yes I have and most of them are far from the truth, including this one. Most movies are just inspirations but actually never tell the real story. A documentary would be more interesting.
shareSo why don't you tell us the "real story" instead of getting your panties in a bunch? Try to be brief, btw. We don't have two hours.
---
Fear not for the future; weep not for the past -- Percy Bysshe Shelley
---
it just gave us some random scenes.I agree with that.Good intention and great source material are not enough for making a classy film.But you keep saying historical inaccuracies , but never point out any. What inaccuracies have you seen in it?
Were is the emotion?Enough of that in a less than two hour film about Ramanujan.It needed, or at least I expected a lot more exploration of his mathematical work. share
Well - as usual - the problem with 'based on a true story' is the .001% of the world population who know the true story, or the 70% who read the Wiki-lines, read the book, knew a guy who knew a guy who knew a friend of (the director, Ramanujans wife's 2nd cousins great granddaughter, or Jeremy Irons 4th cousin, etc) ...
. . . can't enjoy the movie...
Meanwhile, I think most of us went to the theater, Redbox, or a friends house for dinner & a movie and simply said -
Hey lets watch this movie - it looks really interesting -
and lo & behold it was.
We simply watched it for the movie that it was and enjoyed it ...and some of us even had great thought provoking conversation and observations about what we watched ... and/or came here for said same ...
I'm just sayin' ...
I enjoyed it, is all ...
Well since you can't even point out one single B.S. lie in the entire film as of yet, I guess at this point we can all safely say that you're the one who is full of B.S. lies.
Watch a superhero film, seems more your type of thing.
My body's a cage, it's been used and abused...and I...LIKE IT!!