Just watched it and while it wasn't horrible, I found it rather pathetic, corny and predictable...not very original at all? A bit black and white, also? And, as others have pointed out, not very historically exact...
I dunno...I was expecting more!! And I know Cumberbatch is the sh*t at the moment; I truly think people would watch him read the phone book :-)
[deleted]
I think I'd rather a truly fictional story or an accurate portrayal of history - not so keen on that in-between...
I also really thought it was corny and just not as good as people made it out to be!!
[deleted]
I thought that movie was a disaster. Honestly speaking, it was a coward, corny and a poorly written that didn't have any sort of focus. It doesn't even work as Oscar bait film.
shareI'm going to watch it today so I will let you know. One black mark against it already is that it is no historically accurate but if this made it to a better story so that ore people went to see it to learn about Turin then it's partly forgiven.
shareBut like someone said before - it is a GREAT story, why change it???
shareWell I would have preferred it to be historically accurate. I have a firm reason for this because my Dad met him in 1949 when he was working on the Manchester computer.
My Dad was a qualified scientist but went to work for the Patent office. He was bright enough to work a Bletchley Park but was too young at 14 at the start of the war in 1939. He was always brilliant at solving cryptic crosswords.
That is interesting. Your dad must have been a very clever person.
shareHi thanks for reply - yes he was exceptionally clever - a bit remote at times - but fascinated by science.
As a child he explained to me how your mass would increase dramatically as you approached the speed of light and that there weren't enough electrons in the whole of the Universe to mimic the human brain (I'm not sure about the latter)
Trouble was in the late 40's and 50's - and even now - Scientist's pay was nowhere near that of a senior civil servant - so in my opinion - he wasted his talents.
he sounds like a Fascinating person, i expect he must have got on well with Turing. what a pity he wasn't able to have a scientific career.
shareYes it was a pity. For the record he told me that Turing was as very nice chap. As a side note he was a very good chess player. Just occasionally - and I mean occasionally - I beat him (he did teach me how to play after all). When that happened he used to knock the remaining pieces off the board and storm off.
[deleted]
I wasn't blown away but I did enjoy much of the acting although I rolled my eyes a few times at some of the more absurd scenes. It's a decent flick.
shareI find it puzzling that the screenplay won an Oscar. It feels like an undeserved lottery win.
It's that man again!!
I think it's the kind of movie that was predestined for Oscars. And like I said before, Benedict Cumberbatch could read the phone book and people would praise him for it! Don't get me wrong, I like him but I find him a bit one-dimensional...or maybe it's just that he always plays similar types. I found his Turing an awful lot like his Sherlock!
shareI'm sure if someone did not understand every moment in the movie, or how vital this group was in winning the war, or how horrid the treatment of homosexuals was by so-called Christians in great Britain for 100 years, they might not have a full appreciation of the movie. I thought the movie was brilliant.
shareMaybe you didn't fully understand that I was talking about the movie itself being overrated, not the actual story. Silly you :-)
shareit paid no attention whatsoever to historical fact though, which in a movie based on actual historical events one might reasonably expect.
shareThis movie was straight up terrible. As in I actually feel dumber for having watched it. This movie and The Theory of Everything were both just plain bad movies. The only reason for the acclaim of both of these terrible movies is that they are about historical, white male scientists played by British actors, so it makes people feel smart to say that they were good movies.
One of the arguments against the people criticizing the Oscars for being so white the last couple of years has been that diversifying the Oscars just for the sake of diversity will just result in undeserving movies being nominated just to fill a quota.
But what we have now are undeserving movies being nominated just because these movies follow some stupid formula.
Sorry to burst your bubble, but the reason this movie has been acclaimed is because it tells a compelling story of an inherently interesting historic event, and it tells it in a dramatic way and is imminently entertaining.
I watched it in the theater about 5 or 6 times, and each time the audience applauded at the end. Audiences don't do that just for white scientists.
[deleted]
I have to wonder how many of the audiences knew of the true story before applauding
exactly what the applause was for.
[deleted]
Before watching this movie, I knew that there were going to be some historical inaccuracies, since that was said all over the internet.
However, when I finally did get to see the movie, I enjoyed it 100%, and really liked it.
The actors were all so good that I was really captivated by this movie the entire time (despite the historical inaccuracies).
~~
~~~~
That is my experience as well.
Ignore the naysayers.
[deleted]
No, it is based on a true story and it tells it very well. If you want to believe otherwise, fine, continue to delude yourself.
You seem to have this persistent need to refer to people who enjoyed the movie as people who "believe in lies." Perhaps they are just people (and they far outnumber you, by the way) who enjoy a good movie.
As I've said many times, if you think the script is hogwash, write your own. Nobody has taken me up on that offer.
[deleted]