Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Posts Tagged ‘Benedict Cumberbatch’

What She Said She Thought She Saw

Posted in General Comments, Movie Review, Movies, Reviews, tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , on March 26, 2026| 2 Comments »

“Atonement” (2007) — movie review
Today’s review is for the period-drama / romantic-tragedy “Atonement” (2007), starring James McAvoy as Robbie Turner, the housekeeper’s son whose love for Cecilia becomes the center of a life-altering misunderstanding;  Keira Knightley as Cecilia Tallis, the elder Tallis daughter whose relationship with Robbie is shattered by a single accusation;  Saoirse Ronan as Briony Tallis (age 13), the imaginative younger sister whose misinterpretation sets the tragedy in motion;  Romola Garai as Briony (age 18), the wartime nurse trying to make amends;  Vanessa Redgrave as Briony (older), the acclaimed author reflecting on her past;  Benedict Cumberbatch as Paul Marshall, the wealthy chocolate magnate with a dark secret;  Juno Temple as Lola Quincey, the visiting cousin caught in the middle;  Daniel Mays as Tommy Nettle, one of the two soldiers retreating with Robbie in France;  Nonso Anozie as Frank Mace, the other soldier retreating with Robbie;  Brenda Blethyn as Grace Turner, Robbie’s mother (the cook);  and Harriet Walter as Emily Tallis, the Tallis family’s mother.  The cast fits the material well, and the film’s emotional weight comes from how each performance adds to the sense of loss, regret, and the consequences of a single moment.
Background:  Although I have owned the DVD of this film for (probably) a decade, this is my first viewing of this film.  It is only in the last two or three years that I have begun to watch / appreciate this genre of film.  Basically, I had no interest, so I’ve never watched it.  I probably still would not have except this film is on the Best Picture Oscar nominations I am working my way through.  Released in 2007 and directed by Joe Wright, the film was adapted from Ian McEwan’s novel and became both a critical and awards-season success.  It received seven Academy Award nominations and won the Oscar for Best Original Score.  It was also nominated for Best Picture, Best Supporting Actress (Ronan), Best Adapted Screenplay, and several technical awards.  Historically, the film is significant for its blend of literary adaptation, wartime drama, and romantic tragedy — and for how it uses perspective, memory, and guilt to shape the story.  It’s also remembered for its ambitious cinematography, particularly the Dunkirk sequence, which became one of the most talked-about shots of the decade.
Plot:  The story begins in 1935 at the Tallis estate, where thirteen-year-old Briony misinterprets a series of interactions between her sister Cecilia and Robbie Turner.  When a crime occurs on the grounds, Briony’s imagination and certainty lead her to accuse Robbie — a decision that destroys his life and fractures the family.  Robbie is imprisoned and later released on the condition he join the British Army.  Cecilia becomes a nurse, estranged from her family, waiting for Robbie to return.  Briony, now older and beginning to understand the consequences of her actions, trains as a nurse during World War II and attempts to seek forgiveness.  The film follows Robbie’s retreat through France with two fellow soldiers (Nettle and Mace), Cecilia’s quiet resolve, and Briony’s growing awareness of the harm she caused.  The story builds toward a reunion that the film then reframes through the older Briony’s perspective — revealing the difference between what happened, what was hoped for, and what was written as a final attempt at atonement.
So, is this movie any good?  How’s the acting?  The filming / FX?  Any problems?  And, did I enjoy the film?  Short answers:  So-so;  excellent;  striking and memorable;  a few;  yes.
Any good?  Yes.  Technically, “Atonement” is a well-made, emotionally layered film that balances romance, tragedy, and wartime drama.  The story is simple enough:  a misunderstanding with lifelong consequences, but the film uses perspective and memory to deepen the impact.  The pacing is steady and the emotional stakes are clear.
Acting:  McAvoy gives a good performance — grounded, earnest, and believable as someone caught between hope and despair.  Knightley is sharp and controlled, fitting Cecilia’s mix of pride and vulnerability.  Saoirse Ronan is the standout  —  unsettlingly certain, imaginative, and unaware of the damage she’s causing.  Romola Garai carries the middle section with quiet regret, and Vanessa Redgrave’s brief appearance gives the film’s ending its emotional punch.  Cumberbatch is effectively disturbing as Paul Marshall, and the supporting cast (including Mays and Anozie) adds realism to the wartime sequences.  Everyone plays their part straight, which is why the story works.
Filming / FX:  The cinematography is one of the film’s strengths.  The long Dunkirk shot is impressive:  emotionally capturing exhaustion, chaos, and futility.  The typewriter-infused score is clever without being gimmicky.  The production design shifts cleanly from the Tallis estate to wartime hospitals to the ruins of France.  The film uses color, sound, and framing to show how memory and guilt distort events.  Nothing feels overdone;  everything supports the story.
Problems:  A few.  The first act relies heavily on Briony’s perspective, which is shown to be flawed almost immediately with second enactments.  The ending, while powerful, may frustrate those (like me) who prefer straightforward closure.  And the film’s emotional distance in some scenes can detract from a lived-in story feeling.  None of these issues break the film, but they’re worth noting.
Did I enjoy the film?  So-so (mostly no).  It’s a thoughtful, well-acted, and visually striking movie.  The emotional weight builds slowly, and the final reveal lands with more force than I expected.  Why didn’t I “enjoy” it, then?  As stated above, it’s just not a movie I would have chosen to watch.  I purchased this as part of a pack of four and it’s the last I’ve watched even though I’ve had the set for quite some time.  In fairness, I did try to watch it a couple of times when I got the collection, but I just never made it past the first five minutes or so.  I just wasn’t in the “right” head-space to sit through it and if it were not on the Best Picture nomination list, I probably still would not have watched it.  So, it is worth viewing, but it’s not a film I would go out of my way to see without a secondary reason.
Final Recommendation:  High moderate to low strong recommendation. “Atonement” is historically significant for its Oscar recognition, its ambitious film making, and its place among the better literary adaptations of the 2000s.  It’s worth watching for the performances, the Dunkirk sequence, the score, and the way the story explores guilt, memory, and the limits of forgiveness.  Rated R for war violence, sexuality, and brief language, the film remains a powerful reminder that a single moment,  a single choice or memory, can have profound effect across a lifetime – yours or another’s.
.
Click here (26 March) to see the posts of prior years.  I started this blog in late 2009.  Daily posting began in late January 2011.  Not all of the days in the early years (2009-2010) will have posts.

Read Full Post »

How Is That Different From Talking?

Posted in General Comments, Movie Review, Movies, Reviews, tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , on March 11, 2026| Leave a Comment »

“The Imitation Game” (2014) — movie review
Today’s review is for “The Imitation Game” (2014), directed by Morten Tyldum and starring Benedict Cumberbatch as Alan Turing, the brilliant but socially awkward mathematician whose work at Bletchley Park helped crack the German Enigma code;  Keira Knightley as Joan Clarke, the gifted cryptanalyst whose intelligence and loyalty anchor / assist Turing’s efforts;  Matthew Goode as Hugh Alexander, the charming and competitive codebreaker who gradually becomes an ally;  Allen Leech as John Cairncross, a fellow codebreaker hiding a dangerous secret as a Soviet spy;  Matthew Beard as Peter Hilton, the young, eager codebreaker whose family tragedy drives home the human cost of their work;  Rory Kinnear as Detective Nock, whose later investigation frames the story;  Charles Dance as Commander Denniston, the rigid superior skeptical of Turing’s methods;  and Mark Strong as Stewart Menzies, the MI6 officer who understands the stakes and plays the long game.  With this ensemble, the film explores secrecy, genius, war, and the personal cost of saving lives in silence.
Background:  I have seen this film multiple times since purchasing the DVD before COVID.  I always enjoy it, so I thought I’d go back and have a re-sit.  LoL.  (By the way, this is my third review of this film and I am doing the review to reflect my new film review format.)  I came to this film knowing the broad outlines of Alan Turing’s life — the Enigma machine, his foundational role in computing, and the tragic injustice he suffered afterward — but not the specifics of the Bletchley Park operation.  Released in 2014, “The Imitation Game” received eight Academy Award nominations, including Best Picture, Best Director, Best Actor (Cumberbatch), and Best Supporting Actress (Knightley).  It won the Oscar for Best Adapted Screenplay.  Historically, the film is significant for bringing Turing’s story to a mainstream audience and highlighting both his wartime contributions and the shameful treatment he endured under British law.  While the film takes a lot of dramatic liberties, its core achievement is reminding viewers how much of modern computing and cryptography traces back to Turing’s work — and how much was lost because of prejudice.
Plot:  The film uses a framing device:  Detective Nock investigates Turing in the early 1950s, suspecting espionage, and uncovers instead a life of secrets — some chosen, some imposed.  The main story follows Turing’s recruitment to Bletchley Park during World World II, where he joins a team of cryptanalysts struggling to break the German Enigma code.  Turing clashes with Commander Denniston, alienates his colleagues, and pushes for a machine-based approach that seems impossible.  Joan Clarke joins the team after passing a test Turing designed, and her presence helps stabilize the group.  Turing’s machine — “Christopher” — eventually succeeds, but the team must keep their breakthroughs secret to avoid tipping off the Germans.  The film intercuts wartime success with Turing’s postwar persecution for homosexuality, culminating in his chemical castration and eventual death, supposedly by suicide.  The story ends with a recognition of his achievements and the quiet devastation of his final years.
So, is this movie any good?  How’s the acting?  The filming / FX?  Any problems?  And, did I enjoy the film?  Short answers:  Yes;  excellent;  clean and effective;  a few;  yes.
Any good?  Yes.  “The Imitation Game” is a well-paced historical drama that balances wartime tension with personal tragedy.  It doesn’t try to be a comprehensive (or entirely accurate) biography.  Instead, it focuses on a few key threads:  the race to break Enigma, the interpersonal dynamics at Bletchley Park, and the injustice Turing faced afterward.  The film works because it treats code-breaking as both an intellectual puzzle and a moral burden — knowing when to act on intelligence and when to stay silent.  It’s accessible without being shallow, and emotionally resonant without being overwrought.
Acting:  Benedict Cumberbatch gives a strong, layered performance as Turing — brilliant, brittle, and painfully isolated.  He captures both the sharp edges and the vulnerability without turning Turing into a caricature of the “difficult genius.”  Keira Knightley brings warmth and intelligence to Joan Clarke, grounding the film’s emotional core.  Matthew Goode adds charm and competitive energy as Hugh Alexander, and his evolving respect for Turing feels earned.  Charles Dance is reliably stern as Denniston, and Mark Strong brings a quiet, calculating presence to Menzies.  The ensemble works well together, and the performances elevate the material.
Filming / FX:  The film keeps things simple and functional. Most scenes take place in offices, huts, and workshops at Bletchley Park, with occasional wartime footage used sparingly.  The production design feels authentic without drawing attention to itself.  The machine-building sequences are visually engaging, and the editing keeps the code-breaking process clear without oversimplifying it.  The score by Alexandre Desplat is understated and effective, adding tension without overwhelming the scenes.  Nothing flashy — just solid craftsmanship that supports the story.
Problems:  A few.  The film compresses timelines and simplifies relationships for dramatic effect, which may bother viewers familiar with the historical record.  Some characters are amalgamations, and certain conflicts (particularly with Denniston) are heightened for tension.  The framing device with Detective Nock, while useful for structure, occasionally feels intrusive.  And the film sometimes leans too heavily on the “socially awkward genius” trope.  None of these issues spoil the film, but they do stand out on any viewing.
Did I enjoy the film?  Yes . “The Imitation Game” is engaging, well-acted, and emotionally affecting.  It moves quickly, covers a lot of ground, and gives Turing the attention he deserves.  The film balances the intellectual thrill of code-breaking with the human cost of secrecy and discrimination.  It’s not a perfect biography, but it’s a compelling and watchable one.
Final Recommendation:  Highly recommended. “The Imitation Game” is a well-made, well-acted historical drama that highlights one of the most important — and in many ways tragic — figures of the 20th century.  Its Oscar-winning screenplay, strong performances, and clear sense of purpose make it worth your time.  Watch it for Cumberbatch’s portrayal, the wartime tension, and the film’s reminder of how brilliance can be both celebrated and punished.  It’s a thoughtful, moving film which I continue to enjoy even after a half-dozen viewings.  My previous reviews can be found here (2017) and here (2019).  They (my earlier reviews) are not better or worse – simply different – with some different observations.
.
Click here (11 March) to see the posts of prior years.  I started this blog in late 2009.  Daily posting began in late January 2011.  Not all of the days in the early years (2009-2010) will have posts.

Read Full Post »

Avengers 3 Part 1

Posted in General Comments, Movie Review, Movies, Reviews, tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , on June 1, 2025| Leave a Comment »

Today’s movie review is for:  “Avengers: Infinity War“ (A3:IW) released back in 2018.  This movie is / has an advanced case of super-hero(es) absurdus extremis:  too many characters and too little rational thought.  In fact, there is such an overload of them (characters) the movie doesn’t even bother to try to create humanizing back stories to make the central characters (the original Avengers) movie plot believable (as they tried to do in “Avengers 2 – Age of Ultron“).  Other than the special effects / action sequences, this movie is substantively worse than the very good original and the better than average sequel.
Background:  Way back in my pre-teen days, I collected comic-books.  More recently, I used to collect super-hero DVDs.  This is one of the many I own a physical copy of.  About 2012, I started transitioning to streaming and gradually replacing the DVDs with rights to stream – as opposed to simply watching when the film became available on cable.  This film came out the year following my retirement when I was going through some cardiac issues and never bothered to review the film on this blog.  I’ve watched it a couple of times over the years – specifically before the release of “Avengers:  Endgame” and then again after “Endgame” was released for streaming.  This is “probably” my fourth or fifth viewing of A3:IW.  Anyway, the four-pack is recently available for purchase “on sale”, and since I already own them, I thought I’d re-watch the set and then review “Infinity War” and “Endgame“, to round out my posts on this section of the Marvel Cinematic Universe (MCU)…
I would argue the action scenes and special effects are much “better” in that they are both larger scale and more comic-book-“ie”.  The humor (mostly quips) also adds to this movie because it is a “dark” movie – in tone, not in actual lighting.  There are a dozen quips / insults which lighten the mood and they are sprinkled throughout to even the film’s pace.  That’s the positive.  The negative is just about everything else…
What doesn’t work?  Well, almost none of the movie makes ANY sense and almost all of it suffers from “King Kong and Godzilla”-ism.  We (the audience) can’t decide on the scale of anything (because the visual scale keeps changing) and we can’t seriously believe in the battles because the super-powers / abilities are also ridiculously variable.  The “best / worst” example of this is the same Thanos who wipes the floor with the Hulk early in the movie, has a problem defeating Captain America in one-to-one, hand-to-hand combat near the end of the film.
Visually it all works, but don’t try to make any sense of the action / fights because NONE of them do (make any sense).  So, as with most (well, all) of the super-hero movies over the last two decades, the bottom line is we (the audience) simply have to decide early on the movie isn’t going to make a lot of sense and just try to enjoy it as a comic-book, action movie.  Other than that, the movie IS pretty enjoyable – as a “real-life” animated comic-book re-enactment.
One final comment:  with the exceptions of Tom Holland (aka SpiderMan), Zoe Saldana (Gamora) and Pom Klementieff (Mantis) – ALL of the other actors are TOO old for their roles.  An argument could be made for Benedict Wong (Wong) and Benedict Cumberbatch (Dr. Strange) as their roles / characters are supposed to be old(er), but, really, all of these actors need to be replaced for future films.  As for the three “exceptions”, Holland is too old to play a high school kid and the two ladies are so covered in makeup, their actual ages are pretty indeterminate.  Of course, now the studios have the AI / FX to de-age the actors, so that may be a non-factor when Avengers 5 is eventually released.
Final recommendation:  moderate to strong recommendation.  Moderate if you are coming into the movie / series cold.  Strong if you are looking for good action-based (comic-book) entertainment!  Not very good cinema…  Not the greatest movie / story / plot, (LoL) but a reasonable progression of action scenes based around an adequate villain.  This movie is the prequel for the “Avengers:  Endgame” movie which was released the following year.  If you like / enjoy comic-book movies (I do), you’ll thoroughly enjoy this action film.  I did!!  Just try to not think about the plot / story / characters.  LoL!!
.
Click here (1 June) to see the posts of prior years.  I started this blog in late 2009.  Daily posting began in late January 2011.  Not all of the days in the early years (2009-2010) will have posts.

Read Full Post »

No One Can Imagine

Posted in History, Leadership, Movie Review, Movies, Philosophy, Reviews, tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , on June 4, 2019| 1 Comment »

Sometimes it is the people no one imagines anything of who do the things that no one can imagine.
    —    Alan Turing
“Codebreaker” (2011)  —  movie review
Codebreaker is a “docu-drama” about the life of Alan Turing, the famous mathematician who lead the team which developed the computer which broke the “Enigma” German code machine back in World War II.  Turing is played by Ed Stoppard.  The “drama” portion of this film is mostly from the journals of Dr. Franz Greenbaum, who was the psychiatrist Turing was forced to see for counseling.  Dr. Greenbaum is played by Henry Goodman.
This film was made for TV and was aired in 2011 in the UK under the title:  “Britian’s Greatest Codebreaker“.  The title was changed and the film had a limited theatrical release in the US in 2012, so you may find it noted with either year of release.
The documentary portion of the film is interspersed into the drama and features a series of interviews with relatives of both Turing and Greenbaum, a few of Turing’s colleagues / contemporaries and some otherwise famous folks from mathematics and the computer industry.
Of course the “psych” interviews delve into Turing’s childhood, schooling and his homosexuality.  The documentary interviews try to give a lay-person’s explanation of some of Turing’s main computer breakthroughs.  For those who don’t know, Turing is considered one of the creators of both digital computers / computing, and of artificial intelligence (AI).
Turing is reputed to have died from suicide by poisoning.  This film does nothing to explicitly contradict that conclusion, but it offers slim insights into the conspiracy theory that Turing might have been killed off by the British government in the interest of state secrecy.  In any case, some 50 years after the fact, Turing was given a full pardon for his “crime” (indecent acts) as well as a formal apology from the British government.
Final recommendation:  Strong to highly recommended.  Although no where near the “movie” which followed in 2014 (see below) for production value or drama, this made for television movie was just as interesting and probably more informative.  If you are interested in computers, AI or the history surrounding WWII, I think you’ll enjoy this film.
“The Imitation Game”  (2014)  —  movie review
This is my third or fourth time viewing this movie and my initial review can be found here.
This movie is based on the book / biography:  “Alan Turing: The Enigma” written by Andrew Hodges.  The movie is a dramatized version of “basically” historical events with liberties taken for “drama”.  Benedict Cumberbatch stars as Alan Turing, (Alex Lawther plays a young Alan Turing), Keira Knightley plays Joan Clarke (the female / “love” interest), Allen Leech plays John Cairncross (a Russian agent / collegue of Turing on the project), Rory Kinnear plays Detective Robert Nock, Mark Strong plays Stewart Menzies (the MI6 super-spy), Matthew Goode plays Hugh Alexander (one of the brilliant collegues), Charles Dance plays Commander Denniston (Turing’s commanding officer at Bletchley Park ).  The basic premise is that a brilliant Turing invents a general purpose computer to defeat the Nazi coding machine “Enigma”, thus saving lives by helping to end the war faster.  Their work is performed at Bletchley Park.  Turing (and the team) are successful, but because it is all TopSecret, there is no record of his achievements until much later (several decades) and Turing has committed suicide in the meantime.
The movie (and presumably the book) is based on fact.  Turing was a real person;  he was brilliant, he did come up with this codebreaking machine.  Also, he was homosexual;  he was subject to hormonal “treatment” to “cure” his desires;  he did die in 1954.  Beyond that, there are a number of points which are probably better handled in the “Codebreaker” TV movie reviewed above.  To begin with, I don’t believe he was autistic (as is implied in this movie).  I gather he had a mild stutter, but nothing like what is implied in the movie.  He was homosexual, but he was not as closeted as the movie implies.  My understanding is while he was open about it with his friends and colleagues, he was not what would be described as “flaming”.  He was “in love” with Joan Clarke and did propose to her and later break off the engagement.  By “in love” I mean he cared for her deeply, although it appears the relationship was more than Platonic but less than physical.  At any rate, as portrayed in the film, Turing does tell her he is gay and she did appear to not care (in real life) about his sexual preferences.
There are also a number of other factual inconsistencies:  the character Hugh Alexander did handle most of the supervisory / administrative duties for the team.  He was not “really” Turing’s supervisor and Turing was uninterested in those duties and most office (and real) politics.  The character John Cairncross may or may not have been a Russian agent.  In either case, he and Turing did not work together and I’ve read it’s unlikely they even met or knew each other.  Finally, Turing was not add odds with Commander Denniston, but it seems there was some issue with funding, a letter was sent to Churchill by the team and Turing’s name was on the letter, but it was from the whole of the team, not just from Turing.
Okay.  So after all that, was the movie any good and did I enjoy it?  Yes and very much so.  I admit I am a fan of both Cumberbatch and Knightley.  I also quite like Mark Strong as I see him in more things (the “Kingsman” series is top of this list).  Because I spent a career in computing, I already knew of Turing and some of his accomplishments, so it was nice to see it dramatized and put up on a big screen film.  Final recommendation:  (still) highly recommended.  I am a fan of the two leads, the specific (codebreaking / history) and general (computing / WWII) topics are also of personal interest, so I had a natural predisposition to enjoy this film.  But, beyond my personal interests (biases), I do think this was a good film / drama and worth the time of anyone who happens to view it.
For those wondering about the movie’s title…  Turing wrote a paper about computing and artificial intelligence which proposed that if a person sat in front of a typing instrument (what we today would call a terminal or workstation) and could type in a series of sentences and questions to “someone” at another workstation using normal language and could not tell the responses came from a machine, then the machine, was in fact, intelligent.  This is the simplified version.  The more complete version had three participants:  the human testing / judging, a human responding, and a computer responding.  In this case, the judge had to decide which responder was human and which was the machine.  In some variations, the judge isn’t advised one responder is a machine until after completing several question / response cycles.  Basically, the test was evolving to add a blind control situation:  the judge didn’t know there was a test or what was being tested until after the cycles.  I found it interesting that the producers of the movie would try to educate the audience about this aspect of computing and AI even though it had little to do with the premise of the movie, that is, a long-suffering individual genius breaking the German code machine.
As an aside (and final note), the movie shows Turing out running cross-country several times.  What isn’t specified is that he was a world class distance runner who nearly qualified for the British Olympic team in the marathon.  Again, nothing earth shaking, but I found the detail interesting.
.
Click here (4 June) to see the posts of prior years.  I started this blog in late 2009.  Daily posting began in late January 2011.  Not all of the days in the early years (2009-2010) will have posts.

Read Full Post »

Two Geniuses

Posted in Movie Review, Movies, tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , on January 21, 2017| Leave a Comment »

Today’s reviews are for a pair of biographical movies about two geniuses.  The men are Srinivasa Ramanujan and Alan Turing.  Technically, both are mathematicians, but Turing is more remembered for his work with computers.  The two movies are titled:  “The Man Who Knew Infinity” (2015) about Ramanujan, and “The Imitation Game” (2014) about Turing.
“The Man Who Knew Infinity” (2015)  —  movie review
This movie stars Dev Patel as Indian mathematician Srinivasa Ramanujan and Jeremy Irons as his British mentor (collaborator) G. H. Hardy.  Basically, a poor, self-taught mathematician moves to Trinity College at Cambridge after mailing some of his work to a world famous mathematics professor (Hardy).  The two collaborate (and publish), but the movie is basically about their personal relationship and not about their maths.  The movie is beautifully shot in both India and England and I was moved by the depictions of both environments:  brightly colored poverty contrasted with muted earth-toned (relative) wealth.  A second major plot contrast is Hardy’s atheism vs Ramanujan’s devout Hindu faith.   Ramanujan tells Hardy that his math comes from the lips of his god.  Hardy can only struggle to understand divine inspiration.  In the end, Hardy accepts that his friend believes it is true even if he cannot share that belief.
Final recommendation:  highly recommended and I look forward to reading the book (of the same title) the movie is based on.
“The Imitation Game” (2014)   —  movie review
This movie stars  Benedict Cumberbatch (aka Sherlock Holmes / Doctor Strange) as Alan Turing and  Keira Knightley as Joan Clarke who was Turing’s fiancé briefly.  Turing was a homosexual and at that time, being gay was considered a serious crime in England.  Both Turing and Clarke were mathematicians who became cryptologists.  They famously developed a computer which was used to break the Nazi Enigma cypher.   This movie describes this invention and Turing’s subsequent suicide.   As a personal note: I consider Turing to be one of the seminal figures in computer science and in artificial intelligence.  The “test” for general purpose artificial intelligence is named “The Turing Test” and based on one of his papers.
Turing and Clarke worked closely together and are reported to have actually been very close friends although I’ve seen Turing portrayed as almost autistic in dealing with social settings, so I’m not sure how accurate the descriptions or the portrayals have been.  In any case, Turing proposed marriage to Clarke and then later withdrew and admitted to being gay.  The movie purports to Clarke being indifferent to Turing’s sexuality as she is contented with having a relationship with a friend and an intellectual equal.
The “surprise” hack at the end of the movie is the realization that the Nazi messages all end the same and this can be used as a key to reduce the number of variations the computer needs to evaluate.  Whether this is what actually happened or not, I don’t know, but it did make for a plausible ending!  Final recommendation:  highly recommended!
While I enjoyed both movies I would rate “Infinity” slightly higher than “Imitation“.  I’m not really sure why, but I’ve already re-watched “Infinity” twice and I’m just getting around to my second viewing of “Imitation“.  But, again, both highly recommended…
.
Click here (21 January) to see the posts of prior years.  I started this blog in late 2009.  Daily posting began in late January 2011.  Not all of the days in the early years (2009-2010) will have posts.

Read Full Post »

The Run Continues

Posted in Movies, tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , on May 19, 2013| 2 Comments »

Well, the last thirty days have seen a good run of new movies for me: “Oblivion“, “Iron Man 3“, “The Great Gatsby” (last weekend) and yesterday, “Star Trek Into Darkness“.
The Great Gatsby – movie review
“The Great Gatsby” movie is based on the “classic” novel by the same name and written by F. Scott Fitzgerald.  I saw the movie promo’s starting several months ago, and as I’d read the book several decades ago, I decided to do something I almost never do – read the book and then go see the movie.  On the rare occasions when I do both read the book and then see a movie based on a book, I tend to see the movie (and enjoy it), and then go read the book.  In all honesty, this is normally because it takes a couple of years for the movie to follow the book and I would pick up the book in paperback after the movie just cause it’s cheaper to buy it used then.
But I digress…  This book is from the 1920’s and the movie has been done multiple times since its initial publication.  I guess the most famous is the 1970s version starring Robert Redford (which I have never seen).  Anyway, my daughter is an English major and she has a copy of the novel, so I read it in advance of seeing the movie.The movie follows the book very closely.  The characters are not the way I imagined them from the reading, but the major scenes are pretty spot on to the book.  As I didn’t “like” the book, I ended up finding the book only slightly better.  The costumes and feel of the movie seem pretty accurate and the acting was okay, but a couple of things bugged me.  Visually, the shirts and coats of many of the men didn’t seem to fit.  Almost all were too tight, and many were too short (particularly in the sleeves).  Now, normally this wouldn’t bother me much – if it all – but one scene has Gatsby raining down clothes on the female lead bragging about how he has them sent from his personal clothier in London.  So, why don’t the shirts, vest or jackets fit?
The second thing which bothered me was the music score.  It was too modern.  It had a ’20s “jazzy” feel, but it wasn’t, and a couple numbers even seemed to be almost rap.
So, is this the “definitive” Gatsby?  Even not having seen any of the other versions, I’d be inclined to say no.  I enjoyed DiCaprio in the title role, but everyone else was kind of blah.  Well, Maguire was okay, but not better than so-so.  None of the other characters were the way I imagined them from the book and certainly none of them played the role better than my imagination – again, even though the book was followed fairly closely.  Final recommendation:  unless you are a MASSIVE DiCaprio or Gatsby fan, wait for TV release.
Star Trek Into Darkness – movie review
First off, full disclosure…  I watched all of Star Trek (the Original Series – aka ST:TOS) in first release back in the ’60s.  I have seen every episode at least five times (and most, many, many, many times more).  I even have the Enterprise and the Galileo Seven Christmas ornaments, for cryin’ out loud.  So, maybe this reviewer is slightly biased.  Having said this, what did I think?  This is a terrific movie!!  Get out your DVD of the first re-boot to get prepped and then RUN down to your local cinema to see this on a big screen.  Do NOT wait for this to come out on DVD unless you have a huge video set up at home.
Is this episode a “soap opera” in space? Yes (so what).  Are there “enough” nods to the original series and earlier movies? Yes!  Is there action?  YES!  Are the special effects up to snuff?  YES!  (Well, mostly.  Some of the CGI is pretty fuzzy / noticeable).  Is the acting good to great?  For the most part, yes!  These guys are really starting to own the roles, particularly the “minor” regulars Uhura (Zoe Saldana), Sulu (John Cho) and Chekov (Anton Yelchin).  It goes without saying that Kirk (Chris Pine), Spock (Zachary Quinto) and Bones/McCoy (Karl Urban) are well played.  Once again, Scotty (Simon Pegg) dominates most of scenes he’s in.  And ethnic issues aside, Benedict Cumberbatch makes for a good Khan.  For me, the two touchstones of ST:TOS were humor and friendship.  Both are abundant in this movie.  I honestly believe that if you are in any way a fan of the original series, you will enjoy (if not love) this movie!!
Now, before all the absolutists start in on me, here are a couple of the “WTF” moments:
The transporter has a limited range (even in “The Next Generation” (TNG)), you can’t beam from one solar system to another.  So, Khan can’t beam from Earth to the Klingon home world.  Khan defeats the combined crews of three Klingon Birds of Prey (30 to 40 guys), but he can’t wup on one Vulcan (okay, so Khan was popped by 6-8 phaser stun blasts, but still), come on…  And finally, even at warp speed, travel from Earth to the Klingon home world is not instantaneous.  And, yes, there are other things, but REALLY, the movie is terrific!
Anything else?  Yeah.  Two “reality” points.  First, enough with the retread story lines.  The purpose of the reboot was to provide freedom for new stories, not just to re-hash the old stories with new actors.  How about Star Trek 3 gives us a new story?  Now, that I’d love to see!  Second, Pine isn’t younger than Kirk anymore.  If you’re not careful, you’re going to age Pine right out of the role for future movies.  I don’t see how you can do five years worth of exploration while shooting a movie once every three / four years…
Time will tell…
.
Click here (19 May) to see the posts of prior years.  I started this blog in late 2009.  Daily posting began in late January 2011.  Not all of the days in the early years (2009-2010) will have posts.

Read Full Post »

Design a site like this with WordPress.com
Get started