Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Posts Tagged ‘Mark Strong’

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 »

You Must Be Important… You Got The Whole Plane To Yourself

Posted in General Comments, History, Movie Review, Movies, Politics, Reviews, tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , on January 28, 2026| Leave a Comment »

“Zero Dark Thirty” (2012) — movie review
Today’s review is for the modern-era manhunt thriller “Zero Dark Thirty” (2012), directed by Kathryn Bigelow and starring Jessica Chastain as Maya — a young CIA analyst whose entire professional life narrows down to one target;  Jason Clarke as Dan — an interrogator whose questionable methods (torture) define the film’s early tone;  Kyle Chandler as Joseph Bradley — the Islamabad station chief juggling politics and field pressure;  Jennifer Ehle as Jessica — a senior analyst whose confidence and experience shape Maya’s early years;  Mark Strong as George — the D.C. overseer pushing for results;  and Joel Edgerton and Chris Pratt as members of SEAL Team Six, the boots on the ground for the final raid.  Supporting roles include Harold Perrineau, Edgar Ramirez, Reda Kateb, Fares Fares, and James Gandolfini (in a brief role as the CIA Director).  Together they form the backbone of a procedural story built around the decade-long hunt for Osama bin Laden.
Background:  I never saw this film in theaters.  I caught it much later (2020-ish) on streaming after hearing it was “the” movie about the bin Laden raid.  The “delay” was mainly because I heard and took on board the political noise around it — torture debates, accuracy debates, and whether the film was too close to real events.  This was only my second viewing of this film.  Released in 2012, “Zero Dark Thirty” received five Academy Award nominations, including Best Picture and Best Actress (Chastain).  It won one Oscar for Best Sound Editing (shared).  Historically, it stands out as the first major dramatization of the bin Laden operation and one of the few films to tackle the post-9/11 intelligence world with this level of procedural detail.
Plot:  The film follows Maya, a CIA analyst assigned to Pakistan who becomes convinced that a courier named Abu Ahmed is the key to finding bin Laden.  The story moves through years of interrogations, bombings, dead ends, bureaucratic stalls, and occasional breakthroughs.  Maya pushes her superiors, fights internal skepticism, and eventually identifies a suspicious compound in Abbottabad.  After months of surveillance and political hesitation, SEAL Team Six is cleared to conduct the raid.  The final act covers the nighttime assault, the identification of the body, and Maya’s quiet reaction once the mission is complete.
So, is this movie any good?  How’s the acting?  The filming / FX?  Any problems?  And, did I enjoy the film?  Short answers:  Yes;  strong performances;  clean, grounded filming;  a few issues;  mostly no.
Any good?  Yes – with a notable qualification.  It’s a long, steady procedural that avoids big speeches and sticks to the grind of intelligence work.  It’s not an action movie except for the last half hour.  Most of the film is people arguing, waiting, and trying to connect dots.  If you like that kind of slow burn, it works. If you don’t, it may feel like homework.  But as a dramatization of a real-world manhunt, it’s compelling.
Acting:  Jessica Chastain carries the film.  Her Maya is driven, frustrated, and increasingly isolated.  She doesn’t play her as a superhero — more like someone who refuses to let go of a thread.  Jason Clarke is memorable in the early interrogation (torture) scenes, balancing confidence with burnout.  Kyle Chandler and Mark Strong both do well as the “management” layer.  The SEAL actors don’t get much character development, but they feel believable as professionals.  Jennifer Ehle adds some warmth and experience before her character’s arc ends abruptly.  Overall, the cast fits the material.
Filming / FX:  Bigelow keeps the camera work straightforward.  The film uses a lot of handheld shots, dim rooms, and dusty exteriors. Nothing feels glossy or overly Hollywood.  The raid sequence is the standout — shot mostly in darkness with night-vision effects that look practical rather than flashy.  The explosions and gunfire are realistic without being overdone.  The sound design is excellent, which makes sense given the Oscar win.  There’s no “incredible” CGI spectacle here;  it’s mostly grounded environments and real locations (or convincing stand-ins).
Problems:  A few minor;  one major.  The film compresses a decade of intelligence work into a single narrative, which means some events feel simplified or too convenient.  The torture scenes are uncomfortable, but the film doesn’t always make clear what was useful and what wasn’t — which is part of why it stirred controversy.  Maya’s character is also written as a near-mythic lone wolf at times, which doesn’t match how intelligence agencies actually function (IMHO).  The pacing drags in the middle third, especially during the long stretches of surveillance.  And while the raid is well done, the geography inside the compound can be confusing on a first viewing.  MY main problem with the film is the portrayal of the Americans ready acceptance of torture and the implication that it was a source of useful / timely information.  Historically, torture has rarely worked – for timely information or otherwise – and one of the big criticisms of this film was the idea that the torture produced useful / actionable intelligence.  I am not denying the Americans conducted torture.  I am saying I found (and find) the acceptance of it (torture) – individually and organizationally – to be HIGHLY objectionable to me as a U.S. citizen.  These people were breaking the law and should have been held accountable, not celebrated in film or let off in real life.
Did I enjoy the film?  Yes and no – mostly no.  The depiction of interrogation / torture, ruined the film for me.  This is not a “fun” movie to start with, even if it is interesting and well-made.  The procedural approach kept me engaged, and the final raid is tense even though we know the outcome.  I appreciated that the film didn’t try to turn Maya into an action hero or force a big emotional payoff.  It’s a serious movie about a serious subject, and it mostly sticks to that lane.
Final Recommendation:  Moderate Recommendation (because of the torture scenes and lack of accountability – otherwise, strong to highly recommended).  “Zero Dark Thirty” is historically significant as the first major film to depict the bin Laden raid and one of the few to tackle the post-9/11 intelligence world in detail.  With its Oscar win for Sound Editing and multiple nominations, it stands as a notable film of the 2010s.  Watch it for Chastain’s performance, the grounded procedural style, and the well-executed final act.  It’s not perfect, but it’s a solid, serious film about a major moment in recent history.
.
Click here (28 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 »

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 »

Design a site like this with WordPress.com
Get started