Probably I expected too much of TIG - I was hoping it would fall into your "Really Good" category - what I call "great movies". Some of the reviews made it seem like it would...

My problem is, I can't switch off my brain, not even for entertainment.  I constantly notice things that don't make sense in the story and, if there's enough of them, I have a constant inner monologue of "that doesn't make sense - why are they doing that? - now, wait a minute - WTF?..."  I can easily forgive what Hitchcock called the "fridge moment": One sits in the cinema, enjoys the movie, goes home, takes the milk out of the fridge for a nightcap and suddenly realizes "Wait a minute, why..." (did Bill Gambini's mom never go to his trial, in My Cousin Vinny, to give an example. Which I never even wondered, but the director was worried...) But when I have these "fridge moments" in the film, and several of them, then something is wrong with the film. The only save is when there's something in the DVD extras or commentary to explain, like "I know this jump wouldn't be survivable, but I asked the stuntmen which height would be, and it just doesn't correspond to audience expectations. So I decided to go with the impressive visuals." The guy did his research and made a commercial decision, I can accept that.

I also make a difference between films that are "Based on a true story" and those that are "Inspired by a true story". For me, "based on" should be close to the truth - and TIG has the disadvantage of dealing with fairly easily verified history. In movies "inspired by" (with changed names) pretty much anything goes and I couldn't care less whether the events in Dreamer or Kinky Boots happened as shown or not - I watch them as fiction and it's enough if the story as shown makes enough sense.

Unfortunately, I had  too many "fridge moments" in The Imitation Game, the bonus material didn't help me, and for my understanding the "Based on a true story" promises a degree of truthfulness that

That, I can easily believe, I find many so-called comedies disappointing. Let's cross our fingers that a good script will be offered to BC soon!

I have something against bad writing. Anywhere, but as we are in "Benedict's Non-Sherlock Work"  I'm not telling you what I think about The Fits, Le Bal or La Relève... I have major criticisms towards 90% of the movies I see, including Star Trek into Darkness and the Hobbit trilogy. Why should I not criticize a movie just because Benedict Cumberbatch has a role in it?

You seem to have a different definition of arrogant than I do. To me "Are you paying attention? Good. If you're not listening carefully you will miss things. Important things. I will not pause, I will not repeat myself, and you will not interrupt me. ..." sounds arrogant. Not to mention that it was the first WTF moment of the movie, because I had heard practically the same lines already at the beginning of Inside Man (2006) ("My name is Dalton Russell. Pay strict attention to what I say because I choose my words carefully and I never repeat myself." thanks, IMDb!)

The job interview (Denniston: "...everyone thinks Enigma is unbreakable." Turing: "Good. Let me try and we'll know for sure, won't we?") doesn't do anything to change the first impression, either. So to me movie-Turing comes across as arrogant - book-Turing not. Movie-Turing also comes across as being detested by his colleagues and needing lessons in how to behave from Joan Clarke - no hint of it in the book.

Let's keep Dr. Strange and Sherlock to their respective threads. But if you had read my posts in the former more thoroughly, you would have seen that just because I find somebody an "arrogant arsehole" doesn't mean that I don't like them! I agree with you that BC's Alan Turing comes across as rather sympathetic (I'm assuming you mean that new (American?) meaning of "somebody we are willing to show sympathy to" (basically the same as the German "sympathisch" and the French "sympa(thique)")?) My point was that the movie as I have seen it does not represent the Alan Turing I have read about (as I have understood the book. Which, btw. d

miriel68 wrote:

....
The main point, I think, is not to do a disservice to the characters the film talks about. 
From that point of view, I had strong objections against "Argo", for example, not because they made the escape of American hostages from Iran more dramatic than it was in fact, but because they minimized the role of the Canadians.
...

But you are not bothered by TIG minimizing the role of the Polish builders of the first Bombes, or not even mentioning a key figure like Gordon Welchman? And Alan Turing himself is shown as an arrogant arsehole, which he most probably was not in real life. I feel that the film does a disservice to the characters it talks about (apart from Joan Clarke and Christopher Morcom - and the fictional Detective Nock also comes across as more positive than I'd have expected) and an even bigger one to the ones it does not talk about.

I wouldn't mind a biopic or docudrama take some liberties - but TIG has nearly everything wrong - from how the film is constructed (Turing wouldn't have told a policeman about his work in Bletchley Park) to the little details like Turing's knowledge of German (he did read and speak it - so why does the script say the opposite? Just so they can show Turing being full of himself?).

For me the best thing about TIG is that now I want to know more about Bletchley Park and Tunny and Colossus (the most secret stuff wasn't encyphered by Enigma) - so yes, as a starting point the film is okay.

OT: I enjoyed Argos immensely, but I saw it as fiction and learned only afterwards that something similar had really happened. And I enjoyed the suspense at the airport so much - probably some of the most gripping moments I've seen in recent years - that I, too, totally forgive them for making it up. Just like I totally forgive Graham Moore for inventing Joan Clarke doing the crossword test - the scene was just too enjoyable!

As I said, I heard about Turing in connection with AI - which I consider normal. Most scientists are only known to those working in the same field. How many other mathematicians do you know (of)? What DO you know about Tommy Flowers (before googling him!)? Who knows the names of other people who played important roles in Bletchley Park (people not mentioned in The Imitation Game)? Secret Service employees are supposed to be secret!

The film makes it appear as if Alan Turing had singlehandedly won the war for the Allies, and that's simply not true (and information learned from U-Boat transmissions certainly had no bearing on Stalingrad, grrr...). He was one of a team, and there's no reason for him to be any more famous than the others...  Somebody here in the thread bemoaned that Turing and Co. were simply sent home at the end of the war, without thanks and the admonition to never see each other again - none of that is true either: Turing got an OBE and probably the other important people as well (Hodges mentions it was a standard recognition for civil servants of Turing's official rank). And they did meet again later if the occasion arose - Hugh Alexander appeared as a character witness at Turing's trial. Turing also informed Joan Clarke of his arrest and the upcoming trial (like his other friends) - she didn't discover it afterwards as shown in the film.

Liberty wrote:

...  but I do think that sometimes it's right to break the law when the law is wrong.   ....

Oh, I agree 100%! I'm firmly convinced that 90 km/h on a dry, large, well-maintained road that's straight as a ruler and has no other traffic of any sort as far as I can see is much too low, which is why I regularly drive faster...

Still not enough reason to go to the cinema to see it ;)

I finally got the DVD from the library and thus had a chance to see the deleted scenes, which includes the police finding Turing's body. And I would have much preferred if they had let it in instead of claiming "Alan Turing committed suicide" (or whatever the English text says - for me it was in French) in text on the screen. Because the text "sells" the suicide as fact - a film scene could have been ambiguous.

For it is far from sure that Alan Turing committed suicide! Read this: http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-18561092

Let me back up: I liked the film, it's beautifully made and acted. But there were a few moments where the story didn't make sense for me (like Turing's interaction with the police, Hugh Alexander trying to physically attack the machine, Denniston having the plug pulled on a machine that's up and running). So I got a copy of Andrew Hodges book Alan Turing: The Enigma, The Book That Inspired the Film The Imitation Game.

And I discovered that none of the things that baffled me ever happened - or indeed most of the rest of what we see on screen. At first I tried to console myself by comparing to Lord of the Rings - "but the spirit of the book is there" (Alan didn't actually build any of the Bombes by his own hands, but he did work personally on Delilah, and so on).

But when I read now in forum posts that people mistake the fictional Turing for the real one, then I'm beginning to think that the film did a disservice to pretty much everybody shown (or not shown) - from the Polish engineers who developed the Bombes who are not even mentioned in a whole sentence, over Hugh Alexander who probably never tried to attack a Bombe in his life (besides, at the time Alan Turing would have been his superior, not the other way round as in the film), to the German cryptographers (Enigma codes were never cracked as completely as the movie makes us believe), to Alan Turing himself who comes across as a naive and arrogant student fresh from Cambridge whos

miriel68 wrote:

.... to be happy doing what he loves most - being the surgeon - or to accept his duty as the sorcerer supreme. There is no happiness in this path and I think it has been, too, shown in the movie, in the very last scene: the past is broken and he decided to accept it and to accept his loss. Not so different from Rick, after all
.....
 

For the sake of discussion: I don't believe that Dr. Strange will  be unhappy in his new career. (Btw: Has he really been declared Sorcerer Supreme at the end of the movie? From what I remember he could "just" be Guardian of the New York Sanctum.) Because the new role will still allow him to "save thousands" due to his special skills (or whatever the figure was he mentioned when talking to Dr. Parker after the bullet extraction at the beginning), he will be part - or top dog - of an even more elite group (even in Marvel Universe there must be more neurosurgeons than sorcerers- especially with Mordo killing off the latter), he'll get the chance to hang  out with the super-rich and  legendary famous ;) including gods, he'll get enormous respect, and let's face it - glowing portals beat even a Lamborghini Huracan for speed and exlusivity, and the Cloak of Levitation is way more cool than a  watch that anybody can buy (not to mention more useful!)

Who's to say that little Stephen wouldn't have dreamt of growing up to be Sorcerer Supreme if he had known that the possibility existed? So I don't see any lack of professional happiness in Dr. Strange's future - and as far as relationships go, I think things with Dr. Parker look promising enough. Unless of course he falls for the Black Widow or the Scarlet Witch or... (I really want to see what happens when Dr. Strange and Wanda Maximoff meet!)

(Completely OT, and at the risk of stepping on the toes of Casablanca-lovers: I've never believed that Rick will be all that unhappy without Ilsa, I never bought them as a couple. Harry Morgan and Slim Browning in To Have

Where do you see Dr. Strange (or, by the way, Sherlock?) sacrificing his own private happiness for others? That makes his actions sound planned and their results final, but "Dr. Strange will return" leaves plenty of time for future happiness. Possibly even with the woman who gave him a $ 20.000 watch while he was being an asshole to her... (how much do surgeons earn???)

And Dr. Strange's unhappiness over most of the film wasn't the result of some voluntary sacrifice, but of unsafe driving (shouldn't there have been legal consequences as well?)
 

Vhanja wrote:

Well, the similarities are hardly Ben's fault, seeing as he didn't write any of the characters. ;) 

Where did I say or hint that I thought the similarities BC's fault? However, I do think that when Hollywood need an approx. 40 year old white male to play an arrogant genius arsehole, then BC's agent is the first person they call!

miriel68 wrote:

....
BC Hawking is not arrogant, for example, IMO.

....Touring tormented by his homosexuality, ....

 

Did you miss the scene in Hawking where he tells his prof that his formulations "are not well defined" (3/6 on Youtube)? But that wasn't even the scene that stuck in my mind, I just found it while looking for the one where he says "Your calculation is wrong" after Sir Fred Hoyle presents his new paper ("pre-viewed" by Hawking) in the Royal Society meeting (it's at the beginning of 4/6 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HYO3k5bos6o).

As for Turing: Are you saying a person can't be homosexual and arrogant at the same time? The first lines of the movie set the tone: "Are you paying attention? Good. If you are not listening carefully, you will miss things. Important things. I will not pause, I will not repeat myself, and you will not interrupt me. You think that because you're sitting where you are, and I am sitting where I am, that you are in control of what is about to happen. You're mistaken. I am in control, because I know things that you do not know." And then of course there's the job interview: Denniston: "...everyone thinks Enigma is unbreakable. Turing: Good. Let me try and we'll know for sure, won't we?" (I'll have quite a lot to say on TIG, but I'll finish the book first).