I wouldn't worry about tedious reviews to be honest, miriel. I sometimes have a feeling that critics feel like they are above the broad masses and have a finer taste and better antenna, but they are just human, too. Important is, if you will like it.

I do think some critics are being a bit snotty about it, and I also think that for some, it has something to do with the fanbase BC has; it hurts some to see him as a serious and talented actor because a) he's Sherlock and b) he has a lot of female fans, some of whom are sometimes a little over the top.
So some reviewers simply get sniffy about him.

Also some seem to have wanted the obligatory sex scene - they seem to think the Movie is not brave enough for not including one.

I'm really heartened by the fact that the critics whose opinion I really respect, love the Movie, and the majority have praised Benedict's performance.

tonnaree wrote:

Remember, a movie review is just an opinion and everyone has one.

Lol, tonnaree, that's quite a discovery, isn't it.

However, I happen to disagree with you on both points. Not everybody has an opinion. A lot of people tend to repeat the opinions thay heard/ listened to, even if they are convinced these are their "own" thoughts.
Secondly, of course a review is an opinion. However, film critics, especially those who write/ speak for influential media, are supposedly better equipped to express their opinions than an average film viewer, and are supposed to give opinions based on their professional background/ esthetic knowledge, because the readers tend to believe "experts".



However, this was not the point of my post, really. I don't "worry" about bad critics: the film seems so good and people interested in it, I don't think these negative opinions can damage it very much.

I am intrigued by verbal strategies of British reviews, though. In my country we have brilliant critics, not-so-brilliant or even quite shallow ones. However, this kind of skilful wording aimed at diminishing-through-praising or insinuating negative feelings in obliquous way is not common in our film reviews.

You say "BUT Benedict Cumberbatch is terrific TO BE HONEST": what does it mean? A very sneaky way to insinuate that the film itself is a rubbish.
Or let's see the wording here (David Sexton)

"The Imitation Game is an efficient piece of product: a reasonably entertaining, well-made, necessarily reductive, conventional dramatisation of the broad outlines of Turing’s life, skimpy on his homosexuality while overstressing his one heterosexual involvement, perhaps to make the movie easier family viewing"

Every single denomination is a masterpiece of venom dropping: "piece of product" "necessarily reductive" "conventional" etc.: in this context even seemingly positive qualities "well-made" and "family vewing" insinuate a contrary meaning.

However, my question to fellow members on this board was whether this is the "normal" way of writing reviews in Britain or are they particularly malicious in this case. I am not "worried". I am curious..

 

Miriel, I think that's their way of showing us all how clever and above it all they are!
I so agree with you on people copying each other; on another forum I visit he's being discussed with mostly complimentary things being said.
Then someone piped up with the view that he's a typical middle class actor with typical movie star looks (yes, really!), who always plays himself (yes, really!) - this led to others saying pretty much the same thing.
Now we all have different opinions, but when it's clear that you just want to jump on the "I don't like this middle class boy" bandwagon and probably haven't actually seen him act too often then I can't take it seriously.
I couldn't even be bothered to post an alternative argument - it's just not worth trying to reason sometimes.

I'm sorry, I misunderstood the post!  I don't usually watch Film 2014 these days, so I'm not used to how it's normally presented.  Here's a Guardian review for comparism (it's not completely complimentary either, "war-movie cliches", etc, although, again, there is plenty of praise for Benedict). 

Here's a couple more British reviews:

The Independent

The Telegraph

They do have some similar criticisms. 

 

Susi, the Telegraph review is yet another perfect example of snotty review and I agree it feels like a slape in the face.
Sadly, I have read so many nasty reviews yesterday, I begin to suspect this is aimed especially at this film/ Benedict - cannot believe British critics are always this mean and hypocritical.

I listened to Guardian film show video review yesterday and was appealed by the tone the comments.
Peter Broadshaw begins with "It is a very Sherlockian performance" (= BC just repeating himself)
and it is "ACTUALLY a very good performance" (notice the clever use of adverb)
but "I am not completely convinced that Alan Turing was like this" (= inaccurate portrayal)
"Cumberbatch UPGRADES him: he is genius, he is homosexual, he is on the spectrum" (now, this is beyond my understanding: upgrades him to homosexual, lol?)
"he is everything you need to be to get full Academy Award" (= he distorts AT portrayal to make it more Oscar baity, but the implication that he plays him as a genius and homosexual only to get Oscar is just beyond ridiculous.
And there is Catherine Shroud, whining that you never see him engage in any happy relationship (may be because he hadn't got one?) and then goes on laughing about how silly and "meh" the depiction of Turing "otherness" is in the film, says with wonder that "people love it" (silly people) to ends with the conclusion that "Eddie Redmayne has a slightly better chance to win an Oscar". (no offence to ER who apparently is terrific in TTOE, but mentionig him in such a context has a sole purpose to diminish BC performance)

Wow. just wow.

Sorry for the rants, but as one accustomed to analyse verbal strategies I cannot help myself

 

I agree with Tinks: it was what I saw on the other forum, for them the problem was BC himself and it was painful to read I assure you! I'm not surprised to find the same "problem" with the professional...

The Guardian published a withering piece regarding the historical inaccuracies (others might call it artistic freedom) the film takes. 

http://www.theguardian.com/film/2014/nov/20/the-imitation-game-invents-new-slander-to-insult-alan-turing-reel-history

I feel this somehow part of an attempt to bring the film down. Not sure why but in Britain the reviews have been quite negative. 

As for the content of the article - true, Turing was never suspected of being a Soviet spy. But his security status was withdrawn, gay visitors of his were spied on and sent back to their home countries, he would possibly never again have worked in a classified environment because of his sexual orientation and the hysterical fear of gay men being blackmailed to become Soviet spies.
So what is this fuss really about? 

Liberty wrote:

I do agree with this last part:

The film is right that the “chemical castration” Turing underwent after his conviction was unjust and disgusting. Turing was pardoned in 2013, but the pardon was controversial. Many campaigners believe, as Turing himself did, that consensual sex between men should never have constituted an offence at all. Tens of thousands of less famous men were similarly prosecuted between 1885 and 1967, and their convictions stand.

Singling out Turing for a pardon because of what he contributed in other ways, seemed to be upholding the convictions of all those other men.   

I don't agree with this.
This fact about the less famous men being specifically mentioned by displaying it at the end of the film includes all the other men who were suffering a fate similar to Turing and critically alludes that a royal pardon and apology should have been made to all of them no matter how useful or not they might have been to Britain.