I read that not one everyone can do it. I even remember something in connection with Benedict when a colleague said she envied him for being able to cry on cue. No idea who it was but it is definitely not something every actor and actress is capable of. 

Yes, he is. It just struck me in the scene with Matthew Beard because they were both crying. 

Vhanja wrote:

Maybe a bit OT, but I never understood how people can cry on cue. Crying is linked to emotions, isn't it? So do they have some sort of horrible event or incident in their past that they delve into to put themselves in that frame of mind for a scene? And if so, how do they stop crying on cue when the scene is over? And do it again for another eight takes? It sounds incredibly hard and draining.

Something in the way he behaves and expresses himself seems to indicate that he is a very sensitive kind of person. And it´s this sensitivity which enables him to cry on cue - if he make himself feel some strong emotions, tears naturally flow from his eyes (at least that´s what I think).
 

I finally got to see TIG yesterday. It had been such a long wait and I was so emotional about this movie already before seeing it that I was afraid it could be a disappointment (you probably know how that happens sometimes when the expectations are really high). But luckily it lived up to all the expectations .

A movie critic wrote in an Austrian newspaper that TIG is a conventional historical movie with a simple story giving it only 3 stars out of 5. How could someone write that? In my opinion, it was nothing but that.

The movie has received mostly favorable reviews here in Norway. I haven't seen one bad review, actually. Just constructive criticism and a high rating. 

Could help that Tyldum is Norwegian, of course.

I've heard the inaccuracies mentioned here, but more as an observation than a negative comment about the film itself. Everyone I know who has seen it has loved it.

(But I have to say - EVERYONE I asked already knew Turing's story.   His not quite as unknown as Benedict thinks he is!  But that's here in the UK - I imagine it's different internationally)

Last edited by Liberty (January 26, 2015 1:13 pm)

Zatoichi wrote:

Yes, with 8 Oscar nominations and great box office takings I think we can just forget about a few condescending critics..

I think in a while no one will remember all the smirky remarks and bias of many critics against TIG. Still, it is difficult to swallaw a wave of reviews such as this:

"The Imitation Game has numerous problems – there’s no focus, it lacks any interesting visuals or sounds, and the characters are mostly nonexistent. But most distressing is the fact that it utterly fails to engage with Turing’s ideas in any meaningful way, even as it sexes up the historical events he was involved in and attempts to change the strange but amiable Turing into some sort of bizarre combination of Cumberbatch’s Sherlock and Sheldon from The Big Bang Theory."
And while the same reviews criticises TTOE as well, in his opinion:

The film’s supporting cast makes at least some impression, which is more than can be said for The Imitation Game. There are even moments of genuine humour here and there.

Everyone has got a right to like/dislike a given movie. It doesn't take a genius, though, to see that the opinions such as above are based on pure spite.
The degree of aggressiveness against TIG is distressing and it makes me sad that the critics are so eager to find flaws in the film that somehow they are not interested in the movie's powerful ethic message.

Last edited by miriel68 (January 27, 2015 8:03 am)

Well, you know what they say about opinions...................

I've just seen the film, haven't read the thread here yet.

I really liked the film. Although "liked" is a not very precise word. I found I've learned something, and yes, I have to admit I did know the name Turing, but not in depth what he did. I definitely heard the term Turing-machine before knowing about anything else he did, so my knowledge was maybe a bit the wrong way round.

I thought Turing was well played, he came very much alive in that perfomance. Although, and that is maybe now a strange thing to say, I would have liked it maybe better if I hadn't already known Benedict. I cannot explain that properly. Sometimes, when a character is the very essence of a film, I find it some kind of... confusing to see a well known actor in that character. If you don't know what I mean, I cannot explain it.

I thought Keira Knightley was really really good.

What I found a bit irritating at first where the time leaps. Also, I felt the whole life story fell a bit short, it was like opening windows to see something more, but then putting them shut again quickly... I found it a bit confusing.

Also the dimension of the War was a bit hard to grasp. This sentence, they were just somewhere in a hut in south England while others where out there... that's maybe exactly that. The game character threw me a bit off, but then I confess, I know scientists and they are that way, and I think that's how you achieve things. To let your mind loose to throw up possibilites.

A really good film in my opinion. Though it wasn't exactly what I had expected. But now that I have seen it I have difficulties in recalling what I did expect. I think something a bit quicker. It was a very slow film, rather quiet.

Oh, one thing about Keira Knightley: there is the moment when Joan tells Turing her middle name is "Elizabeth". Keira pronounced this, I think, exactly like in Pirates of the Caribbean, or I think that must be the reason that I was totally thrown out of the film for a second, and at least five more people close to me had a clear reaction to that too. I mean, that happens if actors play many roles, but it really was a coincidence which the audience noted. Or maybe the others reacted for other reasons, but that's the one my mind immediatly supplied. Silly mind.
 

Last edited by Whisky (January 28, 2015 1:09 am)

SolarSystem, I agree on all points.

Whisky, thank you for sharing your impressions, I think they are very precious. What I noticed so far in reviews by critics and "nomal" viewers is how difficult it is to give an "objective" evaluation of this movie. It is so easier with, let's say, Birdman or American Sniper, because these are movies you expected them to be, with the bonus of excellent acting.
TIG, although branded by many as "conventional", "formulaic" or "safe" is anything but this.

There are people complainig that it is too "simple". Other protesting that it is "convoluted" or "confusing"
Some people say "there is too much going on" other say it is "slow"
Some say there is not enough about T. homosexuality. Other say the homosexuality is given too much importance.
Some complain is over-dramatized. Other are convinced there is "lack of tension". Or there is too much stress on Enigma segment. Or to little stress on it. Or Joan Clarke role has been given too much importance. Or too little.

All these contrasting judgements (apart from few obviously biased ones: some critics do seem to be determined to hate the movie) are for me the proof that TIG, behind its apparently conservative and classic facade, is a truly original and unsettling product of cinematograpy.

I love the remark about "opening windows": that is, IMO, the best thing a biopic can ever achieve: not trying to give you a Wikipedia summury (like, say, TTOE recently) but showing you tantalizing glimpses of a given person and thus waking in the audience the need to go further and to discover more.

 

Last edited by miriel68 (January 28, 2015 8:16 am)