Wife and I want to take our 13yo daughter to a movie about scientists doing sciency things. Fortunately, there are two movies currently in release which might actually fall in this category. From the little I’ve read, they both look pretty good and I’m letting the good people of the Dope weigh in on this Very Important Question:
If you could see one movie this weekend and your choice was limited to these two, which would you see?
Note that the one thing that would drive us away from each movie is graphic sexy sexness… not that we’re prudes (well, my wife is ), but that Sophia is 13yo and at that really uncomfortable age…
Please weigh in with observations, reviews, snark, idle threats, etc.
Stephen Hawking + A Brief History of Time + ALS + Eddie Redmayne + Felicia Jones = The Theory of Everything
Alan Turing + Breaking the Enigma Code + Repressed/Persecuted Homosexual + Benedict Cumberbatch + Keira Knightly = The Imitation Game
They’re both good, and both worth seeing. I chose The Imitation Game because of a bias toward Benedict Cumberbatch and Turing’s story. There’s nothing graphic shown in either but in Imitation there are references to homosexuality. The science of both is interesting, but Turing’s work had a direct impact on millions of people. They’re both sad, but both have moments of levity, Theory moreso. Theory is far more uplifting and “inspirational” but I think Turing’s personal struggles are more universal and still important today.
Both films and actors will be nominated for Oscars, but The Imitation Game has the edge at winning anything. Your daughter is more likely to already be or soon to become a Benedict Cumberbatch fan and so should see what will probably become his signature role.
It’s based on one of his ex-wife Jane’s books. The film is true to that, documenting what was, and is, a complex relationship. Hawking’s work is very much secondary in this. It’s definitely worth a watch though, and Redmayne should probably clear some shelf-space in anticipation of award season.
For nomination plaques, not winner trophies. No way would Redmayne triumph over Cumberbatch. Michael Keaton is ahead of both of them anyway.
No biopic is 100% accurate. That’s why it’s called a biopic, not a documentary. At least it gives people who’ve never heard of Alan Turing a starting point to learn more about his accomplishments and persecution.
Well, you’re not going to get a prominent treatment of any genius’s work in a mass-market movie. At best, you’re going to get easily-digested snippets, and then a bunch of other characters declaring how insightful it is. If you expect more than that, then you’re going to be disappointed by pretty much any of these movies.
Well, we saw “The Imitation Game” today and my daughter didn’t cotton to it as I had hoped - said it was “depressing”, which I guess it was.
Question: The captions at the end specifically stated that a “Turing machine” is the same thing as a “computer”… but I thought the two are separate and that the modern computer was based more on Von Neumann’s ideas and designs. Anybody know?
All digital computers are, or are equivalent to, Turing machines subject to certain real-world limitations. The mechanism by which they function is not the same as the mechanism Turing described, but they are capable of exactly the same set of tasks.
Oh yeah, I screwed that up. In my defense, that was written before the Golden Globes and the Screen Actors Guild awards, both of which Redmayne surprisingly (to me) won. I changed my mind after the SAG awards and switched to Redmayne.
), but that Sophia is 13yo and at that really uncomfortable age…