The Imitation Game

[MFS62]

Based on a true story, the movie tells about the British attempt to break the Nazi's Enigma code machine during World War II and the man who led that team.

Later

[Guest themetfairy]

Well told, well paced, and very well acted - one of my favorite films of the year.

FWIW my older son is not much of a fan of the movies, and he enjoyed this one very much.

[bmfc1]

Great movie. At the end, I was mad, at the way he was treated, and sad, at what the world lost because of how he was treated.

[MFS62]

bmfc1 wrote: Great movie. At the end, I was mad, at the way he was treated, and sad, at what the world lost because of how he was treated.

And your vote?

Later

[MFS62]

In addition to Academy Award nominations for Best picture, best actor, best actress and score*, it was nominated for Best Editing.
Editing is one of those things I always thought was like Umpiring - if you noticed it, it was bad.
But when I walked out of the movie, I told my wife that I thought the editing was good, and its probably the first time I ever said that about any movie. And I can't explain why.

Later
* there may also have been a bast adaption screenplay nomination, too.

[Guest sharpie]

I liked it okay. A tidy picture -- which is both a good thing and a bad thing.

[RealityChuck]

MFS62 wrote: In addition to Academy Award nominations for Best picture, best actor, best actress and score*, it was nominated for Best Editing. Editing is one of those things I always thought was like Umpiring - if you noticed it, it was bad. But when I walked out of the movie, I told my wife that I thought the editing was good, and its probably the first time I ever said that about any movie. And I can't explain why.

I think it was the way they were able to keep the parallel stories separate; you always knew which time period was being portrayed, even when there was no subtitle to point it out.

I did think it was an excellent film; I've seen a lot of good ones this year.

[Ceetar]

RealityChuck wrote: MFS62 wrote: In addition to Academy Award nominations for Best picture, best actor, best actress and score*, it was nominated for Best Editing. Editing is one of those things I always thought was like Umpiring - if you noticed it, it was bad. But when I walked out of the movie, I told my wife that I thought the editing was good, and its probably the first time I ever said that about any movie. And I can't explain why. I think it was the way they were able to keep the parallel stories separate; you always knew which time period was being portrayed, even when there was no subtitle to point it out. I did think it was an excellent film; I've seen a lot of good ones this year.

I'd disagree then. I actually had trouble with the time periods at first, particularly the cops part. The first scenes were before I really knew what was going on so once I got into the story I sorta forgot about the cops and the breakin. felt like a jarring break of pace.

And I'm not sure the young Turing stuff really added much to the picture.

The whole pace of the movie felt a little plodding to me, though I was invested and interested since Turing is basically my wheelhouse. Would've liked more talk of algorithms and the geeky stuff behind building the machine.

[RealityChuck]

The first time in each time period, the year was clearly indicated with a title. From then on, the characters (and, I think, the cinematography and lighting) kept it all straight.

[Edgy MD]

The time jumps weren't bothersome, so much as the attempt to redeem Turing not just as a persecuted homosexual, but as a misunderstood and misjudged autistic savant, somehow justifying him being a brutally smug and superior asshole.

And of course, that's the label over Cumberbatch's head. That's what you're buying when you hire him. (I imagine he was first and last on a list of one when it came to Marvel hiring a cinematic Dr. Strange.) But does it really serve Turing to play him as such a caricature? He didn't make it where he did by being the clueless outsider/victim to predators/humourless jerk he's played as.

It seems to me that it just gives justification to ambitious and hatefully smug crazy makers creating dysfunctional workplaces everywhere. I'm a misunderstood genius!

Kneightly's characters seems drawn from a stencil of Helena Bonham-Carter's in The King's Speech (the trailer of which was surprisingly included on the DVD here.) She's provides the humanity that leavens Turing and allows him to interact with the rest of us mortals. But again, is it fair to him and all his achievements to have made him dependent on his not-wife to conduct a coherent conversation with other smart professionals working for for such a noble purpose?