Reviews written by registered user
|4 reviews in total|
This film is about a four theoretical computer scientists who have just
proved the conjecture P=NP in the context of a classified research
project funded by NSA, DHS and the like. Such a discovery (which
incidentally and just to pacify you is not believed possible) would
have an enormous impact on our current digital world, in particular
would make cryptography breakable and -therefore- terminally undermine
the very foundations of any form of security and privacy on the
Internet. The entire spectrum of consequences is hard to predict and,
surely, in "capable" hands such knowledge would be quite a powerful
weapon. This is rendered well in the film, as is the ensuing conscience
struggle for the scientist: to comply with the government's demand of
absolute silence, or make the result public at the risk of being
branded as traitors?
When (s)he says that this film attempts to present a certain "travelling salesman problem" as if everything else depended on it, I suggest user "qqwe qweetr" does not understand what (s)he is talking about. Indeed the situation depicted by the film is plausible, even possible (though extremely unlikely), the screenplay and the dialogues are competent, and the whole package is intriguing if you understand the context. Given that, the film is not a particular good piece of cinema, sounds a lot like a theatrical piece, and surely most details (and therefore of the plot) will go over the head of the typical viewer. However, for a film made with $10,000 this is quite an achievement. Chapeau!
I am afraid I do not agree with the acclaim this film has received on IDMB. It's just an OK film, which towards the end takes a mystic turn which spoils it entirely for me. Other reviews have mentioned "if you can suspend your disbelief," well I suppose that in the context of this film, I can't. Of course, one could try to refuse the mystic reading, and that would work up to the end credits. In greater detail, I found the contemporary (Canadian) part of the story excellent, believable, interesting, true, engaging and very well told. On the contrary, I found the sixties (Parisienne) part of the story dull and boring, and difficult to believe. All in all, certainly a dignified effort from the director and screenwriters, but a film that I would only recommend half-heartedly.
This is a very essential telling of a simple, minimal, yet rich story of broken people, desperate, lone people in search of salvation. I found this powerful, stunning and believable. Both Joseph and Hannah come across as entirely true people, actually if you live in Britain you have surely met them around. The same goes for the boy, and I'd say also for the the boy's mum's awful boyfriend and his mates. Found the husband character is secondary, and therefore less well developed. Yet, I believe that Eddie Marsan can bring to life any character, no matter how short the screen time. For me this is a must watch. Very well done to Paddy Considine.
I found this film so pretentious in its aspiration and claims, so
boring badly-acted and obviously propagandist in its execution to
compel me to write my first review. (When I woke up after the big
ZZzzz, I mean...) What it does is to paint a glorified history of the
"Saint" and the birth of the Opus Dei, in pure ecclesiastic style,
never mind historic accuracy.
It would still be all OK to me if the film had any cinematographic merits, if the acting was good, if dialogue was credible But it really isn't (e.g., "I wasn't allowed to play with Jose Maria anymore, my father thought poverty was contagious... My dad had more money, ... but Jose Maria had more dad." Excuse me! And also: "Like or not, most young men were celibate, at least as a priest you got paid for it". What? Excuse me!)
So, my advice is: really don't waste your two hours trying to stay awake during this: if you're interested in the Opus Dei and Escriva De Balaguer, find a more serious and reliable source, if you only want to go the movies, find a better film. This one should stay in the religious circles were it belongs, not in theatres.