IMDb RATING
6.6/10
21K
YOUR RATING
In 1961, famed social psychologist Stanley Milgram conducted a series of radical behavior experiments that tested ordinary humans' willingness to obey authority.In 1961, famed social psychologist Stanley Milgram conducted a series of radical behavior experiments that tested ordinary humans' willingness to obey authority.In 1961, famed social psychologist Stanley Milgram conducted a series of radical behavior experiments that tested ordinary humans' willingness to obey authority.
- Awards
- 3 wins & 6 nominations total
Ned Eisenberg
- Solomon Asch
- (as Ned Eisenburg)
- Director
- Writer
- All cast & crew
- Production, box office & more at IMDbPro
6.620.7K
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Featured reviews
An elephant?
For some reason I expected more of a documentary, so this docudrama nearly had me out the door, but the authoritative man in the grey lab coat persuaded me to stay.
It clearly, and to my understanding, accurately, lays out the format of the notorious Milgram Experiment, which is necessary for all that follows; the public and academic backlash, our involvement as we question whether we would behave like Milgram's subjects, and his own soul-searching. To be sure, he comes across as quite cold-hearted, and more self-doubt would have made a more interesting story. Instead, all of the doubt is carried by his colleagues and Wynona Ryder as his patient wife.
The original experiment is well-enough represented that the re-creation of a TV series about it (with Kellan Lutz as a young William Shatner playing the Milgram character) has some amusingly obvious elements of parody, and hence self-parody of this film.
The film has some unsettling features over and above the experiments themselves - scenes carried out in colour in front of poorly placed monochrome back-projections, and an elephant, yes, a real, if slightly out of focus elephant behind Peter Sarsgaard as he talks to the camera walking towards us along a university corridor. Why? If it's The Elephant In The Room, what are we not seeing?
As Milgram points out, he and his experiment are treated with opprobrium, but the results are accepted, and serve their purpose. While the Holocaust is repeatedly invoked (including footage of the Eichmann trial), and Milgram twice mentions that his name is Hebrew for pomegranate (in fact it's not but milgrom is the Yiddish), an obvious ethical parallel is not mentioned: the Nazi experiments of killing prisoners with X-rays, which are still shown (usually on an opt-in basis) to medical students.
It clearly, and to my understanding, accurately, lays out the format of the notorious Milgram Experiment, which is necessary for all that follows; the public and academic backlash, our involvement as we question whether we would behave like Milgram's subjects, and his own soul-searching. To be sure, he comes across as quite cold-hearted, and more self-doubt would have made a more interesting story. Instead, all of the doubt is carried by his colleagues and Wynona Ryder as his patient wife.
The original experiment is well-enough represented that the re-creation of a TV series about it (with Kellan Lutz as a young William Shatner playing the Milgram character) has some amusingly obvious elements of parody, and hence self-parody of this film.
The film has some unsettling features over and above the experiments themselves - scenes carried out in colour in front of poorly placed monochrome back-projections, and an elephant, yes, a real, if slightly out of focus elephant behind Peter Sarsgaard as he talks to the camera walking towards us along a university corridor. Why? If it's The Elephant In The Room, what are we not seeing?
As Milgram points out, he and his experiment are treated with opprobrium, but the results are accepted, and serve their purpose. While the Holocaust is repeatedly invoked (including footage of the Eichmann trial), and Milgram twice mentions that his name is Hebrew for pomegranate (in fact it's not but milgrom is the Yiddish), an obvious ethical parallel is not mentioned: the Nazi experiments of killing prisoners with X-rays, which are still shown (usually on an opt-in basis) to medical students.
Very factly...
This film is particularly surprising. It's very interested in many of the facts of the real life obedience experiment. In fact, one could even argue that it seems to be very dry and non- climactic. The docudrama, of course, is restrained and doesn't overdo anything with large dramatizations of events and beats. I can also very much see many people getting bored with it however. Saarsgard is really great, totally inhabiting and creating that version of Milgram. Glad to see Winona Ryder on the screen again. Overall, it is very subdued, but it is a great introduction to the experiment that really shows as much as we can learn about what motivates people to commit such crimes.
Simple yet effective
In 1961 Dr Stanley Milgram performed a series of experiments that revolutionised our understanding of human behaviour, particularly with regard to obedience. It went a long way to explaining how the Nazis managed to carry out the Holocaust and explaining other historic events. This is the story of Dr Milgram, this famous experiment and his other work.
A simple yet effective telling of one of the great breakthroughs in sociology / psychology. Is quite a dry telling, with fairly low production values, but it largely works. Quite interesting, especially as you hear about the results of the main experiment plus some of the other experiments Professor Milgram performed.
As mentioned, it is quite dry though, so can feel a bit dull at times. We don't learn much about Milgram himself, even though much of his life is shown. His family life seems more like padding than anything else (even if his wife is played by the wonderful Winona Ryder).
Solid enough performance by Peter Sarsgaard in the lead role. Good supporting cast. Taryn Manning does look out of place though, playing a 1960s housewife. Maybe it is because I kept thinking of her as Pennsatucky in Orange is the New Black!
A simple yet effective telling of one of the great breakthroughs in sociology / psychology. Is quite a dry telling, with fairly low production values, but it largely works. Quite interesting, especially as you hear about the results of the main experiment plus some of the other experiments Professor Milgram performed.
As mentioned, it is quite dry though, so can feel a bit dull at times. We don't learn much about Milgram himself, even though much of his life is shown. His family life seems more like padding than anything else (even if his wife is played by the wonderful Winona Ryder).
Solid enough performance by Peter Sarsgaard in the lead role. Good supporting cast. Taryn Manning does look out of place though, playing a 1960s housewife. Maybe it is because I kept thinking of her as Pennsatucky in Orange is the New Black!
A psychologist's life leaves a mark on many generations after
I have heard about this experiment many times over the years...I even heard about it a few days ago on a podcast before seeing this movie. The movie goes through all of the work of Stanley Milgram along with all of his ups and downs in his career. This was an interesting movie and I liked how Peter Scarsgaard narrated as he went along. It was good to see Winona Ryder again. The acting was very good and it was interesting to see the backstory that went along with all of these experiments that we've heard about in school and elsewhere.
You do need some patience to get through the movie - psychological experiments can be tedious on film and in real life.
Surprisingly Accurate and Creative Retelling of the Most Important Experiment Ever Done
This movie is about Stanley Milgram, arguably one of the most important social psychologists in our field, and specifically about one of his most important experiment - his obedience to authority experiment.
The movie depicts to my knowledge accurately the setup, conduction, and results of the experiment and goes further, crafting an interesting and weighted portrayal of the man that Stanley Milgram was. The acting is low key, Peter Sarsgaard especially delivers a down to earth performance which shows that he rigorously prepared for the role. All supporting characters (e.g. Winona Ryder, Anton Yelchin) do a good job and no one distracts from the key issues raised by the experiment.
Cinematography is good, although nothing special. Occasionally there are creative moments in direction. When the 4rth wall is broken by Sarsgaard and he speaks directly to the audience, weird things happen in the background, making these moments very endearing and interesting.
There are no thrills or action in this movie, as well as no conventional drama. It is kind of a biopic with a twist, although I would say the biographic aspect is downplayed by the focus on this specific experiment. Many scientific issues are addressed on a side note (e.g. the ethical code of doing experiments, which triggered the proliferation of ethical committees for scientific research).
I would recommend this movie to people who are interested in science, more specifically in psychology (but not exclusively), that do not need action, drama, or thrills and enjoy a well researched and crafted movie with good acting.
The movie depicts to my knowledge accurately the setup, conduction, and results of the experiment and goes further, crafting an interesting and weighted portrayal of the man that Stanley Milgram was. The acting is low key, Peter Sarsgaard especially delivers a down to earth performance which shows that he rigorously prepared for the role. All supporting characters (e.g. Winona Ryder, Anton Yelchin) do a good job and no one distracts from the key issues raised by the experiment.
Cinematography is good, although nothing special. Occasionally there are creative moments in direction. When the 4rth wall is broken by Sarsgaard and he speaks directly to the audience, weird things happen in the background, making these moments very endearing and interesting.
There are no thrills or action in this movie, as well as no conventional drama. It is kind of a biopic with a twist, although I would say the biographic aspect is downplayed by the focus on this specific experiment. Many scientific issues are addressed on a side note (e.g. the ethical code of doing experiments, which triggered the proliferation of ethical committees for scientific research).
I would recommend this movie to people who are interested in science, more specifically in psychology (but not exclusively), that do not need action, drama, or thrills and enjoy a well researched and crafted movie with good acting.
Did you know
- TriviaThe real William Shatner did in fact portray Stanley Milgram in The Tenth Level (1976) which was filmed several years after Star Trek (1966) ended.
- GoofsStanley Milgram in the film states the origin of his last name is Hebrew for pomegranate. "Milgram," however, derives from the Yiddish word for pomegranate, not Hebrew.
- Quotes
Stanley Milgram: I believe we are puppets with perception, with awareness. Sometimes we can see the strings. And perhaps our awareness is the first step in our liberation.
- Crazy creditsA cast credit: "Elephant in the Room: Minnie"
- ConnectionsFeatures Candid Camera (1960)
- SoundtracksSome Enchanted Evening
Written by Richard Rodgers & Oscar Hammerstein II
Performed by Mantovani Orchestra and Chorus (as Mantovani Orchestra)
Courtesy of Drew's Entertainment
- How long is Experimenter?Powered by Alexa
Details
- Release date
- Country of origin
- Official sites
- Language
- Also known as
- El experimento de Milgram
- Filming locations
- New York City, New York, USA(location)
- Production companies
- See more company credits at IMDbPro
Box office
- Budget
- $1,700,000 (estimated)
- Gross US & Canada
- $155,575
- Opening weekend US & Canada
- $8,682
- Oct 18, 2015
- Gross worldwide
- $224,145
- Runtime
- 1h 38m(98 min)
- Color
- Aspect ratio
- 1.78 : 1
Contribute to this page
Suggest an edit or add missing content







