IMDb RATING
6.2/10
2.1K
YOUR RATING
Story of the early life of genius and Nobel Prize-winning physicist Richard Feynman.Story of the early life of genius and Nobel Prize-winning physicist Richard Feynman.Story of the early life of genius and Nobel Prize-winning physicist Richard Feynman.
- Director
- Writers
- Stars
Raffi Di Blasio
- Robert
- (as Raffi DiBlasio)
Josh Keaton
- David
- (as Joshua Wiener)
- Director
- Writers
- All cast & crew
- Production, box office & more at IMDbPro
Featured reviews
For fans of Feynman's books, this will be a disappointment. Matthew Broderick's performance doesn't capture the fire, playfulness and wonder of Feynman's personality (as do documentaries of his lectures). Furthermore, his direction botches many of the anecdotes, missing the points of emphasis and undermining the quirky humour and sense of irony in the original telling. For example, in the Chinese abacus scene (which is shifted to a much earlier period in Feynman's life), Broderick has Feynman initiate the challenge, whereas in real life, it was the hapless abacus salesman who challenged him, completely unaware that he was taking on a renowned physicist. Therefore, the sense of irony, and of Feinman's idiosyncrasy in the world of mere mortals, is lost. Only Patricia Arquette seems to have captured the essence of the memoirs, despite her often unintelligible dialogue.
This was kind of a strange, low-key movie, one that isn't going to get a lot of attention, especially with a younger audience which wants anything but a slow- moving story. But, whatever your age, if you want simply a nice movie, you have one here.
Other reviewers here have gone into the details about the real-life persons this film is based on, so I will just make a few general comments I had while watching this.
First, I enjoyed Matthew Broderick's narration. Broderick usually plays likable roles and is an underrated actor, I think. I've never seen him in a bad performance. Even though this story is an emotional one, I found little emotion in the film but that makes it intriguing in parts.
Sometime past the halfway mark, I asked myself, "What is the point of this story?" There is a point, and there is more than what meets the eye to this. Those who have seen this film know what I mean. I'm making vague statements, but I don't want to give away anything.
I enjoyed the 1940s look to this, appreciated Patricia Arquette's against-type role; appreciated the fact there were no villains in here and the profanity was low. As I said, it's a nice film and touching drama.
Broderick and his mother wrote, produced and directed this film.
Other reviewers here have gone into the details about the real-life persons this film is based on, so I will just make a few general comments I had while watching this.
First, I enjoyed Matthew Broderick's narration. Broderick usually plays likable roles and is an underrated actor, I think. I've never seen him in a bad performance. Even though this story is an emotional one, I found little emotion in the film but that makes it intriguing in parts.
Sometime past the halfway mark, I asked myself, "What is the point of this story?" There is a point, and there is more than what meets the eye to this. Those who have seen this film know what I mean. I'm making vague statements, but I don't want to give away anything.
I enjoyed the 1940s look to this, appreciated Patricia Arquette's against-type role; appreciated the fact there were no villains in here and the profanity was low. As I said, it's a nice film and touching drama.
Broderick and his mother wrote, produced and directed this film.
This was a very worthy project of the Brodericks, mother and son, and one which I would have liked to have tackled myself, having read and greatly enjoyed both "Surely You're Joking, Mr. Feynman!" and "What Do You Care What Other People Think?". To concentrate on the deep love story between Feynman and his first wife Arline, which coincided with his work on the Manhattan Project at Los Alamos, was, I feel, a good filmic move in order to give the story an anchor (not to mention the fact that it truly is one of the most romantic real love stories I've ever heard of). Every movie adaptation has to make sacrifices, and this one obviously had to sacrifice all the other interesting stuff that happened to Feynman in the years after the war. So I don't have a problem with the quality of the script, and they also had a big enough budget to get the period feel.
However, this film falls down in a major way on the characterisation of its lead character. Surprisingly, for Broderick is not a bad actor, he just comes across as being Broderick - a good looking young man who can look lovingly at Patricia Arquette and add a bit of passion to his voice when explaining complicated physics. But we've all seen the real Feynman on television and in film - he was LARGER than life! He was intensely charismatic, a brilliant expositor of scientific ideas and a great teacher.
It seems to me that instead of succumbing to the temptation of directing, that Broderick should really have got someone else direct, so that he could concentrate on really getting inside the head of Feynman and reproducing on screen some of that charisma - something I'm quite sure Broderick is capable of doing.
So ultimately this is a missed opportunity. You learn some of the facts about what happened, but you don't really meet the real Richard P. Feynman.
However, this film falls down in a major way on the characterisation of its lead character. Surprisingly, for Broderick is not a bad actor, he just comes across as being Broderick - a good looking young man who can look lovingly at Patricia Arquette and add a bit of passion to his voice when explaining complicated physics. But we've all seen the real Feynman on television and in film - he was LARGER than life! He was intensely charismatic, a brilliant expositor of scientific ideas and a great teacher.
It seems to me that instead of succumbing to the temptation of directing, that Broderick should really have got someone else direct, so that he could concentrate on really getting inside the head of Feynman and reproducing on screen some of that charisma - something I'm quite sure Broderick is capable of doing.
So ultimately this is a missed opportunity. You learn some of the facts about what happened, but you don't really meet the real Richard P. Feynman.
I read the book, "What Do You Care What Other People Think" and did some research. From there I learned to respect the man. "Infinity" is a wonderful movie. It shows a real love story between two people. Feynman's desire to marry Arlene, even though she was ill, shows dedication to principles that are wanting in our society. This wasn't an easy thing.
Then there is the personal story of his work on the Manhattan Project. He was a practical physicist, who brought the science down to "our" level. Who can forget his demonstration of the "O-Ring" failure from the Shuttle Challenger. This approach changed my perception of the science and I learned to love physics.
So, yes, I recommend this movie.
Laura
Then there is the personal story of his work on the Manhattan Project. He was a practical physicist, who brought the science down to "our" level. Who can forget his demonstration of the "O-Ring" failure from the Shuttle Challenger. This approach changed my perception of the science and I learned to love physics.
So, yes, I recommend this movie.
Laura
I first caught most of this film on T.V. I love Matthew Broderick, so I stopped to watch it. I was totally engrossed in this story, and couldn't pry myself away. It is a complicated movie, but I think Broderick did a wonderful job acting and directing. I think the thing that most captured me is not the story, but of how Broderick portrayed, Feyneman. His expressions represent his character better than any words spoken in the film. Broderick portrayed his character extremly well. He showed a man who was complicated and had many tough decisions to make, and did it to the best of his ability. On this alone, I give Infinity a 10 out of 10.
Did you know
- TriviaThe gate scene at Los Alamos is accurate and Richard had many more pranks that he pulled while working there. Most notably he picked locks. The one unique combination of locks was a series of file cabinets in a mathematicians office where the combinations began with the first few digits of the natural logarithm of e.
- Crazy creditsThe film has a 1997 copyright date in the credits, despite being released in 1996.
- SoundtracksUgly Chile (You're Some Pretty Doll)
Written by Clarence Williams
Published by Shapiro, Bernstein & Co., Inc. (ASCAP)
Copyright renewed
- How long is Infinity?Powered by Alexa
Details
- Release date
- Country of origin
- Official site
- Language
- Also known as
- Oändlig kärlek
- Filming locations
- Production companies
- See more company credits at IMDbPro
Box office
- Gross US & Canada
- $195,170
- Opening weekend US & Canada
- $78,976
- Oct 6, 1996
- Gross worldwide
- $195,170
- Runtime
- 1h 59m(119 min)
- Color
- Sound mix
- Aspect ratio
- 1.66 : 1
Contribute to this page
Suggest an edit or add missing content