mj_wardlaw
Joined Jan 2014
Welcome to the new profile
Our updates are still in development. While the previous version of the profile is no longer accessible, we're actively working on improvements, and some of the missing features will be returning soon! Stay tuned for their return. In the meantime, the Ratings Analysis is still available on our iOS and Android apps, found on the profile page. To view your Rating Distribution(s) by Year and Genre, please refer to our new Help guide.
Badges2
To learn how to earn badges, go to the badges help page.
Reviews4
mj_wardlaw's rating
It all goes to show the power of Hollywoodification and some star glitz. I have just come here from submitting a review of Moore's "The Imitation Game", which I thought a fairly pathetic excuse of a historical drama, with some scenes at the level of adolescent petulance. Yet this movie currently enjoys an overall reviewer rating of 8.0, greater than the 7.3 provided by a mere 10 users to "Breaking the Code".
Well let me set the record straight that Breaking the Code may have been "just" a TV movie, and it may not have had an all-star cast, and it may not have contained ludicrous histrionics obviously fabricated by a facile writer, and it may not have been pushed upon the world with the full power of Hollywood's promotional machine. But for all that, it is a far, far better drama. It portrays Turing credibly, it describes how Enigma was broken in a simplified, but sensible way, it shows with sensitivity the effect on Turing of prosecution for homosexuality.
The Imitation Game has 719 user reviews, Breaking the Code has 11, including mine (shaking head with disgust).
On the plus side, the film captures well the spirit of adventure and headlong advance in aviation of the early 1950's, as seen in experimental jet aircraft screaming over the Royal Aircraft Establishment only a few years after the era of Spitfires and Hurricanes.
It also deserves credit for dramatising an arcane technical matter, aircraft fatigue. This film was made before the Comet disasters, and the public probably had little knowledge of the subject.
The biggest problem, in my view, is casting James Stewart as Dr Theo Honey (the "boffin" whose research forms the core of the plot). He just is not right for a character who in the book is described (on first acquaintance by Dr Scott) as "an ugly little man with a face like a frog". The film character is simply a cartoon cut-out of a scatterbrained intellectual with absolutely no scruples regarding the real-world implications of his research. Whereas in the book, Norway builds up Mr Honey's character much more subtly: Honey is all too acutely aware of the implications of his research, he tragically lacks the "front" to convince others of what his work means.
I thought the pilot, Captain Samuelson, was likewise coarsely drawn in the film relative to the book.
On the other hand, Marlene Dietrich cast as Monica Teasdale is pretty much spot-on. Jack Hawkins is fine as Scott, except he is Dr Scott in the book (i.e. a "normal" scientist) but Mr Scott in the film. I assume the writers were concerned a British audience at that time would have considered anyone with a PhD to be eccentric.
So, overall a flawed effort, and a pity as some of the cast were well placed, and the film was about engineering and technology, topics all too rarely tackled by cinema (unless Star Wars counts?)
It also deserves credit for dramatising an arcane technical matter, aircraft fatigue. This film was made before the Comet disasters, and the public probably had little knowledge of the subject.
The biggest problem, in my view, is casting James Stewart as Dr Theo Honey (the "boffin" whose research forms the core of the plot). He just is not right for a character who in the book is described (on first acquaintance by Dr Scott) as "an ugly little man with a face like a frog". The film character is simply a cartoon cut-out of a scatterbrained intellectual with absolutely no scruples regarding the real-world implications of his research. Whereas in the book, Norway builds up Mr Honey's character much more subtly: Honey is all too acutely aware of the implications of his research, he tragically lacks the "front" to convince others of what his work means.
I thought the pilot, Captain Samuelson, was likewise coarsely drawn in the film relative to the book.
On the other hand, Marlene Dietrich cast as Monica Teasdale is pretty much spot-on. Jack Hawkins is fine as Scott, except he is Dr Scott in the book (i.e. a "normal" scientist) but Mr Scott in the film. I assume the writers were concerned a British audience at that time would have considered anyone with a PhD to be eccentric.
So, overall a flawed effort, and a pity as some of the cast were well placed, and the film was about engineering and technology, topics all too rarely tackled by cinema (unless Star Wars counts?)