Genres

Visitors Review

Susan 2012-05-23 07:31:26

Some poor casting; air of mystery pulls it through

Andy Serkis was the biggest problem for me in this film. Because hespoke nothing like Einstein (whom I've often heard in clips)--andprojected nothing of the personality I've read about--that portion ofthe film really threw me off. Other actors have decided to neither takecoaching to speak like or change themselves to look like the famouscharacters they portrayed; but Serkis took that one step further bychanging his character's basic personality too--and often portrayedEinstein as a canny clownish elf! I felt the casting was a mistake, andthe acting was a throw-away. What a shame.David Tennant was fine, though. And discovering the laws of physics anddevelopment of what went on in the early years of the last century wasthrilling--if over-dramatic in some places.

SpitfireIXB 2012-05-22 18:20:21

It's All Relative!

Einstein and Eddington is a very entertaining TV movie: well written,with decent cinematography and above average acting. David Tennant andAndy Serkis give really good performances as the younger Eddington andEinstein respectively and the remainder of the cast are outstanding.That said, I would like to comment on the misconceptions aboutEddington's sexual preference and the ongoing debate about that. Whatsex has to do with the storyline is a mystery. Perhaps thehomosexuality hinted at in the movie is there to gain a wider audience.In any event, the movie's intimation about Eddington's sexuality andthe subsequent debate needs to be addressed. Everything I have read or was told about Arthur Stanley Eddingtonindicates that he was a painfully shy, genteel, devout Quaker and anactive pacifist whose sexual preferences are UNKNOWN. To suppose thatEddington, or any other male for that matter, is a homosexual becausethey never married or died young, is an exercise in jackass fallacy;probably the most stupid deduction I have ever heard proposed. Suchlogic would also make every woman who never married or died young alesbian. This is really dumb thinking, folks.Other posters and commentators have jumped on dialogue from the moviee.g., Eddington saying to his sister: "I really loved him!" as beingprima facie evidence that Eddington admitted to his sister that he wasa homosexual. First, for a person to declare that they love someone ofthe same sex, does not presume they are in a homosexual relationshipwith that person or that they are homosexual lovers. Second, peopleforget that these words were never said by Eddington himself and thatthey are actually just words put into an actor's mouth by a writer or adirector. The fact is Eddington's sexual preference is UNKNOWN. It wasnever mentioned, indicated or hinted at by Eddington, his sister, hisother family members, his friends or his colleagues at any time before,during or after his death. I don't understand the logic or rationalethat because he never mentioned it, confirms he must be a homosexual.If Eddington was a homosexual it would be most unusual for him not toindicate this in his personal papers because homosexuals almost alwaysleave behind some clear indication, or even proof, of their sexualpreference. I cannot think of one homosexual who didn't. And Eddingtondidn't. Claiming Eddington is a homosexual sounds like just a lot ofhomosexual wishful thinking to me.Sadly, this inference in the movie and subsequent debate really detersfrom the terrific story of Eddington's (definitely heterosexual andacademic) relationship with Einstein and the problems he encounteredtrying to prove Einstein's Theory of General Relativity. This moviewould have been more dramatic if the makers had pursued Eddington's(and Einstein's) endeavours to find a repeatable scientific methodexperiment which would prove the Theory of General Relativitysupersedes Newton's Theory of Gravity, as well as providing greaterdetail of the reactions of the German and English scientists and theirinter-relationships with Eddington and Einstein. Eddington's battlewith the Royal Society was monumental and went on for many years.Details of the science and the scientific debate would have made a moreexciting and interesting movie and far more satisfying than havingEddington's character race his bicycle along a road next to a train,with a strange expression on his face, in order to bid farewell to his(undeclared) lover. It's just silly. While the movie clearly hints atEddington's alleged homosexuality, it glosses over the Einstein'sheterosexual aberration in his courting and marrying his first cousin -she was a first cousin his mother's side and a second cousin on hisfather's side of the family, a double whammy which gives new meaning toEinstein's relativity! Then again, I'm thankful because it reallydoesn't belong nor does it add to the real story. If the drama of thescientific debate had been followed more vigorously, instead of raisingthe homosexuality red herring, this movie would have been better for itand far more interesting. People seem to focus more on Eddington'ssexual preferences than his (and Einstein's) genius and theirscientific breakthroughs and achievements. And that is a tragedy.Nevertheless, this is a very good movie that I enjoyed very muchdespite these shortcomings. Enjoy!Rating: 4/5 stars

gridsleep 2012-05-19 14:14:43

Science Rules

The best historical drama since Longitude, Einstein and Eddington notonly reveals the extraordinary political and emotional drama of a breakthrough moment in history, but shows that scientists are uniquelyhuman. It is science and art that elevate us above the banal and theanimal, and unites us in the common cause of the future. War is anaberration, like cancer. Truth is the only goal that is worthachieving. This film is a great and happy display of the supremacy oftruth and the real conquest of reality, not by force of arms but byforce of brains. As John Brunner wrote in his apocalyptic novel TheShockwave Rider, (according to Angus Porter) "This is the third stageof human social evolution. First we had the legs race. Then we had thearms race. Now we're going to have the brain race. ... And, if we'relucky, the final stage will be the human race." As long as there aremen like Eddington and Einstein, I do not have the slightest doubt thatthere will be a human race, and we can all be proud to be part of it.

thinker1691 2012-05-18 22:39:44

" If you believe my theory contradicts the laws of God, I feel sorry for God "

There are not too many films which accurately depict the personal livesof historical figures. Try as they may, secret human peculiaritieswhich are more readily acceptable or at least tolerated in our presentage, are seen as huge obstacles in years past. Case in point, this filmcalled " Einstein and Eddington " is only now surfacing to the Americanpublic and according to this reviewer, has done a masterful job. Thestory itself centers on two men of Genius who lived at the beginning ofthe Tweneith century. The first is Arthur Eddington (David Tennant) theBritish Mathematician and astrophysicist and German scientist AlbertEinstein (Andy Serkis, superb characterization). This film capturesboth the social and a bit of their personal lives before they becameknown to the world. Einstein is seen searching for answers to histheories concerning gravitational phenomenon and it's relationship tolight. Eddington is captivated by the scientific contradictions of thePlanet Mercury and Newtons calculations of its orbit. The result is thecommunication between The Englishman and the Swiss scientist, both ofwhom shrug off their nationalities in lieu of scientific truth. WithEddington dealing with his personal emotional ties to his secretadmiration and love for his dear friend William Marston, (PatrickKennedy), Einstein, deals with his wife Malava who confronts him withdivorce, due to his illicit affairs. Both men are seen in their momentsof contentment as well as dealing with their doubts and tragedies. Allin all, the movie is a great triumph for both actors and a notablemilestone for their accomplishment. Easilly recommended to anyone whowould like to peek into the personal lives of two men who shook theworld. ****

2012-05-10 09:59:31

Does A Banger Count As Schnitzel?

This film has had me hopping to see it ever since I saw that it had been released. David Tennant and Andy Serkis?? Too much to miss! Einstein is my idol, a lifelong study subject and his biography has been a labor of love.Well, Serkis as Einstein performs beautifully here, but DO NOT EXPECT AN EINSTEIN BIOGRAPHY. Here, expect a total of roughly 13-15 solid nonconsecutive minutes of Einstein running about Berlin. I tried to time it, and that's as close as I can get.So...we are left with David Tennant as Sir Arthur Eddington, and the story of his 1919 expedition to Africa, to photograph Mercury and the sun during the great eclipse. The story is not as compelling as one might expect: it is a subject worthy of a MAJOR motion picture, which this isn't. I mean, what is it with the monopoly HBO Pictures has on history lately??Serkis, whose voice is very rough and deep which alarms me, is a true delight in the brief near-cameo moments he has onscreen. His actions, personality and makeup reflect Einstein perfectly for the period. Many errors were inserted here as well regarding Einstein, but it plays out very smoothly.Eddington, who was apparently gay and was a devout Quaker (two things I didn't know) is fleshed out even less than Einstein--but I guess that reflects Eddington's real life. Science and religion were his two babies, and it's no wonder he faded into some obscurity...only Einstein wouldn't let him. Some of the last photos of Eddington are him posing with Einstein, and they remained fast friends.This is a good, passable film with lovely cinematography, dialogue and even great scenery. It made me giddy just to finally see something about Einstein on film, and I loved getting the feel for the whole Eddington expedition. Something maybe was missed by the viewer here, but this film also compares Eddington and Einstein as two lonely, struggling outsiders. Each has his own pains and humiliations to bear, and I loved the way Eddington's lonely gay sufferings compare with Einstein's pain as a philandering father.Last but never ever least is Jim Broadbent, looking very scary indeed and looking a good ten years younger than usual. The man grows a beard and BOOM!!--he's a whole other man. An actor like Broadbent is once-in-a-lifetime.As a customer, even with the Einstein lure, I cannot decide if I'll buy this film. Somehow it just doesn't seem to make the cut...and that distresses me. HBO Pictures has executed some marvels: JOHN ADAMS, TEMPLE among others. This film...well. something's amiss and I don't really know what it is.

ammk777 2012-05-09 11:11:23

A Great Movie , But....

This is one of the greatest scientific movie i have ever seen as itillustrates a scientific theory during the drama of the movie whichmakes you more concern to know more and more about how scientists livetheir life and how they face such hard obstacles in order to achievesuccess .Einstein is one of the greatest scientists ever and his theoryof relativity has changed it changed people's minds of what they werethinking about gravity . But , this movie contains sexy explicit sceneand passionate kisses , so it is not suitable for children as mentionedin parents guide . If you more concern about science , you will enjoythis movie a lot .

Framescourer 2012-05-05 05:49:43

Opulent but mushy public service docu-drama

Despite going to town on this well-intentioned project that marriesdrama, scientific explication and a smattering of other issues (whichorbit the event heliocentrically like the clanky model dominatingEddington's study), it really does feel terrible soppy. Everything is aseries of set pieces as well - in a post walk-n-talk world one mightexpect a little more economy. The problem is that the biggest drama isnot the War, the lover that dare not speak his name, the erosion offaith or Einstein's burgeoning interest in Schubert (all dealt with ina worn, conventional set pieces). No, the problem is all to do with thedry, literary nature of theoretical science. The script is the biggestoffender with Laboratoire Garner-style 'here comes the science!'moments. It's too easy to patronise an audience with the well-wornexposition technique of one character explaining what's going on toanother. The most effective sequence of this film is that in whichEinstein has his epiphany in the middle of oncoming traffic but nofurther mention is made of the incident, either in flashback ordialogue when Eddington is re-explaining it to his confidants.Luckily the performances are reasonable - the three world-class actors(Serkis, Broadbent and Jodhi May) manage performances that transcendTV. The big draw for the target audience though is casting the BBC'smad-scientist-superstar/lodestone David Tennant as Eddington. Tennantis a sympathetic Eddington, discovering his backbone and the cracks inconventional Newtonian physics simultaneously. The secondary cast aregood support, particularly Donald Sumpter as Max Planck. This is notCopenhagen, but it was never supposed to be (and it's well filmed).4/10

IMDbeans 2012-05-04 09:56:06

Easy viewing but lacked substance

Although this was easy and enjoyable to watch, the characters alllacked depth and the script in general was rather superficial,simplistic and ultimately unsatisfying. It could have been so muchmore, given the fascinating setting and the magnitude of the underlyingfacts. The science itself was almost completely omitted or dumbed down.It was disappointing that there was a rather cheap and unconvincingattempt at a religious 'miracle' as well as some one-dimensional andunnecessary politics. On the positive side, Cambidge university in theWWI era made for a pleasing backdrop and the actors' performances weredecent on the whole.

2012-05-02 06:47:49

no deep insight into the theory

firstly I must say, I hate this movie because the actor who played Einstein was not very good-looking. For me, a great admirer of Einstein, he is the most handsome man on this planet, his eyes are the most attractive of all. Yet the actor spoiled the charm of Einstein had by his overly big eyes. And his remarks in the film are not witty or insightful as the real Einstein's. For example, Einstein sat at the table with others, eating. Then he said, "there's no such thing as aether. Light travels at constant speed." So that's all about his discovery? the first thing to do is to mention some math!! without math you can never understand the principles of Einstein's theory thoroughly! although this is a film, not a schorlarly work, yet some math are necessary to give it a scientific atomsphere. In a nutshell, too little about science, too much about the person's life and events. Especially too many stuffs involved political issues (Both Eddington and Einstein) Also, it made me feel very uneasy to hear Einstein speak British English. The actor definitely couldn't imitate Einstein's sonorous German-accented English. A satisfactory film I think should show how Einstein thought, namely, the thinking process, or methods of thinking.PS:at the end there should be a mentioning that Eddington's measurement was highly inaccurate.

gray4 2012-05-01 12:36:18

Great actors, great story

This is a superb drama, combining a well-presented scientific andhistorical explication of Albert Einstein's theory of relativityalongside a gripping portrait of the moral dilemmas that scientistshave to struggle with as they try to reconcile the demands of countryand conscience.The twin leads –British scientist Arthur Eddington (David Tennant) andEinstein (Andy Serkis) – lead very different lives but face not onlysimilar scientific opposition and derision but also similar pressuresto back their country's efforts to win the First World War. Tennantshakes off the Dr Who expectations in pointing up the problems of a gaypacifist Quaker who tries to prove the new-fangled theories of 'enemy'scientist Einstein – a theory especially dangerous because itundermines the ordered view of the universe created by Englishscientist Isaac Newton. Einstein's complicated private life iscompounded by his revulsion at fellow scientists' work in developingpoison gas. Both Tennant and Serkis get right into the skin of theircharacters - two brilliant actors on top form.The drama brings over very effectively the transition from thecomfortable life of the scientists in pre-war Cambridge and Switzerlandto the tragedies of war. Jim Broadbent as Sir Oliver Lodge and DonaldSumpter as Max Planck lead the scientific establishments in Cambridgeand Berlin as they pervert their scientific beliefs to condone masskilling on a scale never before seen. The main female roles have ratherless to do, but Rebecca Hall as Eddington's sister, Lucy Cohu asEinstein's abandoned wife and Jodhi May as his mistress all add anextra warmth to the production and help to avoid the danger of focusingonly on clever men using symbols and formulae to bemuse theircolleagues (and the audience).The settings – Cambridge, Berlin and West Africa, where Eddingtonphotographed a total eclipse of the sun to prove the Einstein's theorywas right – provide a powerful backdrop to the human drama, making itall the more believable. All in all, a very successful and informativeBBC and HBO drama that maintains tension and excitement throughout.

dimplet 2012-04-27 10:19:08

BORING title, GREAT film!

What an extraordinary experience! Both Einstein and Eddington wrote numerous books for the generalpublic, and I read most of them when I was young. I was familiar withthe famous 1919 astronomical expedition to test Einstein's GeneralTheory of Relativity by measuring the position of Mercury during aneclipse, and even read old newspaper accounts from the archives,including the comments by Alfred North Whitehead. And I have read bookson the history of science.Yet I never knew about the context in which General Relativity wasdeveloped, both historical and personal. Now, in light of this program,it seems obvious: General Relativity was published in 1916, during thefirst World War. The Eddington expedition to measure Mercury occurredin 1919, shortly after the war ended. And yet, when we learn aboutscience we assume that it rises above politics and conflicts like warand national pride, as though existing in another world. What we see in Einstein and Eddington is that it does not. Politics andnational pride played central roles, and it is only through individualsresisting social pressure that it does, actually, rise above transientpolitical bias. Specifically, Britain's national pride was closely tiedwith Newtonian physics. Germany's national pride could be enhanced byhaving a scientist of their own overthrow Newton, namely Einstein. Butboth Eddington -- who, as director of the Cambridge Observatory wasviewed as a protector of Newton's law of gravity -- and Einsteinbelieved loyalty to scientific truth transcended national chauvinism. These principles were put to the test as much as Einstein's theoriesbecause of the ongoing war between Britain and Germany. In Eddington wehave a Quaker and true pacifist, and in Einstein we have a not terriblydevout Jew who also does not believe in war, and wrote pacifist essayslater in life. However, to say Einstein did not believe in God ismistaken, just not the anthropomorphic, personal God. This film bringsout the curious parallels between the two scientists. According to the film, it was a letter from Eddington prodding Einsteinto use his Theory of Special Relativity to explain the anomalous orbitof Mercury that put Einstein on the road to writing his Theory ofGeneral Relativity, published in 1916. An examination of the dates ofpublication of his works in the intervening years suggests this isprobably misleading -- say a literary device, though I am not sure; thechronology of events in the movie are vague. By 1911 he had alreadycalculated that light from a star would be bent by the sun's gravity --which was proved correct by Eddington's 1919 expedition. At any rate,Eddington should have had several other journal articles by Einstein toread. This simplification of the story can be forgiven because the film doessuch a good job of conveying for the layman several concepts ofrelativity, particularly gravity bending space. An intelligent personshould be able to follow this film. But a little more scientificcontext would have been helpful for novices.There are many layers to this film, one being the invention of weaponsby German scientists, which outrages both Einstein and Eddington'sBritish colleagues. Yet, Einstein's General Relativity laid thefoundation for the ultimate weapon.I'm not sure the film precisely captures the character of the youngEinstein, but it comes close. More recent biographies have told aboutEinstein's relations with women, and that he was sometimes, shall wesay, manipulative. So it is good to show him as a human being. He wasalways a non-conformist, especially in his later years, when he couldafford to be. The bit at the end with him going before the presslooking disheveled was silly, and the shot of him sticking out histongue was from many decades later. But chalk it up to literarylicense. I was also annoyed by the snide comment about Eddington's irrelevancyat the end of the film. Eddington did solid, respected science and wasvery famous, the Carl Sagan of his time. It's been a century since theperiod presented in this film, and few scientists remain householdnames that long. Eddington was an early astrophysicist and one of thefirst cosmologists, so he was a pioneer who laid the groundwork for somuch that we read about in the press today. It is a fine thing thisfilm brought him back into public view.It would have been nice if the actors could have pronounced MaxPlanck's name correctly. And why do the British kill animals on screenso often? It's very disturbing, especially for children.What really bugged me about Einstein and Eddington was the goofy camerawork by Julian Court. I can see hand holding the camera outside whilemoving, but inside while the actors are sitting at a table talking? Ifyou can't hold a camera steady, put it on a tripod! It sure looked likethey were jerking the camera up and down unnecessarily during staticscenes, unless the camera had Parkinson's. This is not MTV or youtube;it is not even one of those wacky National Geographic documentaries. This is an historical science drama, and it should have been treatedwith the appropriate polish. The jerky camera movement was distractingfrom the concentration needed to follow the ideas being presented.Aside from that, this docudrama really held my interest throughout. Soone point off for the camera work, one point off for killing animals;otherwise, a 10.Many of the works that Eddington and Einstein wrote for the layman arestill worth reading today, and do not require prior science courses.Eddington's honest examination of philosophical questions related toscience, particularly between consciousness and the physical universe,are still relevant. Eddington was among the best at explaining scienceand cosmology to the general public, and I think he would have beendelighted by this film.

tim floto 2012-04-26 21:40:23

A movie of contrasts.

As the title suggests, this movie is about two men. Albert Einstein andArthur Stanley Eddington. Einstein is light of heart, humorous, and abit flippant. Eddington is a serious and religious man, a quaker.Einstein has no idea, nor cares how to prove or demonstrate his theoryof gravity. Eddington works out an experiment using a telescope toobserve if starlight bends coming near a massive object, so he takeshis telescope to Africa to photograph a total solar eclipse. The storyalso highlights old guard science vs. a creativity. Neither English norGerman scientists are comfortable with Einstein's Relativity. In theend, both Eddington and Einstein are scientists and intellectuallyhonest. This the story of two very different men, trying to understandthe universe in their own ways. The science is only a prop for thestory.