Very very predictable, including the post credit scene !!!

Touches You

As Good As It Gets

The movie turns out to be a little better than the average. Starting from a romantic formula often seen in the cinema, it ends in the most predictable (and somewhat bland) way.

Michael Almereyda's Experimenter isn't what you would think it is. It is a documentary disguised as a movie that examines and experiments on the viewer through abstract story telling, bizarre imagery and personal quandaries. The film aims to tell us a very interesting story, but Experimenter always feels the need to remind us that we aren't as smart as the intellectuals showcased, making the audience feel considerably distanced. To start, the acting is pretty excellent overall. While I was never familiar with Stanley Milgram before, Peter Sarsgaard gave an incredibly intriguing performance as the sly social psychologist. He brought a surprising amount of depth to a character who would seemingly appear shallow. Winona Ryder also gave an excellent performance as Milgram's spouse. Her character serves as the audience's character as she is mostly unfamiliar with Milgram's work. She helps to reveal layers of humanity and emotion that we never expected from the icy and straight- faced Milgram. Even the sub-characters with minimal screen-time put in a great effort. Their small movements and facial expressions during the film's first experiment sequences are incredibly realistic and make these scenes totally engrossing.All the experiments shown and explained throughout the film are easily the film's best moments. These experiments and social predicaments are absolutely fascinating. They act as a vessel in which we can view raw human emotions and nature in unfamiliar and uncomfortable situations. Sadly, the film insists on making us feel like we are the ones being experimented on, which puts a considerable distance between the film and audience. Experimenter is a film about intellectuals and their need to put themselves above the public. The story shared with us is explained through abstract storytelling and some strange imagery, and many times throughout I couldn't shake the feeling that I was being pandered to. Experimenter becomes quite pretentious when it decides to abandon it's regular path of narrative and adopt a quirky and abstract style of storytelling. It isn't always like this though, but it does become quite obvious when the film thinks that it is so much smarter than it's audience. Experimenter manages to be entertaining most of the time, despite it's complicated and deep social psychology. But when Experimenter is bad, it's really bad. There are some stretches within the film that are completely dull and boring. These stretches are somewhat infrequent, but the entire film does take a hit when a narrative slump this massive shows up. Luckily, these parts aren't quite long enough to completely ruin the film, but they still are quite noticeable and unpleasant. The excellent acting and fascinating social experiments are more than enough to say that this film is enjoyable, but Experimenter doesn't bode too well when it so obviously sees the audience as below it.

This semi-documentary about Milgram's famous obedience experiments succeeds very well in its prime purpose to show the average layman what these experiments were all about and how they were actually performed. We see it all happening with our own eyes, in a clean laboratory-like environment with tape recorders all around, and witnesses (sometimes behind glass, other times in plain view) who record everything noteworthy as inherent part of the proceedings. When behind glass they proved very useful to throw some comments in our direction. On average, a consistent 65% of volunteers went to the end with lethal voltages administered, in spite of cries of pain and other alarming noises from the receiving side. These experiments are repeated with hundreds of volunteers of various backgrounds, races and sexes. Actual numbers may vary, but the 65% rule of thumb remains unchallenged.As a side benefit, Milgram's family life is included too. We see how he met his wife, and we see two children appear later on. The role of his wife is to add some elements potentially considered by the ideal viewer, like how women would behave in these experiments. After this suggestion is honored we see that it really makes no difference in the statistical outcome. The participation of his wife may attract people who avoid boring documentaries as a rule, and I think that it was a good idea to give her a visible role in the script to make it acceptable for a broader audience.Also adding a bit to the context where the above happened, is that we see fragments of Eichmann's trial shown on TV, that being a contemporary issue at the time (1961). We see and hear part of Eichmann's statement where he explicitly says that he was only following orders, and that everything he did was backed by his superiors. The link is obvious, and it may explain a lot of the hoopla around the publication of Milgram's experiments.Main protagonists in the experiment in the form of a role play are a "pupil" and a "teacher", the latter asking questions and punishing each wrong answer with electric shocks of increasing strength. Unnoticed by the teacher is that the pupil role is in fact played by a tape recorder, producing the actual cries of pain and requests for help. We also see that teacher and pupil shake hands afterwards, demonstrating that no one was actually severely wounded in the proceedings. The teacher assumes that the real purpose of the experiment lies in studying the pupil who has to learn under duress. But we know that the teacher actually has the main role in the play, while finding out how far someone will go in administering pain to the pupil on every wrong answer. The real pressure is actually coming from the laboratory-coated authority figure behind the teacher's back, who states to assume all responsibility and insists that the experiment is completed in full.At first I was wondering about the many scenes where Milgram speaks directly to us, the viewers, even during a social visit to a colleague (with respective wives), where he detaches himself from the conversation every now and then to make a point directly to us. It took some time to get used to this approach. In hindsight I prefer it very much above the traditional wise-crack voice-over that has become a nuisance in almost any documentary. There were two instances where Milgram was followed by an elephant while he spoke to us, peculiarly unnoticed by the others who walked around. I assume it refers to the proverbial "while elephant in the room", something that will be missed by viewers who are not well versed in the English language. Anyway, we get ample chance to hear Milgram explain that he himself was surprised by the results.The dramatized semi-documentary format serves its purpose, and succeeds very well in providing an overview of all arguments pro and con about these experiments, especially the controversial and thought provoking ones. Precisely this aspect is very important in my opinion, as it prevents our own objections from becoming manifest, most of these caused by lack of knowledge about the real circumstances and the real objectives of Milgram's experiments. As an illustration, we see other psychological experiments carried out, like people within a crowd staring above while we observe most bystanders following the example in spite of nothing interesting to see. We see another experiment in an elevator, where people feel uneasy when all others look in an opposite direction, and we see them inventing excuses to change their position to comply with the rest. On the other hand, some of the experiments failed in spite of their good intentions. As mentioned by Milgram himself on one occasion "Not all my ideas are brilliant". Nevertheless, the other experiments shown were all very interesting and new to me, but none was world shaking and none would ever arouse the level of controversy that his famous obedience experiments did.

A movie about the experiments on the human behaviour and for us, there's nothing in it but to study those characters along. This is more a documentary than the cheerful characters and the story with a twist. So forget it if you are looking for an entertainment film.Based on the true story of an American social psychologist Stanley Milgram. The film narrates the story of his controversial experiments and personal life that takes us back to the 60s. Not all the discoveries were accepted in its first revelation. Sometimes it takes time to realise its benefits like perhaps this one.The film was boring because it was a drama about an important turning point in the human psychology. So all the major parts of the story were just talking and it never required physical stretch from its characters like running and chasing around. If you're interested in psychology and its related stuffs, then you might like it.Besides, the romance was a small part of what the film was focused on as its title mentioned. It does not mean I dislike it for not enjoying. In fact, I would have rated it better only if it was a documentary film. But still I'm happy with the product. Overall a decent film with the decent performances.6/10

Trump. Note the timing of this movie, which questions how far people will go, if pushed by perceived authority and by the herd instinct, in persecuting or harming others. The references to Milgram's personal interest in the Holocaust bring us right up to date with our concerns about Trump (or, more exactly, the Trump-support groundswell). The questions become ever more crucial--why do people do things against their own morals and their own interests, and what can we do to prevent it? Eighty years after Nazi Germany was converting a population of normal people like you and me into murderous, hateful, hypocritical savages, we are watching another demagogue kick up the same trouble. The fact that the reminder of the film's political relevance (an elephant following Milgram around) is the very symbol of the party being perverted by Trump, is an amusing touch.