The premise attracted me to the movie, and kept me watching despite it's many issues. I tried to set aside the poor acting and dialog in hopes that the plot would develop into something more substantial - but it never did. The story line was thin with the same canned character types you have seen countless times before. As with all too many Sci- Fis, a clever concept was wasted and leaves you wondering what could have been done with it under different circumstances. As far as the production - it mostly had an amateurish feel. There appeared to be issues with the sound editing. That could possibly have been related to the streaming version I viewed. But I noticed several instances where the dialog seemed to be spliced together from different takes causing it to vary in volume from line to line. On the positive side, the special effects and imagery were executed fairly well considering the low production budget.
52 Reviews
as a whole, i didn't get it
phenomynouss5 May 2018
It is typical of me, a common lame-brained normal person with an active interest in science and physics but no real mastery of it, to savor these sorts of theoretical science type movies, especially when they experiment with quantum physics.
"Quantum physics" is to me, the common lame-brained normal etc, pure magic. I attempted a while ago to learn just some of the basics and it completely overwhelmed me and erased what ever little bit of it I did understand. It is demonic spooky magic.
This movie thankfully does not go very dense into the quantum, much in the way "Primer" went very dense into the mechanical engineering, and relies heavily on dumbing down the concepts for the audience a bit.
Despite that, while I was able to get ahold of and gain a clear understanding of most, if not all of the concepts dealt with in the film, when they all come together as a whole, I was just left confused.
The film itself made me hesitant to approach, as it was very clearly low budget. I've enjoyed many low budget movies, but typically since the vast majority of movies are done in 24 frames per second, and the vast majority of live television (including news, reality TV, talk shows) are done in 30 fps, making them look just slightly "faster" than movies.
this film seemed to be shot in some uneven mix of 30 fps and something a bit faster, giving it a look somewhere between a talk show and a soap opera. Despite this, the acting was amazingly decent all throughout and the concepts kept my interest long enough to actually enjoy much of the movie. There are some encounters with cliché storytelling, such as the "Off-beat science guy" who is very nearly thrown out by the protagonist due to a lie, placing the entire concept of the film at risk.
Other reviews detail probably in greater detail and understanding what they attempted many times to explain using the term "membranes". The impression I got was something reminiscent of multiple universes, but somehow different, especially later on in the film when they make a startling slight revelation which changes the way they should approach it.
Up to the climax, I had a firm grasp of what was happening. When the business with the protagonist and the professor unfolded, I had a shaky grasp of what was happening. When it got to the "epilogue" portion, I completely lost it.
"Quantum physics" is to me, the common lame-brained normal etc, pure magic. I attempted a while ago to learn just some of the basics and it completely overwhelmed me and erased what ever little bit of it I did understand. It is demonic spooky magic.
This movie thankfully does not go very dense into the quantum, much in the way "Primer" went very dense into the mechanical engineering, and relies heavily on dumbing down the concepts for the audience a bit.
Despite that, while I was able to get ahold of and gain a clear understanding of most, if not all of the concepts dealt with in the film, when they all come together as a whole, I was just left confused.
The film itself made me hesitant to approach, as it was very clearly low budget. I've enjoyed many low budget movies, but typically since the vast majority of movies are done in 24 frames per second, and the vast majority of live television (including news, reality TV, talk shows) are done in 30 fps, making them look just slightly "faster" than movies.
this film seemed to be shot in some uneven mix of 30 fps and something a bit faster, giving it a look somewhere between a talk show and a soap opera. Despite this, the acting was amazingly decent all throughout and the concepts kept my interest long enough to actually enjoy much of the movie. There are some encounters with cliché storytelling, such as the "Off-beat science guy" who is very nearly thrown out by the protagonist due to a lie, placing the entire concept of the film at risk.
Other reviews detail probably in greater detail and understanding what they attempted many times to explain using the term "membranes". The impression I got was something reminiscent of multiple universes, but somehow different, especially later on in the film when they make a startling slight revelation which changes the way they should approach it.
Up to the climax, I had a firm grasp of what was happening. When the business with the protagonist and the professor unfolded, I had a shaky grasp of what was happening. When it got to the "epilogue" portion, I completely lost it.
Fancy words out of a science dictionary a good film does not make.
puzzledresearcher25 February 2017
Warning: Spoilers
Sadly, Einstein's God Model is on the whole less than the sum of the parts.
Most seriously, it suffers from some amateurish direction and simple camera work. The acting is not very inspiring, though I suspect the actors could have come off better if they had a more reasonable script and direction.
The script writer(s) put in dialogue that makes it clear that the worlds they use like "M theory" are not really understood. "String theory", "M theory", and the like are just magical phrases as far as this movie is concerned.
I applaud an effort to dramatize the loss of death, but this film should have been so much more than its final incarnation.
Most seriously, it suffers from some amateurish direction and simple camera work. The acting is not very inspiring, though I suspect the actors could have come off better if they had a more reasonable script and direction.
The script writer(s) put in dialogue that makes it clear that the worlds they use like "M theory" are not really understood. "String theory", "M theory", and the like are just magical phrases as far as this movie is concerned.
I applaud an effort to dramatize the loss of death, but this film should have been so much more than its final incarnation.
Really drives home the idea that outside their field, scientists are truly MORONS
The_Melancholic_Alcoholic17 February 2017
{and by the way: It's "does not a good film make", NOT "a good film does not make"}
So, this is yet another dime-a-dozen movie about people who can't deal with the death of someone they love. This time, it's not fantasy, it's not religion, it's science that is supposed to give us the answer of what happens after we die. But the filmmakers are hiding behind renowned names of science, Einstein, Bohr and others. They tell us that Edison, who was definitely NOT a scientist, had some whacky ideas about the afterlife. Drunk on his success as a mechanics guy/repairman, with an ego as big as a house, Edison imagined that he would have had meaningful things to say on the afterlife, too. Goes to show you what too much religious whack stuff will do to one, if it gets mixed up with mechanics. But if you're good at ballroom dancing, that doesn't mean you can do ballet too, let alone surgery, painting or accounting. This is the basic flaw in American culture: the notion that people who are rich, automatically can speak to other fields and professions too. As if a salesman (of .... used cars?) could have deeper insight into cancer research.
Oh well.
The Melancholic Alcoholic. 2/10
So, this is yet another dime-a-dozen movie about people who can't deal with the death of someone they love. This time, it's not fantasy, it's not religion, it's science that is supposed to give us the answer of what happens after we die. But the filmmakers are hiding behind renowned names of science, Einstein, Bohr and others. They tell us that Edison, who was definitely NOT a scientist, had some whacky ideas about the afterlife. Drunk on his success as a mechanics guy/repairman, with an ego as big as a house, Edison imagined that he would have had meaningful things to say on the afterlife, too. Goes to show you what too much religious whack stuff will do to one, if it gets mixed up with mechanics. But if you're good at ballroom dancing, that doesn't mean you can do ballet too, let alone surgery, painting or accounting. This is the basic flaw in American culture: the notion that people who are rich, automatically can speak to other fields and professions too. As if a salesman (of .... used cars?) could have deeper insight into cancer research.
Oh well.
The Melancholic Alcoholic. 2/10
Better Than Flatliners
Kev11sky4 June 2018
This indie film is just plain fun. Sure, it's amateurish, but...
It mentions some real ideas in physics (past and present) -- GUF theory; quantum theory; string theory; membranes; etc.
It includes some actual history about Thomas Edison.
It names some real physicists -- Einstein (obviously), Tesla, Bohr, etc. (check out the opening credits!)
The props (early electronic devices) look authentic.
One of the writers seems to have a medical background -- some nice details.
Given the film's limited budget, the special effects are pretty good.
The acting is good enough to carry the plot.
I would compare this movie favorably to the first "Flatliners" film (I haven't seen the recent remake).
Watch it and judge for yourself.
It mentions some real ideas in physics (past and present) -- GUF theory; quantum theory; string theory; membranes; etc.
It includes some actual history about Thomas Edison.
It names some real physicists -- Einstein (obviously), Tesla, Bohr, etc. (check out the opening credits!)
The props (early electronic devices) look authentic.
One of the writers seems to have a medical background -- some nice details.
Given the film's limited budget, the special effects are pretty good.
The acting is good enough to carry the plot.
I would compare this movie favorably to the first "Flatliners" film (I haven't seen the recent remake).
Watch it and judge for yourself.
Can I give it negative stars?
green-randi25 May 2020
My 2 cents. Worth checking out.
phljohnson-6334514 May 2017
Very well done for the budget.
PROs: Very original premise and sticks with you longer after the credits have rolled. Beautiful special effects - honestly much better than the rest of the production.
CONS: Some clever humor, but also some very clunky science exposition. Cinematography wildily uneven - at times gorgeous and at times very amateur. Performances were pretty rough in spots. Better casting would have helped.
All in all, this gets an A for effort and a B- for execution. If you like science, especially theoretical physics, you won't be disappointed! Also, LOVE the Chicago shots!
PROs: Very original premise and sticks with you longer after the credits have rolled. Beautiful special effects - honestly much better than the rest of the production.
CONS: Some clever humor, but also some very clunky science exposition. Cinematography wildily uneven - at times gorgeous and at times very amateur. Performances were pretty rough in spots. Better casting would have helped.
All in all, this gets an A for effort and a B- for execution. If you like science, especially theoretical physics, you won't be disappointed! Also, LOVE the Chicago shots!
Harder Science-Fiction
wmedia1 May 2019
An enjoyable indie ride with some interesting ideas about quantum physics and reality. Gets points for not dumbing down the science. Yes of course it feels indie and low budget in some places, but that's because it is indie and low budget. This should be kept in perspective when rating.
Worth the Watch!
helterbrane23 July 2017
Although full of sub par acting Einstein's God Model addresses the question of what happens after we die in a way I have never seen before. Its use of complex ideas such as String theory, M-theory and the God Model made this a fascinating watch. This film puts these complex ideas into words everyone can understand and does a great job of keeping you on your toes. It will definitely make you think!
What a pretentious pile of crap
pkpera19 May 2019
This is really something poorest in term of intelligence I seen in my entire life.
And saddest thing is that there is people buying this kind of pseudo Sci-fi .
Then, nothing original was in whole movie. We seen it all.
Reminded me on movie 'American Side' - where Tesla's name was abused, but that was at least 100 smarter, while still was stoopid :-)
Main 'hero' was reckless while driving, and he deserved jail - but authors 'cleverly' skipped that part totally and focused on his and others effort to connect with ...
They needed to use some at least 80 years old electric devices, done by T.A. Edison self - sure, it would still work, because Edison was genius :-) And worst part: they abused other famous physicist, inventor names from early 20-th Century: Niels Bohr, Tesla, and of course: Einstein. Who worked on some serious things, problems, not like what was here ...
What was at the ending ? Some blurred mumbling and CGI . I think that nobody cared at that point already, including authors :-)
Main 'hero' was reckless while driving, and he deserved jail - but authors 'cleverly' skipped that part totally and focused on his and others effort to connect with ...
They needed to use some at least 80 years old electric devices, done by T.A. Edison self - sure, it would still work, because Edison was genius :-) And worst part: they abused other famous physicist, inventor names from early 20-th Century: Niels Bohr, Tesla, and of course: Einstein. Who worked on some serious things, problems, not like what was here ...
What was at the ending ? Some blurred mumbling and CGI . I think that nobody cared at that point already, including authors :-)
Yaawwwwwwwwwnnnnn
Snootz18 March 2019
A badly-written snoozer based on a tired cliche of a plotline, but then it does move slowly so the audience can pick up every. single. nuance. of. concept.
Seriously, this is poor science, not to mention a foundation premise that has been done to death (accept or disregard the pun, as your string theory allows). This really does just drag along then leaves the viewer without resolution or closure. The ending is vague and anti-climatic. This film won't suck you in; it just... well, it's not good. Blase acting, slow, slow premise, nice special effects if you like smoke in water.
Some people call this cerebral. I call it an assault to thinking viewers. You may want to watch something with far more substance, like maybe a Scooby Doo episode.
Seriously, this is poor science, not to mention a foundation premise that has been done to death (accept or disregard the pun, as your string theory allows). This really does just drag along then leaves the viewer without resolution or closure. The ending is vague and anti-climatic. This film won't suck you in; it just... well, it's not good. Blase acting, slow, slow premise, nice special effects if you like smoke in water.
Some people call this cerebral. I call it an assault to thinking viewers. You may want to watch something with far more substance, like maybe a Scooby Doo episode.
A for effort......actually, no, C for effort.
jsgoudy14 June 2020
Objectively the aggregate score for this film, based in the it's amateur-ish at best execution, should be no higher then a 4 but I'mma be nice and give it 5 because it does at least name drop some legitimate science even if it doesn't necessarily use said science in a legitimate fashion. If you stick with the film past the horrendous 1st act you will be rewarded with a slightly better and at least commendably less embarrassing conclusion.
Almost didn't. Glad I did.
scrapsuzy18 November 2019
I read one review here and we almost didn't keep watching. Definitely a low budget film. But except for the apartment scenes, you don't feel it so much. Glad I read more reviews and kept watching. It was much better than the first 5 review. Enjoyable Enough and interesting for sure. Don't let the first 15 minutes or so stop you, or the reviews that are below a 7 here. There is a reason the average is 7.
Einsteins God Model is a story of a man who tries to reconnect with his wife after she dies.
hebbasubuh27 July 2017
Einsteins God Model has a very interesting plot line with a lot of potential. I believe if this film was redone it could be very successful. Einsteins God Model had weak acting in it. abbey's death was not believable at all. When Brayden and the physicists were using the God Model Project, it looked very silly and exaggerated it didn't seem like they were actually connecting to another universe. The opening and ending scenes with Abbey sitting at someone's gravestone then Jenni sitting at Abbeys grave was an intelligent idea and displayed the theme well.
Break On Through To The Other Side!
TheAll-SeeingI14 November 2019
"Einstein's God Model" is a terrifically conceived and shrewdly executed piece of sci-fi storytelling, applying theory from science's greatest historical figures to our existential quest for proof of consciousness beyond our earthly lives. This is a film that very admirably and consistently doses the brain with a full buffet of cranial course load -- Edison and Tesla join Einstein not only in the film's credits scroll (nice touch), but in the storytelling's pursuit of the notion that we may live on post-mortem in the soul's more modernized reclassification as an enduring electromagnetic field. Sold!
Brayden (Aaron Graham) is a young anesthesiologist. His fiancé has recently passed. Alone in his grief, he yearns for a metaphysical reunion, and attempts to actualize it by seeking out a physicist pursuing contact with the dead. It turns out that the physicist, too, has shuffled off this mortal coil, but his widow gifts Brayden a laboratory contraption built by the great Thomas Edison himself, who was once in similarly hot pursuit of these same epiphanies.
For the existentialist living for that final moment when life gives way to the ultimate answers, "Einstein's God Model" is pure exploratory bliss. The fascinating abundance of science seamlessly woven into its elite storytelling doesn't just adequately acquit itself; it's indeed the film's key strength, evoking contemplation at the highest levels while giving way to some thoroughly riveting crescendos. "Einstein's God Model" comes heavily recommended, and particularly for those in constant query of whatever the beyond may (or may not) look like. - (Was this review of use to you? If so, let me know by clicking "Helpful." Cheers!)
Brayden (Aaron Graham) is a young anesthesiologist. His fiancé has recently passed. Alone in his grief, he yearns for a metaphysical reunion, and attempts to actualize it by seeking out a physicist pursuing contact with the dead. It turns out that the physicist, too, has shuffled off this mortal coil, but his widow gifts Brayden a laboratory contraption built by the great Thomas Edison himself, who was once in similarly hot pursuit of these same epiphanies.
For the existentialist living for that final moment when life gives way to the ultimate answers, "Einstein's God Model" is pure exploratory bliss. The fascinating abundance of science seamlessly woven into its elite storytelling doesn't just adequately acquit itself; it's indeed the film's key strength, evoking contemplation at the highest levels while giving way to some thoroughly riveting crescendos. "Einstein's God Model" comes heavily recommended, and particularly for those in constant query of whatever the beyond may (or may not) look like. - (Was this review of use to you? If so, let me know by clicking "Helpful." Cheers!)
SyFy channel school of directing, editing and acting.
theoearly24 June 2019
Warning: Spoilers
The opening scenes made me think I had just found another "Primer" even better. The clever use of eminent scientists in the opening credits seems wasted now. The the acting began and hope dwindled. They had a great idea with poor execution I think. I'm not a film expert but this doesn't feel right. It's like a diet soda compared to the real thing. All the elements are there but it's just off and never seems right. Some of the effects are really well done. And some of them are worse than a PS2 game. The real problem is the actors I think. Maybe the editing. It has that soap opera feel and in high definition it just makes it worse. The way Abbey dies is silly like a Rube Goldberg nightmare or something from final destination that ended up on the floor. There is an upside to this film, it gets you thinking. And that's why I gave it stars. There is enough here for a cerebral snack of mystical-science. As a science geek the string theory and quantum theory elements are interesting but come across as silly and magical.
As I said there is something for the mind here, but you have to overlook a lot of chaff to find some grain. If you let your brain fill in the gaps this could be good. It probably should have been a book.
Eerily entertaining.......
byron-11623 January 2020
As a medical provider and physics student
itrevorallen17 April 2020
I would like to start this with a few credentials I am an ex-Paramedic and current bachelors or Physics / Chemistry student. This movie is very interesting. No, the effects are not top notch nor is the acting. However, the movie does a fantastic job at mixing factual knowledge we know about particle physics (of which they over used the word "quantum" like all Hollywood movies) and theoretical physics.
*** It is important to note string theory and quantum entanglement are not proven to be factual entirely. ***
But to even attempt the subject and come up with a film that makes sense to most viewers takes extreme talent. No easy task. I'm curious where the directors / producers obtained their props. The ET tubes, propofol, magnetic field sims, micro transformers were all real (or at least so close to it I could tell no difference). Some of these things are very impossible to come by outside of an anesthesia related field.
Overall Im thoroughly impressed with the film.
Will likely watch it again, though I do not feel it fair that one requires 6+ years of difficult education to comprehend the premise well.
*** It is important to note string theory and quantum entanglement are not proven to be factual entirely. ***
But to even attempt the subject and come up with a film that makes sense to most viewers takes extreme talent. No easy task. I'm curious where the directors / producers obtained their props. The ET tubes, propofol, magnetic field sims, micro transformers were all real (or at least so close to it I could tell no difference). Some of these things are very impossible to come by outside of an anesthesia related field.
Overall Im thoroughly impressed with the film.
Will likely watch it again, though I do not feel it fair that one requires 6+ years of difficult education to comprehend the premise well.
Love this movie!
mdrebay9 May 2017
Saw it at Comicon (where it won best picture) and so excited to discover it got distribution! Not your typical indie sci-fi. Thoughtful and complex science with mesmerizing special effects. Minus one star for inconsistent camera-work and a few less than stellar performances. Still for the budget, it's pretty impressive. Sequel please!
A new twist on string theory.
phljohnson-534299 May 2017
Warning: Spoilers
Very much enjoyed this film. Took a chance on it for no other reason than the cool poster, and was not disappointed. If you like theoretical physics, you'll enjoy the way it's applied here (even if it does at times stretch the bounds of believability). If science isn't you're thing (i.e.my wife), there's still much to like with fun characters and a tragic love story. The sfx are pretty mind blowing for a low budget film. Minus two stars for uneven acting and too much expositional dialog. Neither a deal breaker though.
EINSTEIN'S GOD MODEL exposes you to real scientific theories and isn't boring!
ryanbartongrimley6 January 2018
EINSTEIN'S GOD MODEL exposes you to real scientific theories and isn't boring! I love the script here and the writer is obviously passionate about the material. I also really liked the performances and the overall feel of the film. Sure, it's low-budget, but it's unique and different. I mean no studio would make a film that deals with these things, so that alone makes it worth it for me. Add some really entertaining smart dialogue and performances and I'm sold!
Great universe bending love story
williamgway21 February 2021
A good little tale that uses string theory and other multi-universe theories into a sci fiction film. Pretty good acting and keeps you guessing. The special effects are pretty good for the imagined budget and I would recommend for a little escapism.
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
