Thought the casting on Cumberbatch's behalf was odd as he doesn't resemble nor act as you would suspect Edison to act (on the uncharacteristic side). Others in the cast seemed right. I've read where people argued the story-line of the movie vs. actual, and I've done a lot of reading on Edison and Tesla and actually found it very close.. plus the AC vs. DC rivalry with Westinghouse (including electrocution) to be VERY accurate. The story doesn't have a lot of "wow" to it (like a fictitious story would), but considering it based on real-life, it felt right. Oddly, the focus seemed to be heavy on Edison, yet the aspect of the story with Edison/Westinghouse truly MAKING AC work (and the person truly on the "shaft end of the stick") was Tesla!! The characterization of Tesla really left a massive untold story of pure genius receiving the most unfair treatment (though touched upon). YES.. Edison DID tell him he'd pay him a huge amount if he could figure out the problem.. and YES.. Edison did say "he was joking" (as in real life). It mentions Edison's venture into film, but if the film makers wanted to tell a more interesting story about Edison, it might be about his film work and competition with the Lumière brothers (the two brothers who actually were the real leaders of motion pictures. There are horror stories of Edison hiring hit men to show up where people were filming with Lumière film equipment to beat them up and destroy the equipment. Edison is portrayed a bit of a victim in this movie, but it seems that he really was anything BUT that. It seems that whoever wrote the screen play or story didn't know enough about Tesla to really portray him as the real victim he was, nor recognize Edison's very underhanded way of sometimes doing things. The film points out (justifiably) that often people credited with inventions are really just the person getting the last development in (not truly the original inventor). I'd LOVE to see Scorsese do a complete story focused on Tesla. THAT'S the REAL story here!
246 Reviews
Since when do we complain that a movie is about the WRONG story???
blanche-225 April 2020
The reviews for "The Current War" make me tired.
This is NOT the story of Nikolas Tesla. This is, in fact, an accurate depiction of Westinghouse vs. Edison and the AC vs. direct current. As far as what I've read, the story, though a dramatization, is a decent telling of this.
Reviews here say oh, Tesla got the short end of the stick. Yes, he did, and the movie certainly indicates this. And by taking the focus off of him, one certainly sees that yes, he was an unsung hero. But the story is about Westinghouse and Edison fighting for AC vs. DC. If you want to do a story about Tesla, make your own movie. This is NOT about the invention of the AC. Hello.
Another criticism of this film is that Edison is shown as a victim. I don't know if that was the intention, but if it was, they missed. I certainly didn't think he was a victim. Yes, there was a great tragedy in his life, but he was pretty darned ruthless when it came to trying to destroy Westinghouse. Ruthless and unfair. He was that way in many of his business dealings, including going up against the Lumiere brothers in the invention of motion pictures.
I thought the film was beautifully photographed, I liked the music, and I thought some of the dialogue was very beautiful and emotional, particularly the monologues of Tesla and Edison. The acting was superb. And to me anyway it was evident that Tesla got the shaft big time. Except that's not the story.
I found The Current War fascinating, and it made me want to learn more about all three men.
One thing that's always been true - it's never the person who thinks of an invention or even invents something -- the star of the show is ALWAYS the person who commercializes it.
To criticize a film because it's not what you think it should be about, frankly, is ridiculous. Even more ridiculous - people who get their history from movies instead of using them as steppingstones to learn more about the actual story. Elisha Gray invented the telephone. So did Antonio Meucci. So did Johann Philipp Reis. While we're at it, why don't we do a film about Joseph Swan and John Wellington Starr and their work on the lightbulb before Edison. They probably all deserve movies, but they don't belong in this film, which is the story of Westinghouse versus Edison.
This is NOT the story of Nikolas Tesla. This is, in fact, an accurate depiction of Westinghouse vs. Edison and the AC vs. direct current. As far as what I've read, the story, though a dramatization, is a decent telling of this.
Reviews here say oh, Tesla got the short end of the stick. Yes, he did, and the movie certainly indicates this. And by taking the focus off of him, one certainly sees that yes, he was an unsung hero. But the story is about Westinghouse and Edison fighting for AC vs. DC. If you want to do a story about Tesla, make your own movie. This is NOT about the invention of the AC. Hello.
Another criticism of this film is that Edison is shown as a victim. I don't know if that was the intention, but if it was, they missed. I certainly didn't think he was a victim. Yes, there was a great tragedy in his life, but he was pretty darned ruthless when it came to trying to destroy Westinghouse. Ruthless and unfair. He was that way in many of his business dealings, including going up against the Lumiere brothers in the invention of motion pictures.
I thought the film was beautifully photographed, I liked the music, and I thought some of the dialogue was very beautiful and emotional, particularly the monologues of Tesla and Edison. The acting was superb. And to me anyway it was evident that Tesla got the shaft big time. Except that's not the story.
I found The Current War fascinating, and it made me want to learn more about all three men.
One thing that's always been true - it's never the person who thinks of an invention or even invents something -- the star of the show is ALWAYS the person who commercializes it.
To criticize a film because it's not what you think it should be about, frankly, is ridiculous. Even more ridiculous - people who get their history from movies instead of using them as steppingstones to learn more about the actual story. Elisha Gray invented the telephone. So did Antonio Meucci. So did Johann Philipp Reis. While we're at it, why don't we do a film about Joseph Swan and John Wellington Starr and their work on the lightbulb before Edison. They probably all deserve movies, but they don't belong in this film, which is the story of Westinghouse versus Edison.
It could use some help but overall I found it good.
lenakicu26 May 2020
Contrary to most of the reviews I saw on this title, I actually really enjoyed the film. I generally am not one to watch historical films, but I made an exception for this one.
I found the acting great, as they portrayed their characters and their feelings in a convincing yet not overwhelming manner. I also found the direction beautiful from the beginning to the end of the film (the lamp scene in the first few minutes,the hotel Tesla stayed in and so on).
Something else I need to note, is the fact that they did not try to sugar coat Edison's character and Tesla's naivity and did not portray Westinghouse as the good guy. They gave the oportunity to the viewers to make up their minds for themselves when it comes to whom they support - if the choose to support anyone.
I feel like they did not pay enough attention to a few historical events and skipped a few crucial parts of the story. I wish they actually gave Tesla the recognition he deserved, but I do understand that a film can not possibly fit the entire story without becoming up mundane.
There were moments that the movie started to become a little tiring, which caused me to lose my focus, but they managed to save it by adding some more exciting scenes in between.
In conclusion, I thought it was a good movie, but I wouldn't recommend it to someone who doesn't really care about the subject. It would be a nice addition to a physics class though, if the teacher is willing and prepared to give some further information on some parts that weren't covered thoroughly or at all.
I found the acting great, as they portrayed their characters and their feelings in a convincing yet not overwhelming manner. I also found the direction beautiful from the beginning to the end of the film (the lamp scene in the first few minutes,the hotel Tesla stayed in and so on).
Something else I need to note, is the fact that they did not try to sugar coat Edison's character and Tesla's naivity and did not portray Westinghouse as the good guy. They gave the oportunity to the viewers to make up their minds for themselves when it comes to whom they support - if the choose to support anyone.
I feel like they did not pay enough attention to a few historical events and skipped a few crucial parts of the story. I wish they actually gave Tesla the recognition he deserved, but I do understand that a film can not possibly fit the entire story without becoming up mundane.
There were moments that the movie started to become a little tiring, which caused me to lose my focus, but they managed to save it by adding some more exciting scenes in between.
In conclusion, I thought it was a good movie, but I wouldn't recommend it to someone who doesn't really care about the subject. It would be a nice addition to a physics class though, if the teacher is willing and prepared to give some further information on some parts that weren't covered thoroughly or at all.
It's a shame
crnoglavacmilos26 June 2019
Hollywood always makes movies that represents Americans (or in this case born-American-capitalist) as a heros, whether that's true or not...Real hero in this "current war" is undoubtedly biggest mind in history of humankind - Serbian scientist Nikola Tesla, who's totally sidelined in America's educational system, while Edison (who stole from him) is a God...This movie doesn't help...Sportswise saying, it's like it you're comparing Jusein Bolt and Justin Gatlin...First one is obviously the best, second one is two-times (caught!!!) cheater, but he's an American, so I doubt that in, say, 15 years from now, if Hollywood decides to make movie about their rivalry, Gatelin would be shown as a villain...I really hope that some day someone will make movie that Tesla really deserves.
Well acted and reasonably engaging, although there's a significant disconnect between form and content
Bertaut19 August 2019
Filmed between December 2016 and March 2017, when The Current War debuted in a near-completed form at TIFF in September 2017, it was considered a major contender for the 2018 Academy Awards. Scheduled for a prime awards-season release on December 22, and with a number of heavyweight producers (Timur Bekmambetov, Basil Iwanyk, Harvey Weinstein) and executive producers (Martin Scorsese, Bob Weinstein, Steven Zaillian), the film was to be distributed by The Weinstein Company, with Harvey in particular known for his ruthlessly efficient Oscar campaigns. He was overseeing the assemblage of the final cut in October when he was accused of sexual assault and rape by numerous women, and when he abandoned the project, the November release was shelved. Little more was heard of the film until October 2018, when Lantern Entertainment (which had acquired The Weinstein Company's assets) and 13 Films brokered a deal to co-distribute the film internationally in July 2019. Then, in April of this year, 101 Studios announced they would handle a limited release in North America in October, whilst director Alfonso Gomez-Rejon revealed he had re-edited the film, adding five additional scenes but trimming the overall run time by 10 minutes.
So is it worth the wait? Well, it's competently acted, reasonably entertaining, and moderately informative, but...it definitely won't be involved in the 2020 Oscars. It's certainly not as bad as a lot of critics (most of them reviewing the TIFF cut) have made out, but there's no denying that Gomez-Rejon over-directs the whole thing. If you listen to Paul Haggis's commentary track on Crash (2004) he tells a story about a scene which was filmed to begin with an elaborate camera move via a crane transitioning into a dolly shot. In the final film, however, all of that is gone, and Haggis explains that he realised during the edit that the camera moves were unjustified, doing little but drawing attention to themselves. A lot of The Current War's aesthetic draws attention to itself, primarily because Gomez-Rejon's elaborate direction is so out of sync with Michael Mitnick's by-the-numbers script - like a screenplay intended for Michael Bay ended up being directed by Michael Mann. Although make no mistake, Gomez-Rejon is no Mann.
Telling the story of the "war of the currents", the film opens in New Jersey in 1880 as the pioneer of the long-lasting electric light bulb, Thomas Edison (Benedict Cumberbatch proving once again that he can't do an American accent), stages a typically grandiose demonstration of the power of large-scale low-voltage direct current (DC). Meanwhile, George Westinghouse (an characteristically non-psychotic Michael Shannon, the inventor of the railway air brake, begins to consider that the way of the future is in electricity. However, he sees flaws in DC, and so favours high-voltage alternating current (AC), using transformers to step down the voltage. Edison's is the safer of the two systems, but so too is it more expensive, with a limited range compared to AC. The rest of the film takes place over the next 13 years as the two men come into direct conflict in the "race to light America", culminating in 1893 as each attempt to secure the contract for the Chicago World's Fair.
Edison and Westinghouse are opposite examples of the nature of success in an American free-market prospering during a period of immense technological innovation. Edison is aware of and addicted to his celebrity, a visionary enamoured of his own genius, convinced that he and he alone has the mental capacity to achieve success. He's also portrayed as a poor husband and father, and a lousy boss. On the other hand, the more stable, less flamboyant Westinghouse is devoted to his wife, values his collaborators, has no interest in fame, and doesn't even see Edison as competition, believing they should be working together.
The most immediately notable aspect of The Current War, however, is its aesthetic, specifically Gomez-Rejon's direction. Watching the film, I was reminded of Adrian Martin's 1992 article, "Mise-en-scène is dead, or the expressive, the excessive, the technical and the stylish", in which he divides mise-en-scène into three broad categories: classical ("in which there is a definite stylistic restraint at work"), expressive ("general strategies of colour coding, camera viewpoint, sound design and so on enhance or reinforce the general "feel" or meaning of the subject matter"), and mannerist ("performs out of its own trajectories, no longer working unobtrusively at the behest of the fiction"). Whilst I would posit that The Current War lands somewhere between the expressive and mannerist styles, it definitely lies closer to mannerist, rather than the synergy between form and content found in the work of most expressive filmmakers (one of Martin's examples of which is the aforementioned Michael Mann).
Some of Gomez-Rejon's aesthetic choices are definitely justified, arising directly from the content and serving a clear thematic purpose, but a lot are in service of nothing but themselves. An early example of a justified decision is when the camera pans up from Edison's New Jersey demonstration and travels to Westinghouse's Pittsburgh home in what is made to appear a single shot, connecting the two men, not just in terms of geography, but also ideology. Another shot, shooting directly down on Edison's elaborate circular light demonstration, also works well, instantly showing us his ambition and theatricality, plus the effectiveness of the demonstration. Once we reach Pittsburgh, a lengthy single-take shot introduces us to Westinghouse as he weaves his way through a throng of guests at a ball, with virtually everyone trying to catch his attention. This establishes him as a man of influence and considerable reach, but one who abhors the spotlight. In a later scene, Gomez-Rejon shoots Edison and his family in a train carriage using a fisheye lens. With Edison on one seat and his wife and two children facing him, the wide lens distorts the space between them unnaturally, mirroring the important theme of Edison neglecting his family in pursuit of his goals.
On the other hand, some of his choices are extremely hard to rationalise. That this should be important is attested by Thomas Elsaesser and Warren Buckland in their 2002 book, Studying Contemporary American Film: A Guide to Movie Analysis. During their analysis of Martin's tryptic division, they say of the mannerist style, "style is autonomous, for it is not linked to function, but draws attention to itself. In other words, style is not motivated or justified by the subject matter, but is its own justification". This is as apt a description of large portions of The Current War as you're going to find. The plethora of Dutch angles, for example, are more often than not arbitrary. So too the use of split-screen (even splitting the screen into three at one point). Again though, the purpose of the technique is unclear (compare it with something like Requiem for a Dream (2000), where every use of split-screen is wholly justified). This ripped me out of the film, as I constantly found myself asking, "I wonder why he did that" rather than paying attention to the content.
The handling of the characters is also problematic. Cumberbatch plays Edison as virtually identical to his portrait of Alan Turing in The Imitation Game (2014); a brilliant, driven, uncompromising innovator who's as difficult to relate to in terms of humanity as he is easy to admire for mental acumen. Elsewhere, the film has a habit of downplaying the supporting characters. Neither Edison's wife Mary (Tuppence Middleton) nor Westinghouse's wife Marguerite (Katherine Waterston) are developed beyond "supportive wife", whilst Edison's assistant, Samuel Insull (Tom Holland) gets just one decent scene. The worst example of this is, however, is Nikola Tesla (Nicholas Hoult), who is very much an afterthought, so under-developed that one wonders if it would have been better to leave him out altogether. This tendency is also found in a postscript which credits Edison, and Edison alone, with the development of the Kinetoscope (one of the first motion picture cameras), without so much as a mention of Louis Le Prince or William Kennedy Dickson.
Nevertheless, as serious as these problems are, I rather enjoyed The Current War, although, granted, that may be because I've always been drawn more to expressive mise-en-scène. It was never going to be the kind of Oscar contender that was obviously intended, but the behind-the-scenes turmoil and the critical mauling are not necessarily indicative of an inherently bad film. Sure, the script is weak in places, and Gomez-Rejon employs every camera trick known to man, more often than not without knowing why. But for all that, it kept me interested, and although I'd never argue it's an especially well-realised historical drama, I did, for the most part, enjoy it.
So is it worth the wait? Well, it's competently acted, reasonably entertaining, and moderately informative, but...it definitely won't be involved in the 2020 Oscars. It's certainly not as bad as a lot of critics (most of them reviewing the TIFF cut) have made out, but there's no denying that Gomez-Rejon over-directs the whole thing. If you listen to Paul Haggis's commentary track on Crash (2004) he tells a story about a scene which was filmed to begin with an elaborate camera move via a crane transitioning into a dolly shot. In the final film, however, all of that is gone, and Haggis explains that he realised during the edit that the camera moves were unjustified, doing little but drawing attention to themselves. A lot of The Current War's aesthetic draws attention to itself, primarily because Gomez-Rejon's elaborate direction is so out of sync with Michael Mitnick's by-the-numbers script - like a screenplay intended for Michael Bay ended up being directed by Michael Mann. Although make no mistake, Gomez-Rejon is no Mann.
Telling the story of the "war of the currents", the film opens in New Jersey in 1880 as the pioneer of the long-lasting electric light bulb, Thomas Edison (Benedict Cumberbatch proving once again that he can't do an American accent), stages a typically grandiose demonstration of the power of large-scale low-voltage direct current (DC). Meanwhile, George Westinghouse (an characteristically non-psychotic Michael Shannon, the inventor of the railway air brake, begins to consider that the way of the future is in electricity. However, he sees flaws in DC, and so favours high-voltage alternating current (AC), using transformers to step down the voltage. Edison's is the safer of the two systems, but so too is it more expensive, with a limited range compared to AC. The rest of the film takes place over the next 13 years as the two men come into direct conflict in the "race to light America", culminating in 1893 as each attempt to secure the contract for the Chicago World's Fair.
Edison and Westinghouse are opposite examples of the nature of success in an American free-market prospering during a period of immense technological innovation. Edison is aware of and addicted to his celebrity, a visionary enamoured of his own genius, convinced that he and he alone has the mental capacity to achieve success. He's also portrayed as a poor husband and father, and a lousy boss. On the other hand, the more stable, less flamboyant Westinghouse is devoted to his wife, values his collaborators, has no interest in fame, and doesn't even see Edison as competition, believing they should be working together.
The most immediately notable aspect of The Current War, however, is its aesthetic, specifically Gomez-Rejon's direction. Watching the film, I was reminded of Adrian Martin's 1992 article, "Mise-en-scène is dead, or the expressive, the excessive, the technical and the stylish", in which he divides mise-en-scène into three broad categories: classical ("in which there is a definite stylistic restraint at work"), expressive ("general strategies of colour coding, camera viewpoint, sound design and so on enhance or reinforce the general "feel" or meaning of the subject matter"), and mannerist ("performs out of its own trajectories, no longer working unobtrusively at the behest of the fiction"). Whilst I would posit that The Current War lands somewhere between the expressive and mannerist styles, it definitely lies closer to mannerist, rather than the synergy between form and content found in the work of most expressive filmmakers (one of Martin's examples of which is the aforementioned Michael Mann).
Some of Gomez-Rejon's aesthetic choices are definitely justified, arising directly from the content and serving a clear thematic purpose, but a lot are in service of nothing but themselves. An early example of a justified decision is when the camera pans up from Edison's New Jersey demonstration and travels to Westinghouse's Pittsburgh home in what is made to appear a single shot, connecting the two men, not just in terms of geography, but also ideology. Another shot, shooting directly down on Edison's elaborate circular light demonstration, also works well, instantly showing us his ambition and theatricality, plus the effectiveness of the demonstration. Once we reach Pittsburgh, a lengthy single-take shot introduces us to Westinghouse as he weaves his way through a throng of guests at a ball, with virtually everyone trying to catch his attention. This establishes him as a man of influence and considerable reach, but one who abhors the spotlight. In a later scene, Gomez-Rejon shoots Edison and his family in a train carriage using a fisheye lens. With Edison on one seat and his wife and two children facing him, the wide lens distorts the space between them unnaturally, mirroring the important theme of Edison neglecting his family in pursuit of his goals.
On the other hand, some of his choices are extremely hard to rationalise. That this should be important is attested by Thomas Elsaesser and Warren Buckland in their 2002 book, Studying Contemporary American Film: A Guide to Movie Analysis. During their analysis of Martin's tryptic division, they say of the mannerist style, "style is autonomous, for it is not linked to function, but draws attention to itself. In other words, style is not motivated or justified by the subject matter, but is its own justification". This is as apt a description of large portions of The Current War as you're going to find. The plethora of Dutch angles, for example, are more often than not arbitrary. So too the use of split-screen (even splitting the screen into three at one point). Again though, the purpose of the technique is unclear (compare it with something like Requiem for a Dream (2000), where every use of split-screen is wholly justified). This ripped me out of the film, as I constantly found myself asking, "I wonder why he did that" rather than paying attention to the content.
The handling of the characters is also problematic. Cumberbatch plays Edison as virtually identical to his portrait of Alan Turing in The Imitation Game (2014); a brilliant, driven, uncompromising innovator who's as difficult to relate to in terms of humanity as he is easy to admire for mental acumen. Elsewhere, the film has a habit of downplaying the supporting characters. Neither Edison's wife Mary (Tuppence Middleton) nor Westinghouse's wife Marguerite (Katherine Waterston) are developed beyond "supportive wife", whilst Edison's assistant, Samuel Insull (Tom Holland) gets just one decent scene. The worst example of this is, however, is Nikola Tesla (Nicholas Hoult), who is very much an afterthought, so under-developed that one wonders if it would have been better to leave him out altogether. This tendency is also found in a postscript which credits Edison, and Edison alone, with the development of the Kinetoscope (one of the first motion picture cameras), without so much as a mention of Louis Le Prince or William Kennedy Dickson.
Nevertheless, as serious as these problems are, I rather enjoyed The Current War, although, granted, that may be because I've always been drawn more to expressive mise-en-scène. It was never going to be the kind of Oscar contender that was obviously intended, but the behind-the-scenes turmoil and the critical mauling are not necessarily indicative of an inherently bad film. Sure, the script is weak in places, and Gomez-Rejon employs every camera trick known to man, more often than not without knowing why. But for all that, it kept me interested, and although I'd never argue it's an especially well-realised historical drama, I did, for the most part, enjoy it.
A much better film that many critics labelled it to be
eddie_baggins25 June 2020
An upcoming director whose previous film was the indie darling Me and Earl and the Dying Girl, producing work by Russian film heavyweight Timur Bekmambetov and Hollywood legend Martin Scorsese, a cast of some of the most respected talent working today and a true story at its disposal that is loaded with ripe potential, The Current War should have been a contender.
Finished way back in 2017 and scheduled to play out in the awards season period, this one time Harvey Weinstein backed project became an unfortunate victim to the downfall of the big-time producer, given a lifeline years later in what became a low-key cinematic release, anchored down by mediocre reviews that lamented director Alfonso Gomez-Rejon emotion free affair.
To my surprise, The Current War is far from the failure as a product many would have had viewers believe, it surely jams too much content into a brief 100 minute run-time, with Nicholas Hoult's Nicola Tesla given a particular short straw in regards to screen-time and development, but Rejon's energetic direction and constantly moving narrative is never dull and a fine reminder to us all that the technology we take for granted today was at one-time in history a magical invention.
A story that would've been perfectly suited to a mini-series treatment, The Current War examines the life and times of esteemed inventors Tesla, Benedict Cumberbatch's Thomas Edison and Michael Shannon's wealthy businessman George Westinghouse, who all found themselves in the late 1800's competing against one another as humankind discovered the power of electricity, both good and bad.
Throwing us headfirst into the race to light up America and the world, Rejon wastes little time as we find Edison showcasing his significant discovery to an unsuspecting population, with Cumberbatch's finely attuned portrayal of the well-known historical figure one of the highlights of the film and from there we are in the whirlwind of activity as these various men push forward with their ideas and pursuits, often no matter the cost that may be associated with that.
There's some fascinating aspects of this time and movement explored in the film, Edison's reluctance to develop something that may take human lives and Tesla's battles to be taken seriously such elements but nothing is given too much room to breathe by Rejon as he constantly pushes us forward, a reason no doubt why many critics were left unimpressed with a film that stylistically and aesthetically is above average but fails to ignite the heart.
When it comes to the big screen treatment of this subject, The Current War remains one of the more memorable offerings, one that could've been something special but still not the dull mess many would've had us believe it to be.
Final Say -
A solid drama about a fascinating series of subject matters and historical events, The Current War is far from the failure it appeared to be, even if it is unable to become something downright special.
3 1/2 globes out of 5
Finished way back in 2017 and scheduled to play out in the awards season period, this one time Harvey Weinstein backed project became an unfortunate victim to the downfall of the big-time producer, given a lifeline years later in what became a low-key cinematic release, anchored down by mediocre reviews that lamented director Alfonso Gomez-Rejon emotion free affair.
To my surprise, The Current War is far from the failure as a product many would have had viewers believe, it surely jams too much content into a brief 100 minute run-time, with Nicholas Hoult's Nicola Tesla given a particular short straw in regards to screen-time and development, but Rejon's energetic direction and constantly moving narrative is never dull and a fine reminder to us all that the technology we take for granted today was at one-time in history a magical invention.
A story that would've been perfectly suited to a mini-series treatment, The Current War examines the life and times of esteemed inventors Tesla, Benedict Cumberbatch's Thomas Edison and Michael Shannon's wealthy businessman George Westinghouse, who all found themselves in the late 1800's competing against one another as humankind discovered the power of electricity, both good and bad.
Throwing us headfirst into the race to light up America and the world, Rejon wastes little time as we find Edison showcasing his significant discovery to an unsuspecting population, with Cumberbatch's finely attuned portrayal of the well-known historical figure one of the highlights of the film and from there we are in the whirlwind of activity as these various men push forward with their ideas and pursuits, often no matter the cost that may be associated with that.
There's some fascinating aspects of this time and movement explored in the film, Edison's reluctance to develop something that may take human lives and Tesla's battles to be taken seriously such elements but nothing is given too much room to breathe by Rejon as he constantly pushes us forward, a reason no doubt why many critics were left unimpressed with a film that stylistically and aesthetically is above average but fails to ignite the heart.
When it comes to the big screen treatment of this subject, The Current War remains one of the more memorable offerings, one that could've been something special but still not the dull mess many would've had us believe it to be.
Final Say -
A solid drama about a fascinating series of subject matters and historical events, The Current War is far from the failure it appeared to be, even if it is unable to become something downright special.
3 1/2 globes out of 5
"Current War" electrifies history
hunter-friesen7 November 2019
In the late 19th century, Thomas Edison and George Westinghouse were the two titans of American innovation. With the country modernizing at a rapid pace, both realized the need for a better way to power society beyond candles and gas.
After some years of development, they both discovered different ways to transmit electric current. Edison stood behind his Direct Current (DC) and Westinghouse championed his Alternating Current (AC). They were similar designs, each with their unique benefits and costs.
But the country wasn't big enough for both of them and only one method could prevail. Out of this situation sprang a fierce competition between the two men, a rivalry labeled "the war of the currents." This war lasted years as they battled endlessly to see whose technology would be the one to forever power and illuminate America.
After having a tumultuous time getting to theaters (that's a whole other story to look up), "The Current War" finally arrives two years after intended.
Directed by Alfonso Gomez-Rejon, the film moves like electricity, zipping from scene to scene. The use of sharp camera work and montages oozes kinetic energy that keeps everything moving at a frantic pace, never ceasing to slow down or end. You're gripped within the race and linked to the main characters as they tirelessly persist to be the one on top.
If you're not a natural history lover, this technique will keep you endlessly entertained without boring you with historical details. If you are a fan of history, this technique will still entertain you, but leave you disappointed as moving the film at the speed of light (or current, for that matter) doesn't allow for deeper learning about the events or people attached to them. Anything that is learned is only surface level as there just isn't enough time to develop any factual depth.
It also doesn't help that these shallow details become increasingly difficult to keep straight, especially as the years go by in minutes and characters are split up into several intertwining storylines.
While a mini-series would be the better way to tell this story, "The Current War" is an exciting way to convey history for the screen.
Just like Gomez-Rejon's use of rapid pacing, writer Michael Mitnick's screenplay is expeditious and Sorkin-like. The rivalry between our two main giants is fierce as they snap dialogue to beat each other in the labs and the presses.
And just like the outcome of the directing, the writing here is entertaining but difficult to follow. Mitnick tries to do too much in too little time as he crams the script to the brim with historical facts. As more information is heaped on, it becomes an information overload that is increasingly impossible to keep straight. By the end, you'll feel like you've read a Wikipedia page and will only be able to remember fragments here and there.
Also, Nikola Tesla shows up in the story and participates in the race. While Tesla does deserve to stand with Edison and Westinghouse in the history books, he doesn't belong in this already overly-stuffed movie.
Starring as the brash Thomas Edison is Benedict Cumberbatch, whose American accent isn't as convincing as one would think. Like most of Cumberbatch's performance, you can see the genius of the character within his speech and mannerisms. Thankfully, the genius he plays here isn't as cold as Sherlock Holmes or Alan Turing. There's some warmth under Edison's surface that you can sense through Cumberbatch's performance.
Michael Shannon plays the opposite of Cumberbatch as he is calmer and calculated in his performance of George Westinghouse. He's the more businessman-like of the two as he carries himself more professionally.
Nicholas Hoult plays Nikola Tesla. Just like Cumberbatch, Hoult's eastern European accent isn't on point, but it's fine enough to pass. Hoult does well at making you see the frustration within Tesla as his brilliant ideas are never allowed to flourish.
Lastly, Tom Holland does supporting work as Edison's secretary. As it was filmed before his star power ballooned from Spider-Man, Holland's role is minor and doesn't give him much to work with.
"The Current War" is the most entertaining and needlessly confusing movie of the year. All the talent involved makes a great effort, but their good intentions just come up short of making a great movie. But it's still quite good and deserves to be seen, even if you'd be hard-pressed to absorb and remember most of what it's trying to teach you.
After some years of development, they both discovered different ways to transmit electric current. Edison stood behind his Direct Current (DC) and Westinghouse championed his Alternating Current (AC). They were similar designs, each with their unique benefits and costs.
But the country wasn't big enough for both of them and only one method could prevail. Out of this situation sprang a fierce competition between the two men, a rivalry labeled "the war of the currents." This war lasted years as they battled endlessly to see whose technology would be the one to forever power and illuminate America.
After having a tumultuous time getting to theaters (that's a whole other story to look up), "The Current War" finally arrives two years after intended.
Directed by Alfonso Gomez-Rejon, the film moves like electricity, zipping from scene to scene. The use of sharp camera work and montages oozes kinetic energy that keeps everything moving at a frantic pace, never ceasing to slow down or end. You're gripped within the race and linked to the main characters as they tirelessly persist to be the one on top.
If you're not a natural history lover, this technique will keep you endlessly entertained without boring you with historical details. If you are a fan of history, this technique will still entertain you, but leave you disappointed as moving the film at the speed of light (or current, for that matter) doesn't allow for deeper learning about the events or people attached to them. Anything that is learned is only surface level as there just isn't enough time to develop any factual depth.
It also doesn't help that these shallow details become increasingly difficult to keep straight, especially as the years go by in minutes and characters are split up into several intertwining storylines.
While a mini-series would be the better way to tell this story, "The Current War" is an exciting way to convey history for the screen.
Just like Gomez-Rejon's use of rapid pacing, writer Michael Mitnick's screenplay is expeditious and Sorkin-like. The rivalry between our two main giants is fierce as they snap dialogue to beat each other in the labs and the presses.
And just like the outcome of the directing, the writing here is entertaining but difficult to follow. Mitnick tries to do too much in too little time as he crams the script to the brim with historical facts. As more information is heaped on, it becomes an information overload that is increasingly impossible to keep straight. By the end, you'll feel like you've read a Wikipedia page and will only be able to remember fragments here and there.
Also, Nikola Tesla shows up in the story and participates in the race. While Tesla does deserve to stand with Edison and Westinghouse in the history books, he doesn't belong in this already overly-stuffed movie.
Starring as the brash Thomas Edison is Benedict Cumberbatch, whose American accent isn't as convincing as one would think. Like most of Cumberbatch's performance, you can see the genius of the character within his speech and mannerisms. Thankfully, the genius he plays here isn't as cold as Sherlock Holmes or Alan Turing. There's some warmth under Edison's surface that you can sense through Cumberbatch's performance.
Michael Shannon plays the opposite of Cumberbatch as he is calmer and calculated in his performance of George Westinghouse. He's the more businessman-like of the two as he carries himself more professionally.
Nicholas Hoult plays Nikola Tesla. Just like Cumberbatch, Hoult's eastern European accent isn't on point, but it's fine enough to pass. Hoult does well at making you see the frustration within Tesla as his brilliant ideas are never allowed to flourish.
Lastly, Tom Holland does supporting work as Edison's secretary. As it was filmed before his star power ballooned from Spider-Man, Holland's role is minor and doesn't give him much to work with.
"The Current War" is the most entertaining and needlessly confusing movie of the year. All the talent involved makes a great effort, but their good intentions just come up short of making a great movie. But it's still quite good and deserves to be seen, even if you'd be hard-pressed to absorb and remember most of what it's trying to teach you.
Currency is the only current
nogodnomasters12 April 2020
Warning: Spoilers
The film is about three characters. Nikola Tesla (Nicholas Hoult) is a visionary immigrant genius who somehow died penniless. George Westinghouse (Michael Shannon) and Thomas Edison (Benedict Cumberbatch) are depicted as both compassionate and ruthless. Westinghouse promoted AC current as the way to go, while Edison favored DC. Edison was a rock star who could command J.P. Morgan (Matthew Macfadyen) as far as loan terms.
The film is not an Edison biography but concentrates on his life mostly in the last couple of decades of the 19th century. Interesting, but not overly entertaining.
Guide: No swearing, sex, or nudity.
The film is not an Edison biography but concentrates on his life mostly in the last couple of decades of the 19th century. Interesting, but not overly entertaining.
Guide: No swearing, sex, or nudity.
If you aren't expecting a Tesla-worshipping narrative, you'll probably like it.
brianjohnson-200438 September 2020
A lot of these reviews seem to come from Tesla fans who really misunderstand what I took to be the point of this movie. I don't think the movie is trying to portray who should have gotten the most credit or who was the most moral person or intelligent inventor of this era.
If that was the film's goal, then Tesla would have been the protagonist of the film and the central character.
It seemed to me that the movie's goal was to tell the story of how these inventors lived and how they were perceived by people within their time period. And how those perceptions impacting their goals to not just invent the best products, but get their products out and accepted within society.
Edison was perceived by the public as a star long before he ever invented a solid lightbulb for the time. Tesla wasn't a known entity. Westinghouse was successful, but not much of publicly known name to the public as Edison.
Edison and Westinghouse were the two big figure-heads of the AC and DC battle of the late 19th century. Even though Tesla is really the one who contributes the importance finding to give AC the edge, at the time, virtually no one knew who Tesla was or had good merits for taking his genius seriously. Tesla didn't demonstrate a lot of his ideas which were correct and didn't seem to understand how conmen could manipulate people by making the same kinds of claims as him without a model that actually would work.
Tesla worked for Edison, Westinghouse and independently over the course of his career. Tesla was probably the most visionary and innovative thinker conceptually among all of the characters in the film. But Tesla was an immigrant, which made it difficult for his ideas to gain traction within a racist and nationalist time for America. Plus Tesla was arrogant and the least practical or compromising in his aspirations, which made it even more difficult for his ideas to manifest themselves within society as he wished they would. Good intentions and correct ideas aren't enough if they don't get implement within one's culture.
What Tesla really had going for him was that he was really smart and he could figure out solutions that the other inventors couldn't figure out.
For all of these reasons Tesla couldn't be accurately portrayed in a manner that a lot of reviewers seem to have preferred and expected.
This movie's goal wasn't to orchestrate some narrative about what should have happened in the past. It's clearly more about showing what did or didn't happen back then and why.
And I think the story the movie tells is very interesting and provides for a lot of relevant lessons and understandings for people today. Even if it doesn't support Tesla's genius in a way that a lot of people were hoping for. Ultimately, its good to remember that even if one is a genius like Tesla, that doesn't mean that Tesla's didn't have some personal flaws that got in his way of achieving his own goals for the specific type of better future world.
I also don't really understand the common opinion from other reviewers that Edison was over-romanticized within the movie. Perhaps they could have made him seem more like a scumbag, but I easily was on Westinghouse's side and liked Tesla more as well.
If anything Westinghouse is the main character who is portrayed with the fewest imperfections. They show a lot of issues in Edison's persona. Not just in his invention, but in his interpersonal, business and family decisions.
I think one of the things that I liked the most about the movie is that it never shows the two main characters together in the same scene until the memorable scene at the very end.
If that was the film's goal, then Tesla would have been the protagonist of the film and the central character.
It seemed to me that the movie's goal was to tell the story of how these inventors lived and how they were perceived by people within their time period. And how those perceptions impacting their goals to not just invent the best products, but get their products out and accepted within society.
Edison was perceived by the public as a star long before he ever invented a solid lightbulb for the time. Tesla wasn't a known entity. Westinghouse was successful, but not much of publicly known name to the public as Edison.
Edison and Westinghouse were the two big figure-heads of the AC and DC battle of the late 19th century. Even though Tesla is really the one who contributes the importance finding to give AC the edge, at the time, virtually no one knew who Tesla was or had good merits for taking his genius seriously. Tesla didn't demonstrate a lot of his ideas which were correct and didn't seem to understand how conmen could manipulate people by making the same kinds of claims as him without a model that actually would work.
Tesla worked for Edison, Westinghouse and independently over the course of his career. Tesla was probably the most visionary and innovative thinker conceptually among all of the characters in the film. But Tesla was an immigrant, which made it difficult for his ideas to gain traction within a racist and nationalist time for America. Plus Tesla was arrogant and the least practical or compromising in his aspirations, which made it even more difficult for his ideas to manifest themselves within society as he wished they would. Good intentions and correct ideas aren't enough if they don't get implement within one's culture.
What Tesla really had going for him was that he was really smart and he could figure out solutions that the other inventors couldn't figure out.
For all of these reasons Tesla couldn't be accurately portrayed in a manner that a lot of reviewers seem to have preferred and expected.
This movie's goal wasn't to orchestrate some narrative about what should have happened in the past. It's clearly more about showing what did or didn't happen back then and why.
And I think the story the movie tells is very interesting and provides for a lot of relevant lessons and understandings for people today. Even if it doesn't support Tesla's genius in a way that a lot of people were hoping for. Ultimately, its good to remember that even if one is a genius like Tesla, that doesn't mean that Tesla's didn't have some personal flaws that got in his way of achieving his own goals for the specific type of better future world.
I also don't really understand the common opinion from other reviewers that Edison was over-romanticized within the movie. Perhaps they could have made him seem more like a scumbag, but I easily was on Westinghouse's side and liked Tesla more as well.
If anything Westinghouse is the main character who is portrayed with the fewest imperfections. They show a lot of issues in Edison's persona. Not just in his invention, but in his interpersonal, business and family decisions.
I think one of the things that I liked the most about the movie is that it never shows the two main characters together in the same scene until the memorable scene at the very end.
Edison, Westinghouse and Tesla...
Thanos_Alfie26 October 2020
"The Current War" is a Biography - History movie in which we watch the fight between the two electricity titans Thomas Edison and George Westinghouse to light up the modern world. This fight will last many years since electricity is something new and unknown.
I liked this movie because it presented very well the story and the relationship between Thomas Edison and George Westinghouse, while there was also Nikola Tesla who played a major part on electricity and on its evolution. I believe that the addition of Nikola Tesla in this movie was brilliant and very important. The interpretations of Benedict Cumberbatch who played as Thomas Alva Edison, Michael Shannon who played as George Westinghouse and Nicholas Hoult who played as Nikola Tesla were very good. Finally, I have to say that "The Current War" is a very good movie and I recommend everyone to watch it because you will learn more about electricity and its evolution to today's standards, and how that happened.
I liked this movie because it presented very well the story and the relationship between Thomas Edison and George Westinghouse, while there was also Nikola Tesla who played a major part on electricity and on its evolution. I believe that the addition of Nikola Tesla in this movie was brilliant and very important. The interpretations of Benedict Cumberbatch who played as Thomas Alva Edison, Michael Shannon who played as George Westinghouse and Nicholas Hoult who played as Nikola Tesla were very good. Finally, I have to say that "The Current War" is a very good movie and I recommend everyone to watch it because you will learn more about electricity and its evolution to today's standards, and how that happened.
Inaccurate story, not linear facts
ikgoumas18 July 2019
The movie is actually slow, with a sad music, giving inacurate profiles about the personalities of Edison, Westinghouse and Tesla. Tesla should be the real hero of the movie, as it happened in reality. The other characters where: Edison, yes a quite original mind but not a genious, being a slave to his need for fame. Westinghouse, JP Morgan : businessman. Tesla: the one that changed the world and died broke in an appartment.
The reviews are marked by confusion in regards to real story
filmoman28 October 2019
I see here some very offended people among the reviewers who claim that the real story was ignored due to some adversity against the "non-american" inventor Nikola Tesla, who actually invented the AC. They seem to be confused by the fact that the movie doesn't depict the invention of the AC but rather the so call "current war" that took place between two american companies that tried to impose their own vision and business model of how the current should be delivered to the consumer, as DC or as AC. And the two companies involved in this had indeed nothing to do with Nikola Tesla. It is pity that people can't get beyond their obviously biased feelings when it comes to matters of nationality and rather let themselves slip into the the quicksand territory of the conspiracy theories. So, the movie doesn't do injustice at all to anyone it just tells the story as it is supposed to. Go see for yourselves.
An interesting story filmed by good hand.........
kashidomar14 November 2017
Prior to see the movie i have never heard about this fascinating story of conflict and trade between Edison and Westinghouse. I found the story very much interesting and enjoyed every part of this. The whole team must be appreciated for their excellent try to transform this plot into a enjoyable , slow paced drama. There are many small battle which sometimes remain undecided..sometimes goes in favour of either one. With these personal and economic battle the movie moves towards the end. Good to see these type of drama movies in between other type of movies. This is totally different from many other movies of 2017.
Lets all forget about Tesla
vsx81921 July 2019
Typical Hollywood, the do not want to tell the truth.
If it was not for Tesla I think Edison would have been a laughing stock.
Edison stole ideas from Tesla.
Not to mention, Tesla was so much more interesting than Edison, he was charismatic and eccentric.
Edison stole ideas from Tesla.
Not to mention, Tesla was so much more interesting than Edison, he was charismatic and eccentric.
The Electric Boogaloo
questl-1859228 October 2020
I feel like I should preface this by saying I have a weird interest in this whole topic. I live in an area that venerates Edison, I went to a Thomas Edison Elementary school, there's a statue of him in town so the story of Edison was a pretty strong topic in my early education years and it always focused on this idea that Edison was a brilliant man without ever focusing on his foibles or shortcomings. Tesla was the mad scientist trying to rip Edison off and I had no idea who Westinghouse was. So, watching a movie that delves into the less publicized version of the story was fascinating to me.
Problem is, it's trying to cover way too much ground. At first it seems like it's going to focus on Edison, and it kind of does but we also have a solid portion focusing on Westinghouse and then there's Tesla who feels just sort of shoved in there and Insull as the nothing to something story? Each of them is delivered with strong performances. Cumberbatch, Hoult, Shannon and Holland all together? Yes please. I just wish we could've focused on something rather than constantly spreading the story as thin as possible and the artistic flourishes don't help and neither does the underwhelming ending.
All in all, this is a fairly generic historical drama with a wonderful cast but a lack of focus. It's trying to do too much to really commit strongly enough to anything or give any of these talented actors a chance to properly shine. Also, seriously, Tesla is a captivating character and he is woefully underutilized here. I enjoyed it, and it had me going off to research the subject a bit so I learned something from the experience, and that's a win. That said, it's not a great movie and could probably live happily in the background noise realm but I found myself being drawn in fairly often but regardless, I think this is worth a watch for sure.
Problem is, it's trying to cover way too much ground. At first it seems like it's going to focus on Edison, and it kind of does but we also have a solid portion focusing on Westinghouse and then there's Tesla who feels just sort of shoved in there and Insull as the nothing to something story? Each of them is delivered with strong performances. Cumberbatch, Hoult, Shannon and Holland all together? Yes please. I just wish we could've focused on something rather than constantly spreading the story as thin as possible and the artistic flourishes don't help and neither does the underwhelming ending.
All in all, this is a fairly generic historical drama with a wonderful cast but a lack of focus. It's trying to do too much to really commit strongly enough to anything or give any of these talented actors a chance to properly shine. Also, seriously, Tesla is a captivating character and he is woefully underutilized here. I enjoyed it, and it had me going off to research the subject a bit so I learned something from the experience, and that's a win. That said, it's not a great movie and could probably live happily in the background noise realm but I found myself being drawn in fairly often but regardless, I think this is worth a watch for sure.
Surprisingly enjoyable
MOscarbradley9 May 2020
Little did I ever think I would enjoy a movie about Thomas Edison, (Benedict Cumberbatch, very good), and his 'discovery' of electricity but "The Current War", which pits Edison against the industrialist George Westinghouse, (an even better Michael Shannon), is a real surprise with a smart, witty and engrossing script by Michael Mitnick and fine direction from Alfonso Gomez-Rejon. It's certainly not a film that will find a mass audience but it's one of the better biopics, though strictly speaking it isn't really a biopic and if it is, it's the biography of electricity and not its inventor and it's constructed like a thriller and a chase movie and even though we may know how the chase ends there are enough ups, downs and diversions along the way to keep us entertained. It's also beautifully designed and acted and, no pun intended, it moves at the speed of light and all lovers of cinema will surely get a little lump in their throats by the end.
Zzzzzzz.....
neil-47614 August 2019
Warning: Spoilers
As the 19th century approaches the 20th, Dr Strange (assisted by Spider-Man) enters into conflict with General Zod over who will bring electricity to America, possibly on the back of things invented by the X-Man The Beast. I beg your pardon, I meant Thomas Edison (Benedict Cummerbund), Samuel Insull (Tom Holland), George Westinghouse (Michael Shannon), and Nikola Tasla (Nicholas Hoult). Excuse my facetiousness.
This interesting story is recounted with two main qualities. One is an exquisite visual sensibility. This is one of those rare films where it seems that every scene has been conceived as a work of art. It is an impressive looking film, and I recommend it on that basis.
Unfortunately, the other is a narrative dullness which prevents the dramatic narrative from ever catching fire, and this rather negates the visual aspect. You end up nodding off infront of the Mona Lisa. The script is worthy, but that's about all you can say for it.
The performances are good, the visuals are very good (Tom Holland's whiskers are almost convincing)(no, they're not), but it's just too dull to enjoy.
This interesting story is recounted with two main qualities. One is an exquisite visual sensibility. This is one of those rare films where it seems that every scene has been conceived as a work of art. It is an impressive looking film, and I recommend it on that basis.
Unfortunately, the other is a narrative dullness which prevents the dramatic narrative from ever catching fire, and this rather negates the visual aspect. You end up nodding off infront of the Mona Lisa. The script is worthy, but that's about all you can say for it.
The performances are good, the visuals are very good (Tom Holland's whiskers are almost convincing)(no, they're not), but it's just too dull to enjoy.
CLAPPERBOARD REVIEW
nainasharma1211 March 2020
A stirring and unambiguous portrayal of one of the most significant breakthroughs in Science. A riveting tale, unknown to most, highlighting the shrouded complexities behind bringing ideas to life. At certain moments, the depiction falls flat and dry due to lack of piquancy. Although with astounding performances and a coaxing background score, The Current War holds firm.
Weird movie
justin-fencsak12 June 2020
When this movie finally came out after years of delays due to Weinstein falling out, it underperformed at the box office and was savaged by critics and fans. After watching the so called director's cut (several scenes were cut for pacing before the film came out which can be seen on the bluray) at home yesterday, I thought it was ok but dragged on for a bit because the film swirls around the lives of Tesla, Edison, and Westinghouse, all of them inventors of electric devices such as currents, film projectors, and radios. Benedict Cumberbatch does a fine job and so does Tom Holland as well as others. If you're a fan of history, you might like it. If not, then skip it.
Good movie but needed to be a TV series
moingona13 November 2020
I liked the movie (allowing for the historical discrepancies made to make the movie) and the actors, but the subject needs to be a TV series exploring in depth each individual (Edison, Westinghouse and Tesla). There is a lot more to Edison, Westinghouse and especially Tesla than was portrayed.
Too fast paced.
sindbergeriksen4 May 2021
We pop in at a time where all the inventions have already been made. It feels like we hit the road running. Its so busy building the rivalry it forgets to tell us the story of the incredible inventions, the moments, how it came to be. Its in a hurry. Silly.
Tesla not the hero??
rakanalahmad19 July 2019
Watch Director's cut
yusufpiskin13 December 2019
Warning: Spoilers
I found the subject of the movie already fascinating and love the cast but I wasn't expecting it to be as well made or thought out as it was.
Often historical movies use it's true story as a crutch and excuse to be generic and uninspired. Yes the performances are frequently good, yes the costumes are usually period accurate, yes the story is most likely incredibly interesting but the movies' rarely have a heart or mind of its own. The generic based on a true story movies always feel like anyone could of made it or that it could of been made in any other medium.
Current War is not generic, it is not uninspired, and it wouldn't have the same effect it did if it was in another medium. The cinematography is powerful and striking at times. For example the awe and wonder the characters experience seeing the bulbs light up for the first time is felt through that cinematography (it really makes you feel like a lightbulb). The performances aren't half assed at all, especially Cumberbatch, and Michael Shannon is a very underrated actor in my opinion. The telling of this story is also nuanced in its portrayals of these people, it clearly wasn't set out to make obligatory heroes or villains out of these people for the sake of lazy drama, the movie was just being honest and genuine.
If you find the subject of the movie interesting at all I highly recommend watching.
Often historical movies use it's true story as a crutch and excuse to be generic and uninspired. Yes the performances are frequently good, yes the costumes are usually period accurate, yes the story is most likely incredibly interesting but the movies' rarely have a heart or mind of its own. The generic based on a true story movies always feel like anyone could of made it or that it could of been made in any other medium.
Current War is not generic, it is not uninspired, and it wouldn't have the same effect it did if it was in another medium. The cinematography is powerful and striking at times. For example the awe and wonder the characters experience seeing the bulbs light up for the first time is felt through that cinematography (it really makes you feel like a lightbulb). The performances aren't half assed at all, especially Cumberbatch, and Michael Shannon is a very underrated actor in my opinion. The telling of this story is also nuanced in its portrayals of these people, it clearly wasn't set out to make obligatory heroes or villains out of these people for the sake of lazy drama, the movie was just being honest and genuine.
If you find the subject of the movie interesting at all I highly recommend watching.
Not good but not bad either
Avwillfan8913 August 2019
Warning: Spoilers
I didn't know much about the war of currents at the end of the 19th century, so I went in just taking the movie as it is.
The movie is quite long covering the whole of the "War of Currents" between Thomas Edison and George Westinghouse. As Edison invents the lightbulb, among other things, Westinghouse discovers cheaper, more accessible way of delivering electricity to the general public.
For some inexplicable reason, Edison refuses to meet with Westinghouse, resulting in a few ideas of him stolen. Thus Edison runs on a ruthless and relentless path to destroy Westinghouse's reputation with his AC current by smearing him in the press and going a step further by killing numerous animals with electricity.
What I was hoping for was more in depth characterisation with Edison, Westinghouse and Tesla, who is unfortunately underused in this film. But instead the camera, which is a little too fond of itself, zooms everywhere, tilts dutch angles in out of place scenes, blurs when it's not supposed to and morphs into a fish eye lens.
Camera tricks and good scenery can only be as good as the story its presenting and frankly it wasn't enough for me.
That being said, I do not regret seeing it. It's an important part of history and also has current themes of fake news and ego run rampant.
The chance meeting at the end between Edison and Westinghouse is probably my favourite. Westinghouse gives him some much needed advice about not being so selfish and sharing the work with other people. Edison walks away and it's unsure whether he finally listens to him. Despite all the horrible muck-ups he did to other people and to himself, I found myself hoping he had learnt his lesson and found some peace.
The movie is quite long covering the whole of the "War of Currents" between Thomas Edison and George Westinghouse. As Edison invents the lightbulb, among other things, Westinghouse discovers cheaper, more accessible way of delivering electricity to the general public.
For some inexplicable reason, Edison refuses to meet with Westinghouse, resulting in a few ideas of him stolen. Thus Edison runs on a ruthless and relentless path to destroy Westinghouse's reputation with his AC current by smearing him in the press and going a step further by killing numerous animals with electricity.
What I was hoping for was more in depth characterisation with Edison, Westinghouse and Tesla, who is unfortunately underused in this film. But instead the camera, which is a little too fond of itself, zooms everywhere, tilts dutch angles in out of place scenes, blurs when it's not supposed to and morphs into a fish eye lens.
Camera tricks and good scenery can only be as good as the story its presenting and frankly it wasn't enough for me.
That being said, I do not regret seeing it. It's an important part of history and also has current themes of fake news and ego run rampant.
The chance meeting at the end between Edison and Westinghouse is probably my favourite. Westinghouse gives him some much needed advice about not being so selfish and sharing the work with other people. Edison walks away and it's unsure whether he finally listens to him. Despite all the horrible muck-ups he did to other people and to himself, I found myself hoping he had learnt his lesson and found some peace.
Nikola Tesla is the rightful owner
redtwo-9186812 September 2019
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
