Adventures of a Mathematician (2020) User Reviews

An indie biopic

[napierslogs · 7/10 · 31 December 2021]

Back when I was a chemistry and math student in university, this was the type of movie I dreamed of one day making. A movie which has to balance the science, history and the biography part of a biopic - which often feels like a no-win balance. Enough science to make it interesting for its target audience but not too much to alienate everyone else. Enough of a human story expected from a biopic but not too much to make it boring. Personally, I thought the balance was right. There's some real math and science in the story, the history is absolutely fascinating, the American family elements don't add much to the story, but a necessary element of a traditional biopic.

The other user reviews are complaining about the "adventures" part of the title, as if they're expecting an action movie or something. But the title just comes from a part of the dialogue when they make the big decision to move to Los Alamos, "Are you ready for an adventure?" Immigrants moving across the country, leaving their "cushy" academia job for the Manhattan Project. That is an adventure to them.

There are a lot of big names and interesting aspects to the Manhattan project, and a lot of interesting and different stories that could have been told, but this one is personal to the filmmakers. The Polish identity is a running theme here. It's an ode to Stanislaw Ulam and should not be viewed as a history of the Manhattan Project (which it is not, it's just one small aspect of it that Ulam was involved in) and is very much a traditional independent biopic.

Lukewarm

[gay_chromy · 6/10 · 14 July 2021]

This is the story of the mathematical geniuses behind the Manhattan Project. It's an overall aesthetically pleasing film with decent cinematography and good in most technical aspects. Unfortunately it falls short in terms of script, where the protagonist's drama misses all targets and becomes very superficial. His story does not convince the viewer of the significance of whatever drives the drama forward: personal, ethical, spiritual, political, or other motivations. It ends up feeling like the director is trying too much to shove some feelings into the viewer, but without any foundations to substantiate them. None of the relationships (wife, friend, colleagues, the institution, etc.) goes at an adequate depth to produce meaningful dynamics - so the torment seems without much reason. It's a pity, cause I would expect that such a context is a great opportunity for the exact opposite.

'Rabbi responded, sex must be pleasure, for if it were work my wife would insist the maid do it for her.'

[TxMike · 9 August 2022]

As of today, August 2022, this movie has an IMDb rating of 5.5 but it is a better movie than that. Some reviews mention that it is "slow" but research and experimentation is usually like that. I can see that a person who is NOT deeply into Science and Mathematics, or the Manhattan Project in the 1940s, may have a harder time appreciating the interest and importance of this man's story.

Ulam was a Polish immigrant, a Mathematician, who crossed the Atlantic in 1939. He became a professor but after a few years was recruited to move to Los Alamos and be a part of the Manhattan Project, to develop Atomic and Hydrogen bomb technology. He had a major role but came away conflicted, the science was important but there was the guilt of creating something that could and did kill so many in the two Japanese bombings.

He eventually went back to his teaching job. He died in 1984 at the age of 75.

Good, interesting movie, I watched it at home on Amazon streaming movies.

Decent story. Stiff and wooden acting.

[TheDome81 · 6/10 · 1 June 2022]

I thought the story was pretty interesting. But overall it was pretty slow moving. And the actors were all quite wooden and stiff. Almost no one showed any emotion in the whole movie.

More realistic than Oppenheimer

[barrydayton · 7/10 · 16 January 2024]

If you want to know what was going on in Los Alamos during the Manhattan project this is the film you should watch, not "Oppenheimer". This film is based on the autobiography of Stan Ulam who was actually there during and after the war ended. Ulam worked in the relatively unknown fusion bomb group headed by Edward Teller. This was a failure during the war so is not mentioned in most histories. This film accurately gives credit to Johnny (as he was known) von Neumann who was the person who was able to make the connection between theory and actual design of the successful bombs. Oppenheimer's main contribution was recognizing von Neuman's ability.

There are several errors even here. One while the stated rationale for making the bomb was to prevent Hitler from making it first. But the German physicists were way ahead of the Americans so knew that an atomic bomb was a very expensive longshot, especially for Germany who was fighting on many fronts. So they never tried. Thus this rationale was mostly hype on our part. But the scientists said nothing because this was a wonderful adventure in physics.

Another was that Tellers main rationale for his fusion bomb was that it was thought to be no radioactive and there would be fewer civilian collateral causalities. As it turned out the eventual hydrogen bomb built after the war was a hybrid, made mostly of uranium and plutonium, which gave the original bombs their lethal radioactivity, with only a small fusion reaction, again mostly for hype.

One error in the visuals is that von Neuman was shown before the Trinity test standing in front of his computer which had presumably made the calculations. Actually von Neuman had only recently come up with the design for the computer and was upset at being recalled to Los Alamos for the Trinity test because he wanted to start building his computer in Princeton. In fact he had at that time only one 20 year old physicist's wife with little formal math or physics background to help him with the calculations. Reportedly he told her that" he was inventing the computer to replace her because she was so bad at arithmetic." Actually it took 15 years before electronic computers were allowed to replace the "lady" computers, see the great film "Hidden Figures" for a good exposition of that.

Sadly this film was had a lower advertising budget so few have seen it, unlike "Oppenheimer". Accuracy is boring so it hard to recommend this film to non science geeks. But as biopics go, this one wasn't bad.

They achieved the impossible: making the Manhattan project boring.

[nestosrodriguezgasca · 3/10 · 11 September 2022]

I am a math teacher who frequently looks for quality movies depicting science/mathematics to entice my students to the beauty of these disciplines. Examples of this are Contact, A beautiful mind, The imitation game, etc. This movie though, I would never recommend it to anyone. It's very slow, bland, poorly directed, poorly acted and just... plain boring. It's not a bad movie, but it's asymptotically close to be one.

It's difficult to make such a historical project and such a once-in-a-lifetime gathering of geniuses (Neumann, Ulam, Teller, Oppenheimer, ...) look dull but this movie achieves precisely that.

The only actor that was close to deliver a good performance was the one depicting Edward Teller. He was able to incarnate the acrid, warring personality of that scientist.

Whimsical title for a movie about angst

[Multifocus · 6/10 · 17 January 2024]

The juxtaposition of the movie's whimsical title with its somber subject matter is jarring. The story revolves around the invention of the atomic and hydrogen bombs and the detonation of both, killing hundreds of thousands of people to end World War II.

Though the lead character was well chosen to embody the emotional conflict of his participation in such a horrendous project, his acting skills would have been better served with a more developed character arc. While the film includes some interesting dialogue during the inventing process, it is stretched rather thin by the persistent scenes about regret. Consequently, the film unfolds as one hundred and forty-two minutes characterized by relentless angst.

The film would have benefited by a more comprehensive story line.

Terribly slow

[luisfonseca-75427 · 4/10 · 24 October 2021]

Poor directing, long pauses and unnecessary scenes make it painstakingly slow and boring. There are no adventures or any sort of interesting dialogues or scenes.

Participation of mathematician Stanislaw M. Ulam in the Manhattan Project.

[carmo-5 · 6/10 · 5 March 2023]

Adventures of a Mathematician or The Mathematician (2020) is a German, Polish and English co-production focusing on the participation of mathematician Stanislaw M. Ulam in the construction of the atomic bomb, part of the Manhattan Project led by Oppenheimer starting in 1942, that took place in Nevada , USA. The film was based on Ulam's autobiography (published in 1983 as the book Adventures of a Mathematician). It is an average film, mainly due to the high volume of condensed information presented in a film that lasts 1h 42min. I believe that the subject would have a better and more interesting treatment/development if it were organized as a mini series. Parts of the film were loose and/or unnecessary since they were not developed (such as, for example, the participation of the mathematician's brother in the story). I didn't know this mathematician, nor did I know about his participation in the project, and also, that he had a significant contribution to the development of the hydrogen bomb. The world would be better off if any of these bombs (or any other) had never been created.

Very slow, hardly "adventures"

[tocanepauli · 2/10 · 2 October 2021]

Found this film very slow with very little about mathematics and definitely no adventures.

The whole film seemed aimless and did not seem to have a purpose.

The characters were not even very likeable....

Non-Adventures

[MarkWeitzman · 3/10 · 5 October 2021]

There are no adventures in this film. It covers about 10 years of this person's life. The pace of the movie is excruciatingly slow. The mathematician contributes a couple of ideas to the Manhattan Project. That's about all that happens. Most of the film is scenes of him brooding and scowling.

What did I expect?

[name99-92-545389 · 4 January 2022]

I went into this on the hope (unlikely, but one dreams...) of a movie that actually tried to show something of the life of a mathematician, and the excitement of working with physicists at a time when so much physics was coming together.

But of course we get absolutely ZERO of that. Instead we get precisely the cliches you'd expect -- nuclear weapons are bad, mkay; family life is hard, mkay.

I don't know what goes through the mind of someone making a movie like this. Everything that is present is present done far better in a thousand other movies. Everything that would make Ulam's life especially interesting, the specific details of intellectual life, are nowhere present. You could have made the same movie about practically anyone in WW2 - family disruption, "bombing Japan, justified or not?", "people die in war". WTF cares. Ulam is ONLY interesting as a mathematician -- and yet we see nothing of that except some uninteresting references to gambling and casinos, as though gabling is the only interesting aspect of measure theory.

Truly a pointless waste of time.

Lacks thrill but interesting story

[samabc-31952 · 5/10 · 26 June 2022]

Have you ever wondered why US dropped bombs on Japan 3 months after Germany surrendered and US had practically won the war!! Not only that, it dropped two bombs!!!

A moral ethical question that had troubled many brilliant minds in developing the hydrogen bomb as well as the A-bomb. One of them was Stan Ulam. A brilliant mathematician who knew the solution to the immense heat issue in the development of a Hydrogen Bomb. But he fought his own battles of morality vs his job before he could reveal the solution. He later developed the famous Monte-Carlo method from the idea that one does not need to play a game to know its conclusion. Movie lacks thrill and has somewhat poor, but average performances but good production saves a little less known interesting story and makes it a one-time watch.