Copenhagen (2002 TV Movie) User Reviews (29)

compelling 1941

[SnoopyStyle · 7/10 · 17 February 2018]

In 1941, German physicist Werner Heisenberg (Daniel Craig) arrives in occupied Copenhagen to meet his mentor Quantum Physics pioneer Niels Bohr (Stephen Rea) and his wife Magrethe (Francesca Annis). In 1947, they reunite to argue what exactly they were trying to say.

There is real tension for the 1941 time. There is a real underlying danger. It's a great first section although it would work better without the flashforward. The second section starts really interesting as one wonders if there is danger in it. There is definitedly some tension. However, it spirals into confusion as the discussion on the real meaning of their former discussion go in upon itself. I get the idea of the discussion being connected to Quantum Physics. It's a compelling exercise but it is unable to carry the full momentum of the first section.

A Very Good Filmed Version of the Play!

[Sylviastel · 8/10 · 14 February 2020]

Most plays don't necessarily translate well to television or film. This film with only three cast members such as the divine Francesca Annis (why isn't a Dame); Daniel Craig and Stephen Rea. Annis played wife, Margrethe to Rea's characters, Neils Bohr. Craig played Werner Heisenberg, a German Jewish physicist. They meet together in Copehagen, Denmark where the Bohrs lived well in a beautiful home in 1941 in the midst of World War II. We learned that this isn't about escape from Nazi occupied Europe but about physics. While most people like myself are ignorant about physics, the play is a dramatization of their meeting. There is not much acting but plenty of talking and even talking over with thoughts by the cast members.

More edifying than educational. More educational than entertaining.

[=G= · 7/10 · 21 July 2003]

"Copenhagen" explores a little known meeting between two top physicists, one German and one Danish, from several perspectives, all of them speculative, during WWII when theoretical physics was on the threshold of unleashing the power of the atom and creating the ultimate weapon. Originally made for the more refined and heady tastes of PBS viewers, this film delves into the esoterics of this meeting of the minds asking more questions than it answers and in doing so delivers much food for thought. I was attracted to the film because I majored in physics in college and found this ensemble drama fascinating. However, I watched "Romy & Michele's High School Reunion" last night and found it much more entertaining. Recommended for those relative few interested in the history of physics. (B)

Note - If you watch this film, don't miss the epilogue.

Amazing

[nicks_girl192001 · 10 December 2002]

When I saw this on PBS I was blown away. I've always been interested in that time period and whenever I do find a film based during the time I look into it. The way that it was acted and filmed was amazing. It made you think and really get into the film, not just watch it, but to become part of it. The acting was amazing and the characters were portrayed realistically. You got a feel of what was going on in their lives and how the events of the war shaped them. I'm glad I recorded, so I can watch it whenever I can. I highly recommend this film.

Esoteric

[gagliano-1 · 7/10 · 28 September 2021]

Here's a quick review of the physics connected with the atomic bomb, plus an intriguing episode in the history of the world. It may be argued that Nazi Germany simply did not have the resources to conduct a Manhattan Project type of endeavor, but at the time no one knew for sure what it would take. As one who has not seen the play, I am satisfied with the performance of the three actors: dramatic considerations occasionally interfere with the pace of the narrative, and the subject matter is esoteric. Later in the war, Heisenberg was targeted for assassination, but the envoy sent to do the job (during a Heisenberg trip to Switzerland) decided not to proceed because he realized that Germany was not working to produce a bomb. There's an excellent book by Thomas Powers, "Heisenberg's War," that covers the topic in some detail.

Brilliant drama of ideas

[F Gwynplaine MacIntyre · 10/10 · 9 February 2003]

I saw Michael Frayn's stage play 'Copenhagen' in London ... in fact, I was technically *IN* the play, as Peter Davison's set design seated some of the audience members onstage directly above the actors, like a tribunal sitting in judgment, and I chose to watch the play from one of these onstage seats. (I also saw the play on Broadway in the same circumstances, so technically I was onstage during both productions.) This brilliant drama is basically an interplay of ideas between three highly intelligent minds: a concept which works better onstage than in a film or a teleplay. So, when 'Copenhagen' was adapted for television by the BBC, I was eager to see how they would 'open up' this story ... and whether or not the transition would work.

It works astonishingly well. During the Second World War, brilliant young physicist Werner Heisenberg was in Germany, working towards the Nazi government's efforts to develop a nuclear bomb. Meanwhile, Heisenberg's older mentor and friend, Niels Bohr, was working quietly in his native Denmark (under Nazi occupation at the time) along with his wife Margrethe. Bohr's wife was not a trained physicist, but many people who knew the Bohrs stated that she was an active partner in his work, and that Mrs Bohr deserves to share credit for Bohr's achievements. In 1941, Heisenberg journeyed to Copenhagen to visit his old friends the Bohrs, although their disparate allegiances during the war had strained the friendship. To this day, historians debate why Heisenberg visited the Bohrs at this time. Also debated is Heisenberg's loyalty to the Nazi cause. Did Heisenberg actively try (and fail) to develop an atomic bomb for the Third Reich? Or was Heisenberg secretly an anti-Nazi who covertly harmed the German war effort by pretending to work on the bomb whilst sabotaging his labmates' efforts? As with the assassination of JFK, there are many different theories as to what 'really' happened here. Heisenberg devised the Uncertainty Principle of quantum physics, so it's ironic that we can never be certain about what really occurred in Copenhagen.

The TV version of 'Copenhagen' is brilliant. The action is opened up by having Heisenberg journey to Copenhagen (on a vintage 1940s railway train) while an internal monologue plays on the soundtrack. When he meets the Bohrs, the three of them stroll through various (extremely beautiful) buildings and landmarks in Copenhagen, with an occasional Nazi soldier walking past to remind us that Denmark is effectively part of the Third Reich. The period detail is impeccable throughout, and the locations are a delight to look at.

The script of this teleplay is actually superior to the stage version. In the stage play, after Bohr is identified as 'the pope of quantum physics', his wife replies: 'yes, you were the pope ... but Einstein was God'. This is a cheap joke, meant to raise a laugh from audience members who recognise Einstein yet who lack of knowledge of Bohr's achievements. With due respect to Einstein, the historical fact is that Niels Bohr achieved far more in the field of quantum physics than any other three scientists combined, including Einstein ... so I was grateful that the Einstein joke was removed here. (Einstein's achievements were in relativity, not quantum theory.) Another, much better line from the stage play is retained, when Heisenberg contemplates the concept of 'quantum morality' ... in other words, the journey from Good to Evil (or vice versa) can only be made in a single quantum leap, with no gradual transition from one state to the other. Intriguing!

I wish that the script of 'Copenhagen' (stage or screen version) had included a crucial irony which was mentioned in the playbill of the London production: namely, that most of the important work in the development of the atomic bomb was achieved by Jewish scientists, precisely **because** of policies implemented by the Nazi government. In Nazi Germany, applied physics was considered a much more prestigious field of research than theoretical physics, so Jewish scientists were shut out of employment opportunities in the former, and they concentrated their research efforts in the latter ... which was the field that developed the atomic bomb.

The excellent actor Stephen Rea does fine work as Bohr, and his castmates are splendid too. If you're looking for car chases or action sequences, 'Copenhagen' is not for you. But if you want to experience brilliant acting, sumptuous locales and an exchange of provoking ideas, then I recommend 'Copenhagen' ... and I rate this TV movie 10 points out of 10. This fascinating drama won't Bohr you. (Sorry, I couldn't resist!)

A collision of physics, metaphysics, humanity and history

[paulw7 · 10/10 · 1 November 2004]

Ostensibly about a meeting between Niels and Margrethe Bohr and Werner Heisenberg at Bohr's home in Copenhagen in 1941.

Physics, relativity and quantum mechanics collide with geopolitics, morality, existentialism, humanity and friendship in a few moments of time, told and re-told as seen from different perspectives.

The first part intriguing perspectives on events of history. It builds into a potentially cataclysmic clash of relatives, memories and thought experiments and is ultimately about these few precious moment of life that are grated us and what we choose to do with them.

Copenhagen was a brilliant play and is a superb film. I find myself intrigued, engaged and uplifted.

A Great Modern-Day Rashomon

[Sentinela · 9/10 · 11 April 2004]

A genius scriptwriter takes an ambiguous, un-recorded, wartime conversation, and turns it into a riveting modern-day "Rashomon". Through the exploration of several possible stories, he takes us on an emotional journey into the frontiers of scientific thought, morality and humanity. Bohr and Heisenberg were two of a handful of the greatest intellects ever to walk the face of this planet. The film brings the viewer into an intimate encounter with those two formidable characters, at one of the most evil periods of mankind's history, and lets the viewer in on their most profound personal dilemmas, dilemmas which had the capacity to have a dramatic effect on the lives [and deaths] of millions. Only three actors take part, and they do it very well, especially Rea who plays Bohr. Highly recommended.

Brilliant, moving, cathartic

[DennisLittrell · 10/10 · 28 January 2004]

(Note: Over 500 of my movie reviews are now available in my book "Cut to the Chaise Lounge or I Can't Believe I Swallowed the Remote!" Get it at Amazon.)

Most viewers of this extraordinary play believe that it doesn't answer the question of why Werner Heisenberg came to Copenhagen in 1941 to visit his mentor Niels Bohr. And this is true: playwright Michael Frayn does not give a definitive answer to that intriguing question. But he does give an interpretation.

We must go to the "final draft" of their recapitulation of what happened--the "their" being the three of them, Heisenberg, Bohr and his wife Margrethe, who appear as ghosts of themselves in the now empty Bohr residence. In the climatic revisionist scene, instead of walking away from Heisenberg in the woods, Bohr contains his anger and confronts his one-time protégé. He tells Heisenberg to do the calculation to determine how much fissionable material (a "critical mass") would be necessary to sustain a chain reaction.

Heisenberg had believed without doing the calculation that the amount was somewhere near a metric ton. As he does the calculation in his head he realizes that the amount would be much, much less, only 50 kilos. This changes everything because it made the bomb entirely possible. Frayn's point is that it is far better that Bohr did not tell Heisenberg to do the calculation because if he had, it is possible that Nazi Germany would have developed an atomic bomb under Heisenberg's direction.

But this does not answer the question of why Heisenberg came to Copenhagen. Margrethe has her own answer: he came to show himself off. The little man who is now the reigning theoretical physicist in Germany had come to stand tall and to let Bohr, who was half Jewish, know that he could save him from the Nazis.

This is the "psychological" answer and it plays very well. Heisenberg, like most Germans felt humiliated by the defeat in the Great War and had suffered severely in the economic deprivations that followed. And like most Germans Heisenberg, who was not a Nazi, compromised his principles by acquiescing in Nazi rule because he believed that it would return Germany to "its rightful place" as an economic and military leader in the world. He came to Copenhagen in 1941 in triumph. His triumph, understandably, was not well received.

The more blunt question of did Heisenberg expect to find out whether the Americans were making a bomb or to get Bohr to help with the German project is also answered in a psychological way. The answer is no, because he knew that Bohr would not help him even if he could. As it turns out at the time Bohr had no knowledge of what the Allies were doing. The other question, a question that would haunt Heisenberg for the rest of his life, was did he delay the German bomb project in order to prevent the Nazis from acquiring the bomb--as he claimed--or was the fact that they were not able to develop a bomb just a matter of not having the ability? To this question playwright Frayn's answer is that Heisenberg would have developed the bomb if he had been able. This answer is the generally accepted one based on the historical evidence, part of which comes from some careless words from Heisenberg himself that were recorded by British intelligence after Heisenberg was captured and sent to England. What Frayn does so very well in his brilliant play is show us that Heisenberg's need to succeed and his need to feel national pride would not allow him to behave otherwise.

The direction of this PBS production by Howard Davies relies heavily on an interesting device. Bohr's wife becomes an objectifying factor who is able to step back from the emotional situation and to see both men clearly and to guide the audience toward an understanding of their relationship. Over the years, she and Bohr served as surrogate parents to Heisenberg. He was the little boy who came home to his parents in 1941 to say, Look at me. I am a great success. Only problem was his "success" could not be separated from the Nazi occupation of their country, and Heisenberg was too obtuse and insensitive to see that.

In truth, Heisenberg was not entirely aware of his own motivation. He did not know why he came to Copenhagen. Neither did Bohr. But Margrathe did. An accompanying point to this idea is the story of Bohr bluffing Heisenberg and others during a poker game some years before. It appeared from the fall of the cards that it was extremely unlikely that Bohr had made a straight that would win the pot, and yet he kept on betting until all the others threw in, and then when he showed his hand, he had no straight. He had fooled himself. Frayn's position is that in believing he had come to Copenhagen for innocent reasons, Heisenberg was unconsciously fooling himself. Furthermore the fact that he had not done the calculation was equivalent to Bohr's not looking back at his hole cards to see what he really had.

This is not an easy play, but the ideas are presented in a clear manner so that any reasonably intelligent person can understand them. Frayn employs an elaborate metaphor involving Heisenberg's famous uncertainty principle to elucidate the relationship between Bohr and Heisenberg. They are particles that will collide: Heisenberg the elusive electron, neither here nor there, the very essence of uncertainty, Bohr the stolid neutron. Davies has the two circling and circling one another, even chasing one another, as in a dance while Margrathe watches.

I found the play moving and ultimately cathartic as all great plays should be. Davies' direction and the sense of time and place greatly facilitated my enjoyment. And the acting by Stephen Rea (Bohr), Daniel Craig, and in particular, Francesca Annis, was outstanding.

Well it *used* to be a perfect play....

[ChoirBoyOC · 4/10 · 6 December 2007]

I awarded this presentation 4 stars. They are all for the script, which has been butchered beyond recognition in places. What can possibly be said? They took one of the finest plays written in the last century and methodically robbed it of its heart, humor and humanity. I don't really blame the actors, who are probably doing their best with shoddy direction and incomplete characters (because the very complete characters of the stage version have had their insides -- and insights -- ripped out). I do very much blame the director, who seems to strain to find ways to undermine the script. There are so many awkward pauses, awkwardly re-staged moments and awkwardly re-imagined line readings in this TV movie that at times, I forgot ever loving the play. I'm not one of these people who thinks that genius plays are automatically inferior on film (quite the contrary), but this particular genius play has been tremendously under-served by this outing. Now I hope they'll make a *real* film of this play. The world deserves it.

An excellent film

[netsutty · 10/10 · 21 January 2007]

Over the years the meeting between two old friends, physicists Niels Bohr and Werner Heisenberg, which took place in Copenhagen during 1941, has been the subject of much speculation. In particular, Heisenberg's motives for calling the meeting have been scrutinized and brought into question given the nature of his work at the time on the Nazi's nuclear programme.

The structure of the screenplay brilliantly examines the varying interpretations of what took place during the meeting in a way that borrows from Eisenberg's Heisenberg's uncertainty principle.

I thought that the performances were, as you would expect from Francesca Annis, Daniel Craig and Stephen Rea, flawless, and despite the seemingly dry subject matter of a meeting between two physicists to discuss nuclear physics, I found the plot gripping.

I found it extremely enjoyable and would recommend it to anybody who enjoys a thought provoking story (regardless of the extent of their knowledge of nuclear physics!)

I'd never thought of it that way before.

[jscotti · 10/10 · 25 May 2003]

What a great film. I was blown away by the questions this film asked. I had always assumed that Heisenberg was basically a Nazi and really was developing the atom bomb for Hitler only to fall short because he did not have the time or ability or support. But this play and film draws that totally into question. Regardless of whether that speculation is valid, it is a wonderful look at the ethics of science. After seeing this film on PBS last year, when I saw it was going to be a play at a local theater, I had to go see that version as well. Both versions have their strong points and both were enjoyable. If you're a scientist or interested in science, I highly recommend seeing either the play, the film or both.

Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle

[blue_sundog · 9/10 · 13 June 2003]

This is well done and thoroughly enjoyable portrayal of the moral hesitation and dissembling that go hand and hand with Heisenberg and his efforts with respect to the bomb. It is well acted with informative and intelligent dialogue that brings two of the leading scientists of the 20th century to life while examining all facets of the issues surrounding Heisenberg's visit to Copenhagen and the consequences of his efforts to develop a bomb for Nazi Germany.

A thoughtful, fascinating and engaging film.

[Sleepin_Dragon · 9/10 · 10 March 2016]

This is a fascinating character study, it raises so many questions about Heisenberg, and questions his motives for research, self indulgence, search for greatness, or simply because he was subjugated by Hitler.

As a film it kept my attention from start to finish, it's a truly fascinating story, so incredibly interesting. The three lead performances from Craig, Rea and Annis are incredible, they made the film so believable, each so truthful. The way the story is told is very different, almost unique.

After watching this you can't help but ask the question, can you imagine what would have happened if.....

I loved it, would love to see it on the stage one day. This is an exceptional film. 9/10

Well written and pretty interesting even if it is hard work here and there for the uninitiated

[bob the moo · 2 September 2006]

Occupied Copenhagen during the second world war is the stage for the meeting of colleagues Niels Bohr and Werner Heisenberg. Young Werner has come to talk to Niels. The former is leading the faltering German research programme into nuclear energy while the latter is the acknowledged as the leading expert in nuclear fission by the physics community. Years after the event this play brings Niels, Werner and Margrethe Bohr back together again to discuss their different interpretations of their meetings and their relative roles within the development of the ultimate weapon of mass destruction.

Although this is not the most accessible play or subject, it is still a rather engaging film. My knowledge of the development of nuclear theory physics could be comfortably fitted onto the back of a postage stamp (and not one of those bigger, commemorative ones either) and I had never heard of any of these people or the theories they discussed in this film. But yet I understood the majority of it and found myself easily carried along by the dialogue. I imagine it would have been more interesting if I had had this knowledge but as it was it was still interesting. But it wasn't gripping or that engaging. By having the characters look backwards together the script does a good job of explaining the discussions and their wider ramifications to a degree. I say "to a degree" because I thought it could have done it better for someone like me, someone who knows nothing about anything when they press play for the first time.

The dialogue is well written though, varying between explaining the theory and debating the morals well without ever making it seem forced – again a strength of the "looking back" approach. Craig and Rae impress in their delivery but I would have liked more feeling to run through them. Annis stands up well with both the men and she is used well to provide insight from outside of the two main characters. Davies' direction is pretty good and retains the feel of a play without restricting the locations too much or making it feel stage bound.

Overall then an interesting film but one that will have limited appeal and I understand why. It does well to make it accessible to viewers not familiar with the subject, although it still does have room for improvement as I wanted it to impact me more than it did. Worth a look though as something different which is well written and pretty interesting.

Pompous, slow, unwatchable - a good story wasted. Awful.

[andy-520 · 1/10 · 31 August 2003]

From the start this film drags and drags. Clumsy overdubs explaining the history, monochrome acting, boring sets, total lack of any humanity, verve or style. The actors look as if they are drugged. Potentially an interesting story completely wasted. Surely somebody realised how bad it was at some point in producing it?

Exemplary playwriting, Superb cast, Enthralling

[samabc-31952 · 9/10 · 10 October 2021]

"Before we can glimpse who or what we are we are gone and lead to dust... Settled among all the dust be raised... But no more decisions great or small or ever made again... When there is no more uncertainty because there is no more knowledge And when all of our eyes are crossed and all the ghosts are gone what would be left of our beloved world" He knew how much Critical mass is needed for the chain reaction. It was 50kg. But the figure he gave to Otto Hahn was a ton (900kg) Did he know how to make an A-bomb but he deliberately pretended to have failed when asked by Hitler to build one for Nazis??? He who gave physics an uncertainty law, did he really fail at Diffusion equation? Did he not know that it was difficult to build a bomb with 235 based on the calculation of the diffusion in 235?

Two brilliant scientists Neil Bohr and Werner Heisenberg separated by a dreadful war and now standing behind the either side of the enemy line.. facing each other with mutual respect and fondness for each other and a bitter taste of differences at the minuscule particles level.. the war on this tiny spec of the infinite universe which as a matter of fact exists only as a series of approximations ... Exemplary playwriting, superb cast who deliver 4 out of 4 performances, 3-hander play that is so enthralling that makes this movie a must must watch even if you love physics the way I do or not...Watch Copenhagen, a 2002 movie, available on Prime.

The play's the thing

[Philby-3 · 22 November 2003]

This film treatment of a play by Michael Frayne has an odd structure; essentially there are three attempts to tell the same story, wrapped around a subsequent ghostly appearance by the protagonists, Nils Bohr, his wife Margrethe and Werner Heisenberg.

In this correspondent's education, Bohr, of the Bohr atom, and Heisenberg of quantum mechanics and the uncertainty principle, were two of the giants of 20th century theoretical physics. The story revolves round Heisenberg's mysterious visit to his old friend and mentor Bohr in September 1941 in German occupied Copenhagen. Was Heisenberg, no Nazi but a patriotic German, trying to find out how far the Allies had got with nuclear fission? Was he trying to use Bohr to persuade the German High Command that building a fission bomb was too difficult? Did he just have the hots for Margrethe (herself a physicist)?

In a way, the answer doesn't matter much; shall we say the ending is cloaked in uncertainty, but the acting is very fine and some of the dialogue sparkling. However, it is also a bit dull at times. For some reason Mr and Mrs Bohr are shown as inhabiting a vast belle epoc mansion (without a single servant) and the cast and camera wander round the building and its formal gardens in a fairly aimless fashion. Even as a film it would have worked with a just a couple of sets.

Ironies abound in this story. The Nazis allowed Jewish scientists to work in the theoretical physics area thinking it less important than applied physics, so that by the time they were finally expelled to Britain and the US the same Jewish scientists had made theoretical breakthroughs which proved vital in the development of the atomic bomb. As Bohr points out ruefully, Heisenberg, working for the Nazis, never did anything to kill anybody, whereas he, Bohr, spent two years at Los Alamos after his escape from Denmark in 1943 helping out with the Manhattan Project. Yet it was Heisenberg who had to convince the world after the war that he was not a Nazi collaborator.

On a personal level, Bohr and Heisenberg had a relationship going back 20 years, when Heisenberg, as a young student had had the termerity to challenge the (then) recent Nobel prize-winner's mathematics. Two people as smart as they were with egos to match were unlikely to have a smooth friendship, and so it turns out. Margarethe who apparently assisted Bohr with his work, is a bit of a spare wheel here, though Francesca Annis has such a good presence you hardly notice the fact. Stephen Rea as Bohr is wonderfully tired and world weary and Daniel Craig is very much the younger eager beaver as Heisenberg.

I've not seen the play, but I suspect this property would work better on stage. Opening out the scenery is a distraction here. Still, as Bohr is wont to say, the ideas are `interesting', even if the questions posed can't really be answered.

Copenhagen is a dramatic film, very cerebral, and most challenging

[siri-4 · 9/10 · 31 August 2014]

Copenhagen is a challenging and powerful film that requires close attention. It builds up in rapid layers and, though it only has three characters, they each are articulate and extremely significant figures in their own right. The rise of Nazi Germany from 1933 on casts its shadow over events and the dynamic discussions and attempts at communication occurring. The audience is privy to both what people say, and their thoughts about what they are saying. It is based on the drama by Michael Frayn. Denmark is an occupied country. Hitler's forces have invaded and control most of Europe (Sweden, Switzerland and Portugal are neutral). Director Howard Davies also wrote the script for the film with Michael Frayn who wrote the original theater play. Frayn is present in a detailed prologue and epilogue to the body of the TV movie that provides a detailed description of the context of the play, and some historical background. In the essential question of why Werner Heisenberg went to see Niels Bohr in 1941 is re-assessed. There are also interviews with living relatives of the two greats that reveal that it is possible Heisenberg wanted Bohr to know that he was in charge of the German work on a nuclear weapon and could delay its achievement (in the end he claims they were two weeks away from success, while Bohr queries his neglect of the consequent radiation from an explosion that would kill them—another example of the human error that bedevils the practical use of nuclear energy). IN his final years Bohr penned many drafts of a letter to Heisenberg, that was never posted, and his family guaranteed for 50 years. Bohr's "confessions" were not available to Frayn when he wrote the play. Werner Heisenberg (1901-1976) and Niels Bohr (1885-1962) first met in Gottingen, Germany, when Heisenberg was 20 and challenged Bohr's mathematical calculations at a public talk. Heisenberg would spend six years in Copenhagen working under Bohr. Bohr had first developed a theory of the structure of an atom that became known as Quantum Mechanics (not nuclear physics), for which he was awarded a Nobel Prize in 1927. Their interactions stimulated Heisenberg to further develop Quantum Mechanics and the theoretical concept of the Uncertainty Principle in 1927 when he was 26 years old, for which he won a Nobel Prize in 1932 (not 1933 as said in the film, and an award which included recognition of his discovery of allotropic hydrogen).

Very worthwhile giving full attention

[springforward · 10/10 · 22 December 2021]

Wonderful acting by three talented actors. And, the direction and execution of this movie was made memorable.

I don't want to share any spoilers to this film. As not knowing what it's about is helpful to maintain its effect.

Thank you for making this film.

'My Dinner With Andre' set to quantum mechanics

[jgrant1194 · 8/10 · 6 November 2021]

First, I'll get out of the way my one and only criticism. Could they not find ONE German and ONE Danish actor to at least affect the accents, instead of two Brits? I love both of these guys, but come on... ok done.

For the first one-third of the movie, I had the feeling I was watching an ambitious after-school special, written to introduce high school AP physics students to this pivotal moment in 20th century quantum mechanics. And two of its major creators, Niels Bohr and Werner Heisenberg. As a practicing physicist, I knew the topics they discussed well, but I was not aware of this meeting between the two. So it seemed like a clever way to introduce a bunch of actual physics principles, using the 3 (and only 3) characters, to avoid the clutter of unrelated melodrama.

After I let myself sink into the story, I realized it was much more - a quietly poetic take on the tremendous political upheaval of that awful time, the ethical choices that brilliant people had to make in weighing moral, national, and family priorities. And the tantalizing pull of one of the towering achievements in modern science, which united the 'good guys' and the 'bad guys'.

The unsettling realization that had the Nazis not looked down their noses at 'Jewish science', this all might have very easily, and very nearly did, go the other way.

A sobering thought.

TEDIOUS, SLOW AND UNWATCHABLE

[gpw787 · 1/10 · 15 January 2022]

I agree with the guy who wrote this:

From the start this film drags and drags. Clumsy overdubs explaining the history, monochrome acting, boring sets, total lack of any humanity, verve or style. The actors look as if they are drugged. Potentially an interesting story completely wasted. Surely somebody realised how bad it was at some point in producing it?

Intriguing but disappointing

[paulromney03 · 27 January 2009]

Michael Frayn's "Copenhagen" is a fascinating play, possibly a great one. This stripped-down version is worth watching if you have not seen the original, but it has been "adapted" to fit a TV time slot and leaves out too much. A distinguished cast turns in gripping performances, substantially helped by the constant reiteration on the soundtrack of one of Schubert's most haunting slow movements. But after reading the play and then watching the film again I found that many nuances are lost. A drama has been turned into a recitation.

These criticisms reflect above all on Howard Davies, who adapted the play and directed the film. Perhaps he is not to blame for the misbegotten notion of hacking the play down to the trunk, but the pruning (or maybe butchering) could have done more competently. I could not believe my ears when I heard Rea (Bohr), in a description of the process of nuclear fission, utter the words "two hundred and eighty" although Frayn's original text clearly states (in numerical form which I cannot reproduce here) "2 to the 80th power ... a number with 24 noughts." Whether Davies authored the error or merely let it pass as director, it is evidence that he was simply not up to the job. Still, the person who should hang is the one who thought of cutting the play down to 90 minutes in the first place.

Powerfull but fiction

[barrydayton · 9/10 · 8 October 2021]

Some of the reviews assert that this was a poor version of the play it is based on, but for those of us who didn't get to see the play at least we have this. In reality these arguments had been going on among physicists for several years. It is particularly strange that this British film talks about America possibly building a bomb but in fact in 1941 Britian was was ahead in the race. Ultimately it was American money and technology, not physics, that won the race for the bomb. The film was right, however, that Germany never even tried, perhaps knowing that they did not have the resources necessary. Maybe this is what Heisenberg was trying to say?

Interesting but flawed

[thelittleother · 16 October 2011]

I'm reviewing the TV adaptation here; other reviewers have pointed out that it differs from the play, and I can't comment on that.

The structure of the play, which revisits an event multiple times without ever giving a "final" version, is clever and involving. The setting is stagey but convincing enough and at the play's heart is a fascinating and very serious moral dilemma.

The dialogue, however, is toe-curlingly pretentious. We're treated to several conversations in which characters helpfully explain to each other things they already know. Worse, we get interminable voiceovers setting out everything for the audience in minute detail, even during scenes that seem to be intended to build dramatic tension.

Portentious references to "uncertainty" and "complementarity" abound, but tell us little about either the science or the characters. The only moment when you're at risk of being exposed to any physics is a rather juvenile explanation of the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle. Unfortunately this seems to completely miss the point it's trying to illustrate, perhaps because Frayn or the director is worried about scaring the audience or perhaps because one or both of them failed to understand it.

There are things to like here, mostly about the large-scale structure and the subject-matter, both of which are genuinely interesting. All three actors do a decent job with what they have to work with, too. That was enough to get me to the end, but only just.