Travelling Salesman (2012) Reviews

• Best dialog I have experienced in years

  karmabandrocks2013-12-27

  I believe it is a travesty that this film has such a low score on here. The only thing I can attribute it to is that today's viewers have an attention span of a raccoon trapped in a treasure chest. I suppose the fact that I am a very big fan of this type of film--and what I mean by that is chock full intelligent dialog--may also have something to do with that. There are two other films that have always been in my top 10 favorite films list because of this attribute and they are 12 Angry Men, and The Man From Earth (not to be confused with the man who fell to earth.) Basically a few people trapped in a room for most of the movie discussing a monumental mathematical proof that has huge implications for just about everything and everyone on the planet, and the moral responsibility they have as they are in cahoots with the government through funding. If you have an attention span, love existential and philosophical discussions, or just enjoy movies that make you think then you will love this film as I did. Please help this film get the rating it deserves.

• very interesting and realistic topic well articulated (if you understand what it's talking about)

  vdmsss2013-09-14

  This film is about a four theoretical computer scientists who have just proved the conjecture P=NP in the context of a classified research project funded by NSA, DHS and the like. Such a discovery (which incidentally and just to pacify you is not believed possible) would have an enormous impact on our current digital world, in particular would make cryptography breakable and -therefore- terminally undermine the very foundations of any form of security and privacy on the Internet. The entire spectrum of consequences is hard to predict and, surely, in "capable" hands such knowledge would be quite a powerful weapon. This is rendered well in the film, as is the ensuing conscience struggle for the scientist: to comply with the government's demand of absolute silence, or make the result public at the risk of being branded as traitors? When (s)he says that this film attempts to present a certain "travelling salesman problem" as if everything else depended on it, I suggest user "qqwe qweetr" does not understand what (s)he is talking about. Indeed the situation depicted by the film is plausible, even possible (though extremely unlikely), the screenplay and the dialogues are competent, and the whole package is intriguing if you understand the context. Given that, the film is not a particular good piece of cinema, sounds a lot like a theatrical piece, and surely most details (and therefore of the plot) will go over the head of the typical viewer. However, for a film made with $10,000 this is quite an achievement. Chapeau!

• Technically accurate, dialog is a bit too vague

  kun-jeremy2013-09-23

  As a graduate student in the field of theoretical computer science, I feel that I understand P vs NP as well as the makers of this film could hope for any viewer to understand them. I felt the treatment was more technically accurate than almost any movie I have seen about a mathematical topic, but it still fell short on a few key moments. Warning, the following contains spoilers. First, I was confused when they mentioned PSPACE in a few parts of the film. It made it sound like not only had they proved P = NP, but the main character had proved P = PSPACE, and was using this as his back door algorithm. I don't think this was the intent of the movie, but in any case it was a bit confusing. A second scene puts the main character in his office with a student and his colleague, and he mentions that he has an algorithm that goes on proving theorems and proving more theorems. It is a well known consequence of P = NP that finding mathematical proofs become trivial, for there is an obvious algorithm to check a purported proof in polynomial time. The world's most renowned mathematicians would have known this as well, and it doesn't make sense that it would occur as some kind of "revelation" to the main character and remain a secret he could use as leverage. Finally, I felt that some of the phrases used to describe general things (like the field of research, which is theoretical computer science or TCS) made the dialog a bit awkward. That being said, the movie had absolutely palpable dramatic tension. The lines were witty and sharp, the acting was very believable (and the characters actually had distinct personalities). Their power struggles were very exciting to watch. The color was also very well balanced. None of the Hollywood teal and orange crap that has become so standard and ugly. In all, I enjoyed the movie and the fact that it gave serious consideration to the most important problem in my field (and treated it fairly). My main criticism is that the plot should have more direct clarity. It's nice to leave a lot up to implication. But mathematicians are rarely indirect, and the best lines of the movie were the pointed, thought provoking comment.

• Interesting in the light of Edward Snowden's revelations...

  CiccioButcher2013-09-17

  and beyond. The release date as such (few days have passed since it's available for buying at the movie's website) is spot on. The movie puts the most emphasis on the philosophy and the moral dilemma of the main characters. Science plays the basic but secondary role as authors can't afford to go deeper into it as science hasn't solved the problem that is solved in this movie and I feel that is the right choice. In short, a team of four mathematicians has, based on their proof that P=NP, created a machine which can, among many things also break all most commonly used encryption and give the owner huge power in the networked world (overseeing all confidential communication on the internet, bank transaction, breaking into computer systems etc.). As the project was funded by US Govt., they lay right on all results and want to keep those findings classified. Of course, all of the mathematicians understand the short-term ramifications of their finding as well as the dangers of immoral use. They are confronted with a moral dilemma of delivery of the final solution and signing a non-disclosure agreement on all results or opposing the powerful adversary. How would you decide to act in a given situation? The movie is fairly slow into the first 10mins, but the momentum builds up from there on. Acting is very good from all main actors. The only somewhat unconvincing character is the (not so ordinary, mysterious) security officer. The script is troublesome somewhere as some things are left out(context, or sense sometimes as some stuff sound ridiculous) probably on purpose to leave the feeling of something that we couldn't understand as they're talking practically about a proof that has been only constructed imaginary in this movie and whatever they'd reveal about it, it would sound ridiculous as it would not be correct so why not simplify it and just create short fuzzy dialogue in order to keep the movie as tractable and engaging as possible. Overall: 8/10

• What a Ridiculous Movie

  patrick-and-thompson2014-11-12

  Far from being a "smart" movie like many reviewers here praise it, this movie is written by people playing make believe with characters who are suppose to be far more intelligent than the writers can claim to be. As a result, the dialogue is laughable. I've literally never seen a movie try SO HARD to be edgy and smart and yet be so vague and shallow. The characters in this movie are don't resemble real people, especially not top mathematicians and computer scientists. They're a fantasy of the creators who pretend that they know what it's like to be really super duper smart and work on something really super duper important. So we get a collection of vague, generic, shallow musings of the type that non-geniuses apparently think geniuses spend their time thinking about. And the characters always talk as if the audience is in the room but can't be let in on the secret. Just speak directly about what you're talking about instead of making indirect references to everything. But okay, that's not nearly as edgy and smart so we can't have that right guys? The pretentiousness is overbearing. Not to mention the occasional blatantly incorrect reference or analogy (demonstrating that the writers don't really understand the problem well enough, which makes me wonder why they're so caught up trying to make super smart and deep dialogue about a problem they don't understand?). Stop trying so hard, people. And let's stop making absurd caricatures of math genius.