The Scientist

This movie must have been called kinder garden scientist , it is really so boring no target no acting no plot just guys and woman moving around and thinking about future past and whatever i really don't mind ,i m really "pissed" with people that writing the idmb reviews this for sure are guys payed by the director or whoever is related with this movie . They always write good things and you go to see a movie and touch down the movie finally sucks and you lost 2 hours from your life. The movie sucks as all the stuff of this movie sucks . Stay Away and if you really don't see the truth that this movie is really disgusting then go to a shrink to have a look on you, only mental problem people will see good things about this movie,also director go drawn your self, the DVD cover or poster is good "as always the smart trick we make a POSTER and we sell the crappy movie" the content is crap and sucks .Also for the smart guys that wrote about acting ... what acting? acting for what? you mean acting is freezing like idiot and put the digit into your mouth and thinking for 2 hours?? if this is acting sorry but i cant but to lough about it. . sub below 1/10

Among all the other recent movies uncreatively named after the professions of their main characters, this one is the least descriptive. This movie could have equally well been called "The Artist," "The Carpenter," or even "The Housekeeper," and it would have lost nothing. The story has nothing to do with science or scientists, except that it happens that the protagonist used to be one. Even calling it science fiction is a stretch: at best, it's a hackneyed drama with some mystical overtones. Throw in some irrelevant side-plot about his new neighbour's wife, and that's about the long and short of it.

It's not all bad, of course: The acting, cinematography, and music are all well done, but the pacing is so painfully slow and the story so jumbled and ill-conceived that this is not worth watching.

From the first line in the film it's clear that its trying to give its audience a DEEP metaphysical cerebral experience. The film starts with the actors looking serious, and spooning out deep dialogue about life the world and everything. The kind of stuff stoned first year philosophy students belch out on a Saturday night. As the film progresses we see the actors looking even more serious. The climax of the film is every actor looking serious even the birds seem to have a deep introspective stare. Lets not forget the little whirring machine that appears to be at the heart of it all. I don't know what it does, its never explained, but its DEEP and its serious so that should enough also it spins and whirrs, and that is about as scientific as the film gets.

If you're looking for a film where actors stare a lot and look serious, no plot and incomprehensible dialogue, then you've found the perfect film. Personally for me watching paint dry seems like a roller coaster ride compared to watching this. Oh by the way its go nothing to do with science, the guy is a scientist but might as well be a Russian acrobat.

I'm surprised that so many people hated this movie, and yet I'm also not surprised. It's obvious that the director was going for an art house vibe, but, judging by the reviews here, I think that people were expecting Michael Bay or Roland Emmerich, instead of Stanley Kubrick. The people who'd ordinarily like art house movies were turned off by the pro-life message at the end. The name of the movie is called The Scientist, yet there's no actual science involved here -- just metaphysics and quantum mysticism. At one point, the titular scientist even delivers an anti-science rant, where he calls Einstein a fraud. If the rationalists weren't alienated by all the metaphysical mumbo jumbo beforehand, they're definitely ready to get up and leave now.

Luckily, it takes more than artistic pretensions, slow pacing, metaphysical mumbo jumbo, or a preachy pro-life message to drive me away from a movie. However, what I find a bit off-putting was the way the director ripped off 2001: A Space Odyssey, though I suppose you could call it an homage, if you were feeling kind. Though it lacks some of the more surreal or symbolic elements of 2001, I got this continual feeling that the director was doing his best to channel Kubrick into every single scene. There were also obvious influences from Solaris. Now, I'm as big a fan of 2001 and Solaris as the next pretentious film snob, but, really, there comes a time when you need to stop studying those movies and move on with your life, so that you can develop your own style, independent from them. Unfortunately, it seems as though this director hasn't quite reached that point yet, though I'll say that he's got good taste in cinema.

The pro-life message and mystical mumbo jumbo are a bit annoying, but I think they're forgivable. I find much to admire in Romanticism, but when it becomes this reactionary, irrational, and sentimental, I quickly lose interest. If you're into that sort of thing, though, I'm sure this movie will resonate with you. However, for those rationalists out there, I'd probably suggest you skip this. It's a gigantic middle finger to you and your beliefs. Of course, as in all wish fulfillment scenarios, the metaphysical beliefs of the titular scientist are proved correct, and once the imperialist asshole imposes his beliefs on his neighbors, their lives are magically transformed into a fairy tale romance, bringing them back from the brink of divorce. Come on. That's just over-the-top. Nonetheless, it's artsy enough to score some points with me, making up for the didacticism and errant philosophy.

According to the article below; the sole purpose of this movie was to scam the Iowa film board. Iowa gave among the most generous tax incentives to have movies made in the state. This one certainly didn't help anyone in Iowa. The people involved were prosecuted.

The site is io9.com The article is the biggest science fiction movie hoaxes and scams of all time.

I only watched a few minutes of this movie then checked out the reviews. The article from IO9.com explained why someone would even bother to make this.

Don't waste any time on this.