A very interesting story full of different experiences while volunteering to be part of behavioral experiments. A very well made movie with good performances. Tim Treakle

▣ https://band.us/band/89487216/post/12 @}>--->>*

A low-key film on a timely subject. I found the asides to the camera a bit annoying by the end. Also, I don't find the question Milgram asked so confounding. I saw a video of wolves robotically howling in response to other wolves howling, and I thought it was a perfect parody of humans. We aren't solitary creatures. We want to play a role in a community, and that instinct most often usurps our gift of higher reasoning.

Experimenter's subject is intriguing even if its delivery is rightfully dry. Not sure how else social experiments could have been made into a more effective or compelling movie...

A solid telling of one of the most infamous pyschological studies ever conducted.

Back when he had hair, Peter Sarsgaard seemed like the dramatic version of Joel McHale to me. Don't know if it was the slightly similar voices or what. Experimenter is a biopic focusing on social psychologist Stanley Milgram, the famous and somewhat controversial organizer of experiments dealing in human obedience, which drew parallels to the choices made by thousands of supposedly reasonable people as they participated in atrocities such as the Holocaust. The film follows the creation of the original Milgram protocols, the responses to them by researchers and the public, and Milgram's own later work, told in a fourth-wall-breaking format that sees Milgram (Sarsgaard) frequently narrating his own experiences or speaking directly to the audience. The film gives particular priority to discussing the implications of the psychologist's work, and the unsettling notion that most people value conformity over compassion. As a discussion of the experiments themselves, Experimenter is pretty well done and Sarsgaard feels well-cast, though the meta elements (an elephant following him around intermittently, an 'elephant in the room'?) and the intentionally distant, academic dialogue may seem to be more alienating than insightful; for all the posturing, there isn't much more said beyond 'humans can behave far worse than we might like to admit'. Winona Ryder's character sort of slips into the background, and an interesting take on Milgram - where at points people around him can't tell whether he's being sincere or subjecting them to a social experiment - is never expanded upon. Dennis Haysbert gets dressed up in an Einstein wig, though. (3/5)

Intense, well acted, scary, and thought provoking.

Pretty good stuff here. I love Sarsgaard anyway, and he fits this role really well. I'm not at all surprised with the reactions Milgram's work got. People really like to think the best of themselves and others, except, of course, for those they want to think little of, or even the worst of. Oh, but not themselves (though I'm clearly leaving out those with abysmal self-image). Gaffigan was fairly Gaffigan, but he got the job done. Leguizamo has a nice cameo as one of the study subjects. Edwards and Yelchin are fine in the same position. Dennis Haysbert makes a good Ossie Davis, though it is kinda funny. But Lutz is a lousy Shatner. Speaking of Shatner, Betty White just.....And no, that's not Daryl Hannah but the long lost Lori Singer. Ryder was disappointing for me. Seemed to phone this one in. I generally dislike the whole obvious breaking the fourth wall, talking straight to the audience thing. Seems contrived, cheesy, hammy often. But I can see how it can be used for exposition, and can be a way of bringing in comedy, too. But I think here director Almereyda was going for a theater stage context, which works with the hand-drawn type backdrops that are used at times. I wonder if the 'playfulness', as some reviewers call it, is there to offset the disturbing experiment results, the Eichmann/Nazi/Pogrom material. It does detract from the film, imo. Let it be what it is. Very heavy, heady subject matter here, and it was handled well in a film context. And yes, I got the elephant in the room. 3 stars

I was highly disappointed with this movie. I thought this would be more about Milgram's experiments than his personal life, but I was unfortunately wrong. The parts that did recount the experiments were interesting, but I don't feel it got the attention it deserved. The film tried to be too "artsy" and cool, and was just weird in parts. I found it very boring. I seriously considered turning it off. I wouldn't recommend wasting your time with this film.

The first 30 minutes of the film is about all you need. After that, it gets real old, real fast. The experiment is not that hard to understand. After that the film becomes more about Milgram who isn't that interesting. Often encounters are patched into the film that simply add running time but add nothing to the film. And the documentary approach becomes quite boring after awhile. I barely paid attention over the last 45 minutes. Neither the film or Milgrahm's experiment add much to human understanding and insight. Why so many praise the film is beyond me.

Tough to watch at times, but so important, one might say critically important to learn from in these dark and dangerous times of tribal conflict and immoral authority. What would you do if Trump told you to do something inhumane? Would it help you if you thought you were electrocuting someone from the opposite party? A person of color? A person identified as LGBTQ?

Might not be the best movie ever written, but I found it profoundly instructive! The human race is a bit clearer to me now than before this view.

Thought-provoking, easy to watch.

experimenter is an interesting film with a good story and overall it’s a good bio pic. Performances are well done and dialogue is good. Unfortunately like some Bio pics it does move a bit slow and doesn’t cover as many aspects of his life because you would be hoping for. Still those interested in the subject should take notice.

experimenter is an interesting film with a good story and overall it’s a good bio pic. Performances are well done and dialogue is good. Unfortunately like some Bio pics it does move a bit slow and doesn’t cover as many aspects of his life because you would be hoping for. Still those interested in the subject should take notice.

I remember studying Milgram and his obedience experiments many years ago in Psychology and I found the whole concept fascinating. Unfortunately that is basically the beginning, the middle and the end of the premise of this film. There just isn't a story there really and in Sarsgaard you've got a lead actor who is woefully ill-equipped to single-handedly carry that concept. It's not a bad film, it's just very forgettable and no amount of Directorial tricks (and there are a lot of them) are going to change that.

6.3/10 — "Okay"/"Watchable"

Intresting subject, but it doesn't go deeper exploring the character or the experiments. Not sure wether breaking the fourth wall was a great idea for the movie.

A fascinating look into the life and thought provoking experiments of Dr. Stanley Milgard. A very interesting movie.

I'd heard of Stanley Milgram from when I studied psychology, his most well known experiment being when he asked participants to administer an electric shock to someone in another room every time they answered a question incorrectly. It was an experiment with the purpose of discovering how far people would submit to those perceived to be in an authoritive position in order to understand the actions of many ordinary citizens who carried out the orders of the Nazi regime. The experiments were obviously met with controversy despite the whole set up being fake. The film also explores many of his other work, again experimenting with compliance and authority. It was an interesting film but I felt it merged the lines between movie and documentary as the there was a heavy focus on the man's work while his private life was only glanced over. Still an interesting film for anyone with an interest in human behaviour.