Einstein's Big Idea (2005)

What makes it different from others?

Strong and Moving!

I am only giving this movie a 1 for the great cast, though I can't imagine what any of them were thinking. This movie was horrible

The plot isn't so bad, but the pace of storytelling is too slow which makes people bored. Certain moments are so obvious and unnecessary for the main plot. I would've fast-forwarded those moments if it was an online streaming. The ending looks like implying a sequel, not sure if this movie will get one

I found this to be the most informative and delightful documentary I have seen in years. It shows how man knew of lightning, discovered the nature of electricity. How magnetism had been known for centuries and then that the two separate forces were brought together as one through brilliant experiments.Later light is found to be of the same properties of electricity and magnetism. Other, more elemental discoveries, would prove to be instrumental to help Einstein bring all of this together to figure out the mechanics of how the sub-molecular forces which allow everything in existence to thrive.Without one piece of this puzzle, people would have never have been able to realize how things work.This is the first report as to how to we came to understand the Universe and utilize its properties.

Starting out with the scientific ambition of a blacksmith's son (Michael Faraday) this docu-drama charts the development of the ideas that informed scientific understanding up to the point where it was all condensed into the most famous mathematical formula ever - E=MC2. This formula was discovered by Albert Einstein from the discoveries of Faraday, Lavoisier, Voltaire and others and while we are told of the main formula we also learn about those behind its development.I have to agree with some other users when I acknowledge that the subject behind this docu-drama is fascinating but I must take issue with claims that this is a "great film" and all the "10 out of 10" votes that it has received on this site because the film itself is not worthy of the subject. It is hard not to be engaged by the basic history being delivered here, although it must be said that it is perhaps far too basic to be enjoyed by anyone who knows anything about the subject (which I pretty much don't). However it is the delivery that is the problem because this film is yet another in a recent spate of docu-dramas where dramatisations deliver history while experts contribute to flesh out the detail. Sadly, like other docu-dramas on channel 4 recently, the film relies too heavily on averagely acted dramatisations and not enough on the experts who are informed and passionate about the subject. The latter have just enough time to do the job (along with the narration) but the dramatisations are far too heavy and not helped at all by the score constantly pushing it to come across as more dramatic and exciting than it actually is. Often it seemed that the producers didn't totally trust the detail to be engaging enough.Narrator Ecceleston veers between these two extremes. At times he provides solid narration but at others he tends towards hyping up the story for no real reason. The cast are reasonably mixed. Their performances are all good enough to act as a televisual live-exhibit (which is really what they are) but not good enough to do any more than this with a script that never required them to anyone. In fairness nobody is "bad" but it is hard to get past the fact that the narration and expert contributors are much more interesting and frustratingly given much less time to do their thing.Overall then this is an OK film. It succeeds not on its own merits but on the value of the history and the people involved in developing the great ideas that we are swept through. Aiming for a wider audience is no bad thing but it is a shame that the film never lets the experts go into too much detail or to delve too deep, preferring instead to overdo the dramatisations. It will still be enough to engage some viewers but the lack of detail and the overdone re-enactments will put many off, as their main contribution is to distract rather than enrich.

The program gave a hint of what females might have been capable of had we not had to struggle under cultural practices that are still making it harder to publish important scientific thoughts than were we male.I believe there are psychological sex differences, but we can't settle on what they are. That which is statistically measured (e.g., responses to questionnaires) may be trivial. Or the difference may be of great and obvious universal significance (e.g. anatomical and motivational aspects of the sex act). Considering the obstacles to intellectual achievement and communication, that women were depicted in the program is a tribute to what may ultimately turn out to be a true statistical female intellectual superiority. There are some signs of it among school children. Or there may not be. It is hard to hold impinging variables constant. One thing is certain: women have been more capable than formerly they were almost universally believed to be.In addition to social obstacles there was our dangerous biological role (which is much safer today). But what is allowable or encouraged differs greatly in different parts of the world. It has also changed greatly during the seven decades of my lifetime in this culture.

This is a drama about several groups of people including, Einstein and the members of his "Olympia Academy", Lise Meitner, her nephew Robert Frisch, and her collaborator Otto Hahn, Antoine Lavoisier and his wife Marie Anne, and Emilie du Châtelet and Voltaire, (I had never heard of Emilie du Châtelet before this program, and I think that's a terrible oversight.) This movie is not a physics lecture; it's a demonstration of the passion that the people who do science bring to their work. It's a passion every bit as profound as the passion attributed to the artists among us, and to me, these scientists have never seemed more alive as people than in this production.