The Man Who Knew Infinity

The Man Who Knew Infinity has played the tropes well and comes very close to how the life and times would have actually been, more importantly, it sparked an interest in the person and his work; work that shaped our understanding of the modern world in numerous ways.

...the film's main strength lies in Jeremy Irons' performance. It's one that holds the film together and raises its worth in the eyes of the discerning. While the story is about an extra-ordinary individual it plays out as something a little too cerebral and boring to reach out to a wider audience.

Story wise, the makers have done a fine job to keep it to the point. Thanks to Matt Brown for making a film on this mathematician genius who certainly deserves to known in his own country.

In the ultimate analysis, Brown's work may seem more like a piece of exotica -- and this was exactly how Ramanujan was treated by students and professors at Cambridge.

Although the storyline is decent, it could have been told much better, giving us more insight into his struggles in London. The film fails to leave a lasting impression. Dev Patel tries hard but isn't convincing enough as Ramanujan. We do not get the opportunity to feel for him, when he's been beaten up or when he's diagnosed with advanced tuberculosis, yet persists in writing his proofs. Jeremy Irons outshines Dev Patel, with his genuineness.

It tells an important story and it does make a meal out of the subject. Ramanujan's tale needs an audience because in terms of achievement his contribution to the world of mathematics was perhaps greater than that of Sachin Tendulkar's to cricket.

The Man Who Knew Infinity is moving, but not as compelling as the real life story of the genius it celebrates. The definitive film on Ramanujan remains to be made; one that will have the heft of The Imitation Game or A Beautiful Mind; one that will sidestep the formulaic screenplay and exotica, but won't shy away from solving equations.

The real drama of how Hardy brought out the sparkle in the diamond in the rough is reduced to a clash of working styles. At the heart of Robert Kanigel's book is the indefinable bond between the two men, vastly different in education, temperament, approach and cultural values. A different kind of movie is required for this relationship to find expression.

To its credit, the film makes complex mathematics fairly accessible, even to a non-math person. But what's the point if one fails to engage with the man behind the math?