Watch Experimenter For Free

How sad is this?

Best movie ever!

This is one of the few movies I've ever seen where the whole audience broke into spontaneous, loud applause a third of the way in.

Through painfully honest and emotional moments, the movie becomes irresistibly relatable

I watched this at home on Netflix streaming movies. My wife chose to not watch it.Much of the story centers on experiments done in the early 1960s at Yale by a professor of psychology. Peter Sarsgaard portrays that professor, Stanley Milgram. Being Jewish his outlook and studies were highly influenced by the Nazi treatment of Jews before and during WW2. The experiments evolved, but involved paid volunteers who acted as "the teacher" and each communicated by voice only with "the student" in an adjacent booth. Questions were asked and if the student answered improperly the teacher would be required to give him an electrical shock. As incorrect answered continued each shock was at a higher voltage.The test was to see if people would blindly follow instructions even after they heard the student yelling "It hurts, let me out." There never were any electrical shocks, in every case the student was part of the staff conducting the experiments. To Milgram's surprise about 2/3 of the "teachers" kept on following instructions. The obvious parallel are the Germans who executed Jews, often blindly following orders.Milgram received an abundance of criticism, towards lying to the participants and traumatizing them with the thought that they were hurting people. Some would even ask the test monitor in the room, "Please check, he might be dead." But in the end these experiments and others he formulated contributed greatly to the understanding of human psychology. He died at the young age of 51, he was a professor at CUNY.In a good role for her Winona Ryder was his wife, Alexandra 'Sasha' Milgram. In an inside joke at the party where Milgram met his wife she said "I am with Seth Horowitz". Horowitz is Ryder's actual family name.Good movie.

This movie was a miserable attempt to create a movie that was based on a true story that occurred in 1961.Stanley Milgram's character was portrayed in a neutral manner that causes the audience to lose interest. In this movie we make an inference that Stanley's experiments are all conducted in a safe environment with the 1976 conduction agreement of fair testing. Michael Almereyda, writer and director of the most catastrophic movie in cinematic history,failed to create an enjoyable movie for the desired audience.This movie is not one for the kids failing to grab the attention of the Audience. I wholeheartedly believe that this incompetent movie is Great to your child to sleep,within the time you can blink your eyes your child will be fast asleep.In conclusion, I strongly believe that this movie should be exterminated from the face of the earth. If any assistance is required please call bobs bugs be gone.

Intelligent, challenging, semi-experimental view of psychological scientist Stanley Milgram and his seminal early 60s experiment that proved most people would follow orders that went against all they believe in - and caused them great personal stress - even to the point of believing they were causing bodily harm or death, if they felt it was expected of them and they wouldn't be blamed.Almereyda, long one of our bravest and least conventional film-makers, uses his tendencies to break from traditional storytelling to his advantage here. He breaks our usual illusion of 'reality' in a movie with black and white projections as parts of sets, the main character addressing the camera, sometimes about events that haven't happened yet, and even a (very funny) literal 'elephant in the room'. These playful, Brechtian devices distance us and keep us from emotionally getting lost in the story in the way a traditional Hollywood bio-pic would have us do. But it serves to heighten key intellectual questions about Milgram and his work – which also manipulated reality, and implied a certain artificial distancing between Milgram and the human race.Like a film, Milgram's experiment manipulated people, told them stories, to get them to react a certain way, and Almereyda makes us ponder a lot of these uneasy connections between art and science.Not all of these cinematic gambits work, and sometimes ideas get repeated beyond effectiveness. But I'll take this kind of fresh, jarring approach to looking at a man and the ideas his work over a traditional, shallower Hollywood approach any day.

The movie tells the story of the (in)famous Milgram's experiment, a fascinating study of human behavior and how easy it is to influence people to do what you want - even horrible things - when you're in a position they perceive as commanding (which may help explain the behavior of the Nazis in WWII).It's a pretty accurate recreation of the experiment and its outcome, but films like this (e.g.: The numerous films made about the Stanford prison experiment) raise the question: why watch a recreation when you can watch the REAL thing on YouTube?For some odd reason the director chooses, at random occasions, to break the 4th wall or use obvious old B&W rear-screen shots at random places. Very strange decision that throws you out of the movie and seems totally out of place.The first half of the movie is OK, but then it loses some of the focus.Better watch the footage from the actual experiment if you haven't seen it yet.