Although I have to admit that the movie was a well-made piece of cinema, I am disappointed with the extent to which it "watered down" the mathematics and its use (or even abuse) of stereotypes. What I've heard about Alan Turing from other sources never gave me the idea that he was so far out on the "autism spectrum" that he would not be able to understand jokes or participate in normal conversation. In this film, for instance, he does not understand that when his co-workers say they are going to get lunch that they are inviting him to go along. On the contrary, I was under the impression that he was personable, humorous and had close friendships. True, he famously got very upset when people at Bletchley used his mug without permission, but that does not seem all that weird to me. And, of course, he was a homosexual man in a time when that was considered a serious crime, which would also have contributed to the perception that he was somewhat anti-social even if he was not actually as emotionless and humorless as The Imitation Game would have you believe. Artistically, I suppose it is useful to have him be so robotic that his own thought processes seem as alien to the people around him as do the thoughts of the artificial intelligences he liked to imagine. As is often the case in works of mathematical fiction, there is a clear implication not only that the character happens to be both strange and talented at mathematics, but more specifically that the latter is somehow a consequence of the former. Near the end of the film, Joan says to Alan that she's glad he isn't normal because a normal person could never have done what he did. I consider this a misrepresentation, not only because I suspect the real Alan Turing was a lot more normal than his portrayal here, but moreover because there are many very brilliant mathematicians who are as normal as anyone else.

Among mathematicians, reactions to this film have been mixed. Some are bothered by historical inaccuracies. (For instance, Turing was not responsible for making tactical decisions based on the decrypted messages. Also, the subplots with the spy portrayed by Downton Abbey's Alan Leech and the battle for supremacy at Bletchley Park are fake and apparently added just for the drama.) Others were disturbed by the stereotypical portrayal of the math genius as anti-social and humorless. (There is no denying that Alan Turing struck people as an odd man, not necessarily surprising considering that his homosexuality must have made it difficult for him to be completely at ease in such a hostile environment, but he seems to have also been a person with a good sense of humor and many close friends.) Knightley's character mispronounces the name "Euler". Finally, the film downplays some of Turing's important mathematical discoveries while falsely giving him credit for the comparatively lame contribution of thinking to look for common phrases in the coded messages. Yet, while acknowledging all of these problems, some experts also still find things to love in the film.

To get a good sense of the diversity of opinions out there among experts, I recommend that you read The New York Review of Books' scathing criticism, Scott Aaronson's blog entry, this fact-checking article from Slate and this review by mathematical fiction author Cristos Papadimitriou.

And of course, you should see it for yourself and come to your own conclusion. If you do, you should be sure to compare it with Breaking the Code, an earlier attempt to portray Turing's story with less sensationalism and a greater focus on his math research outside of Bletchley.

(By the way, the title is a reference to the Turing Test.)