Film is about story...

Rating: 9/10 (21 March 2020)

Many of the "most helpful" reviews for this film seem to be complaining about inaccuracies. And while I can agree that there are historical inaccuracies, I think the well-intentioned reviewers are missing the point.
This is not meant to be a pure biographical piece that details the life of Alan Turing with perfect accuracy. It's a story.
If they mentioned that the machine was already half-built by the poles the challenge would've seemed less impossible and the task less impressive, leading to a less satisfying ending.
If they had everyone on Alan's side from the start, and write to Churchill together, it would've seemed like Alan didn't have to overcome the personal problems and lack of social skills. Leading to a less satisfying character development.
If they had Turing quickly concluded to eliminate common words from the possibilities in coded messages, then there wouldn't be any tension.
If they Turing's team had no idea what the broken codes would be used for (Sometimes saving lives, sometimes letting them die) then there would be no consequences for the decision they made to let the ships be sunk. And continually choose whether or not to let the germans carry out their plans.
If Turing didn't tell the detective his story, he wouldn't have gotten to ask the detective: "Am I human? Am I robot? Am I war-hero? Am I a criminal?" Which for me at least, was one of the most impactful lines of the entire film.
So, were there inaccuracies? Of course. It's a film after all and "BASED on a true story". But if the writers had stuck to history instead of using creative license, this would be a far less compelling story. It would have far less impact. And many of the people who enjoyed it, likely wouldn't have ever even seen it.
In the end the irony was that Turing didn't get to enjoy the world he helped protect. And if this film's goal was to protect history, we wouldn't have gotten to enjoy it.