The Theory of Everything

The Theory of Everything is an extremely moving love story concerning the brilliant British scientist Stephen Hawking and his first marriage. Whilst you may need a PhD in Physics to understand the intricacies of Hawking's theories (which by coincidence I have and – no – it's not enough) the lack of any sort of Physics knowledge is not a barrier to enjoying this movie. Starting in 1963 when Hawking is starting his PhD studies in Cambridge University, the story picks up with the geeky and socially inadequate Hawking as he sparks a (rather unlikely) relationship with the extremely attractive Jane (Felicity Jones from "The Invisible Woman"). If this segment of the film had a hashtag it would be #punchingabovehisweight. Greatly encouraged by his mentor Dennis Sciama – generally seen as the father of modern cosmology and played by the ever reliable David Thewlis – Hawking develops his extraordinary theories (and counter-theories) in the hot-house of a 1960's Cambridge. Fate cruelly steps in though with Hawking developing the Motor Neuron Disease with which he is now famously associated. Given he was given just 2 years to live, he clearly has a private black hole somewhere to have warped time for the last 60+ years! As biopics go, this is an exceptionally good one. Eddie Redmayne's Hawking is just mesmeric. Hawking himself, on being given the opportunity to see the film before its world premiere, commented that at times he thought he was watching himself. The depths of physical and emotional acting Redmayne displays with this performance has to be seen to be believed, and I will personally eat my hat if Redmayne does not get at least an Oscar nomination for this part. (And who wouldn't want to see Hawking himself roll out to announce an award at the Kodak theatre!). Felicity Jones is also outstanding in the role of Jane. The film is based on Jane Hawking's own book although screenwriter Anthony McCarten has taken a few liberties with the life story for dramatic effect. As referenced above, Hawking has seen the film and he was reportedly so moved that he shed a tear and then offered the use of the actual audio from his speech synthesizer for the film. So in this sense, Hawking narrates his own dialogue in the latter half of the film, which is quite a coup. Supporting actor parts are also great from an ensemble cast with Simon McBurney ("Magic in the Moonlight", TV's "Rev") as Hawking's father, Harry Lloyd as Hawking's university friend Brian and Charlie Cox as the 'family friend' Jonathan being particularly effective. The director is James Marsh, best known for his gripping documentaries "Man on Wire" and "Project Nim", and the cinematographer Benoît Delhomme ("The Boy in the Striped Pajamas") realising a wonderfully nostalgic vision of 60's Cambridge. Also notable is the beautifully fitting music by Islandic composer Jóhann Jóhannsson - I fully expected this in the credits to be the omni-present Alexandre Desplat, but for once I was wrong! So a 'must see' in the run up to the Oscar season, but one to take lots of tissues to if you are affected by emotional films: this one seemed to be particularly impactful on the females in the audience - perhaps because it tells the love story from the perspective of Jane - with my wife virtually in tears throughout! (Or maybe that's just because the realisation has finally struck that she's been married to a PhD physicist for 30 years??!). (If you enjoyed this review please see my archive of other reviews at bob-the-movie-man.com and subscribe to receive more).

This is the dullest film I have seen in the last 10 years, probably even longer. I think the main problem is that most people know who SH is and how disabled he is, so wasting time on his illness and SH's deterioration over time was stupid. There was no drama here - he has motor neurone disease and you don't get better, surprise, surprise. So instead the film could have explored the characters in much more depth but sadly, the characterisation is so shallow there is nothing to applaud here. For the actor portraying SH to get the Oscar for Best Actor is laughable. Save your money by not going to see this film and instead use it to buy 'Untouchable' (Intouchables) by Olivier Nakache & Eric Toledano if you want to see a beautiful film about a disabled person.

I was hugely disappointed by this film after all the hype. First niggle was seeing Jane Hawking played by a model actress. That made her attraction to the awkward and frankly not very charming young version of Stephen Hawking difficult to believe. A major problem throughout was over use of soft focus, it made the whole thing feel very unreal. It hardly touched on Stephen's work at all. All it seemed to say was he got praise for one idea and then got praise for another idea that contradicted his first. Hardly portraying the work of a genius, which Stephen undoubtedly is. So OK it's supposed to be a love story then. What love story? I felt no real chemistry between the two leads at all. Then there is the chocolate box representation of middle England and the stereotypical characters in it, again all in soft blinking focus. As for Eddie Redmayne's performance it was OK but I did not find it at all engaging. It was a good physical impression of Stephen Hawking but where was the passion, where was the angst? Sadly missing for me. One final niggle, there is a scene towards the end where Stephen is supposed to be conversing with Jane and it is absolutely clear that there is no way he could be creating the text on his computer in the speed required to produce the conversation we see. I watched it with my wife on Valentine's day eve and she was equally unimpressed. How this film can be considered for any Oscars is a total mystery to me. Whiplash is so so so so much better.

It was sad to see a film take such a wonderful subject as the life and ambitions of Mr. Hawkins and attempt,dismally, to create it for nothing more than a contender in the awards 'game'. This is the kind of tripe which is accepted all too readily as biopic material and offers little or nothing of the person or their skills other than to show off as a proffered mating ritual. Mr. Redmaynes painstaking efforts are the only reason I gave it any rating at all. With all the facts and wonder we have have at our disposal about the man, why is it that there is little or nothing involving his deep, driving demand for 'the answer' and all that is entailed in his studies. Rather we are given still another sexist portrayal of two people battling impossible odds to finally give in to their bases needs, with others. Not only old fare but out of place and cheapening to the real story line. I could only try to dissuade others from subjecting themselves to this demeaning film.

I've read scientists are turned off by this film for its omissions, simplifications, falsities, and other failures to explain Prof. Hawking's theories. I can understand that, being a law specialist who can't watch law dramas. But if you're not a cosmologist or a physicist you should not be discouraged by the film's failure to give you enough detail for a two credit course. It's a good drama of people, a bit schmaltzy as befits the facts, and in that regard I understand it's pretty accurate, and is definitely well acted and directed. Also a nice glimpse of what Oxbridge life was like in the 1950s. As they say, the male lead is Oscar bait.