The Theory of Everything
Starring: Eddie Redmayne, Felicity Jones, Tom Prior, David Thewlis, Emily Watson, Charlie Cox
Directed by: James Marsh
Rating: PG-13
Genre: Drama, Romance
2014

Times Seen:
Tim: 1

Summary: Stephen Hawking (Eddie Redmayne) strives to unlock the mysteries of the universe, but a diagnosis of ALS threatens his potential and his life.

Review:

Tim: I have to admit, I'm surprised I didn't like this movie more. Sure, it's a good film, but it was praised highly by critics and won the Academy Award for Best Actor. This is a film that features a truly incredible performance, but the rest of the film doesn't quite measure up. You sometimes have films like this- where one performance outshines the rest of the film. It's always a little disappointing, even when the movie is solid, like The Theory of Everything.

I love that there is a movie about the life of Stephen Hawking, as he is a truly fascinating human being. He's generally regarded as one of the most intelligent human beings on the planet and has established himself as one of the giants in the world of theoretical physics and cosmology. What makes his story even more impressive is that he suffers from early onset ALS and is completely paralyzed. This would make an incredible film (or it should). I was legitimately looking forward to this.

The most noteworthy aspect of this film is the truly remarkable performance of Eddie Redmayne. I honestly have no idea how he gave such a believable performance. From the opening scenes of him before the diagnosis, to the breaking down of his body and the loss of his motor functions, to the final, completely paralyzed version of Hawking. Redmayne does it all in a way that feels authentic and real. It's truly an unbelievably good performance. There are only a handful of actors in the world that could have pulled this role off, and an even smaller percentage that could have done it to this level. While I really, really liked Michael Keaton's performance in Birdman (and wanted him to win), I have to admit that Redmayne had the far harder task, so it was probably right that he took home the Academy Award for Best Actor.

I have to give Felicity Jones a lot of credit as well. In a film with a performance as strong as Redmayne's, it was possible that everyone else would be completely overshadowed. Somehow, Jones manages to not only not be overlooked, but actually shines in her own right. She doesn't get to do anything flashy as Jane, but she just delivers a solid, authentic performance. Jones may be on a meteoric rise and if she continues delivering performances like this, she could be a megastar. I was very impressed with her. I was very happy she was nominated for Best Actress.

The supporting cast is good, too- from David Thewlis, Emily Watson's too-small performance, and especially Charlie Cox, who gave a nice supporting performance. Really, the whole cast from top to bottom is solid. That being said, this movie is totally about Redmayne and Jones.

Now, while I enjoyed the movie, there were some serious flaws that prevented this from being a great movie (I have to admit I'm really surprised it was nominated for Best Picture). The first is that this movie isn't always exciting and engaging. It can be very compelling, but there were some big lulls in this 123 minute film. It was honestly on occasion a little difficult to stay engaged. That is really not good. The other piece is that the film spent most of its focus on Hawking's romantic relationships. I get that, but the man is a true genius and I wanted to spend a little more time exploring his contributions to science. This aspect of his life was touched on, but I wanted to know so much more. How in the hell did he continue to be one of the greatest minds in the world when he was completely paralyzed? I know how he got around and communicated, but the film just glosses over one of the most interesting parts of his life. What was it inside of him that drove him to continue to learn and explore the mysteries of the cosmos when he had such grave obstacles in front of him? I don't feel like I really understand Hawking, which is one of the cornerstones of a biopic. The movie dropped the ball there. I also felt frustrated that the movie didn't do a better job of explaining the passage of time. It was occasionally very distracting to wonder how much time had passed- was it one year, three years, ten years? I kept wondering and looking for clues, which detracted from my enjoyment of the film. It also never addresses how Hawking could live so long after initially being given two years. That really bothered me. I wanted at least a line or two explaining how it was even possible to surpass all his doctors' expectations.

So, while there are some big flaws, James Marsh does direct a good movie. It humanizes Stephen Hawking. It features a stunning performance by Redmayne. It's occasionally emotional and uplifting. While The Theory of Everything isn't a great movie, it's a solid effort and one worth seeing.

Rating 1-10
Tim's Rating: 7



If You Enjoyed This Movie, We Recommend: A Beautiful Mind, The Imitation Game