Really lovely. It's absolutely gorgeous from a production standpoint - the cinematography, direction and score are all flawless - and is anchored by two stunning performances from Eddie Redmayne and Felicity Jones. Redmayne in particular is fantastic in an incredibly physically demanding role. The two of them share a lovely chemistry and many scenes are incredibly melancholy and romantic. I would have liked to have seen certain aspects of the script a bit more developed, and the ending isn't entirely satisfying (which is hardly the filmmaker's fault as this is how it played out in real life), but this is a moving and inspirational movie that will no doubt be a major player in the upcoming awards season. A-

A pair of dynamic lead performances and a director with a sharp eye cannot entirely hide the fact The Theory of Everything is a flawed film biography, but they help a great deal. The film, of course, focuses on Stephen Hawking (Eddie Redmayne), the British cosmologist and theoretical physicist who has become one of the most iconic and influential figures in modern science despite a devastating and ever-worsening diagnosis of motor neuron disease during his time as a student at Cambridge. Chief among the film's concerns is his 30-year relationship with his first wife, one Jane Wilde (Felicity Jones). She loves and advocates for him while also helping with day-to-day activities which for him could have become insurmountable. Genuine inspiration is found in their romance and the various acts of courage and sacrifice it entails, and the film also portrays the ways in which they drifted apart or resented one another with incisive tact.

The performances are the heart of the film and no doubt worthy of laurels. Redmayne undergoes a astonishing and traumatic transformation, conveying the pain Stephen experiences as his muscles betray him and his limbs contort. His eyes remain vivid, however, and abundant with iconoclastic wit. And though her performance is more subtle, Jones matches him beat for beat. She at first registers as a force of conviction and elegance, but later plays sharp notes of unfulfilled longing and self-doubt. Behind the camera is James Marsh, a versatile director who transitions from documentaries such as Man on Wire to fictional features such as the undervalued Shadow Dancer with admirable ease and confidence. Here, he is in fine form and fashions a chic and high-toned production, always capturing the dance of light on reflective surfaces and infusing certain sequences with home-movie intimacy via Super 16-millimeter photography. He also trains his camera on small, yet poignant details, including, for instance, a moment in which the paralyzed Stephen closely observes the way his wife and friends reach, dine, and demonstrate their points with their hands around the table. Each gesture, we realize, represents a luxury he will now forever be denied.

Yet, despite Marsh's acumen as a craftsman and also the undeniable quality of the cast, The Theory of Everything falls a hair short of the type of creative combustion required to elevate a film such as this from crowd-pleasing and respectable to truly great. The primary shortcoming is its inability to illuminate the scientific genius of its subject. There are brief, ultra-simplified explanations of his theories, yes, and briefer still references significant moments in his career as a scientist, including the publication of his bestselling A Brief History of Time. And his personal evolution as a husband and as a father is touching, but the film needs and fails to illustrate the tapestry of his mind (or its idea of his mind) and the presumed storm of frustration, glee, inspiration, and obsession driving envelope-pushing scientific discovery. Without doing so, it is at once very fine and slightly incomplete.

B

Beautifully shot, well-paced, and excellently acted, The Theory of Everything is an engaging biopic, (mostly) focusing on the marriage of Stephen Hawking, and his first wife, Jane Hawking. Eddie Redmayne and Felicity Jones are superb as the leading characters, and their chemistry is what drives the narrative. Unfortunately, the film is not without its faults. It often lacks focus, trying to be an examination of the marriage, the deterioration of Hawking's health and its consequences, as well as his achievements as a scientist, all at once, and as such some of those areas end up feeling underdeveloped and rushed. Also, there are some moments where the film veers too much into melodrama, and others where it falls into the trappings of the Oscar-baity biopic and then it becomes cringeworthy. I did not like the ending sequence at all. Aside from those issues, there is a lot to admire in The Theory of Everything, and it is a fine film and worth-watching. But it could have been much better. B

I actually really liked this, but I'm a sucker for romance and sentimentality in my movies. What can I say, I'm a cheap date. Of course the end result is not as interesting as a biopic of Stephen Hawking probably should be, but the whole thing had sort of a swoony, dreamy quality that I got swept up in. Eddie Redmayne is fabulous, fully committing himself to the heart and physicality of the role. Felicity Jones, who surprisingly may actually have more screen time, is lovely and restrained. They'll both deserve the Oscar nominations they'll likely get. A Beautiful Mind the Gap. B+

It was a nice movie, though it was ultimately disappointing. The best way to describe it was that it's a nice, easy movie to watch but it doesn't stay lingering in your mind for any amount of time. That being said, the material is elevated by the two lead performances. Eddie Redmayne is very good and if he is nominated for an Oscar, it is deserving but Felicity Jones was the true stand out here. She was remarkable.

B

I rather liked it. Terrific lead performances and interesting relationship dynamics.

Loved it. Both Jones and Redmayne are aces and the film does a great job capturing both sides of Hawking's life (success and health).

In regard to its story, The Theory of Everything could be dubbed "The Stephen Hawking Show;" in regard to its quality, "The Eddie Redmayne Show" would be a very appropriate moniker. Although there are other points of merit in the film, Redmayne's performance is by far the biggest triumph. He has shown promise in previous roles, but he outdoes himself with a remarkable physical portrayal of Hawking that also very gracefully and subtly communicates emotional and intellectual information that the character is unable to verbally communicate throughout most of the second half of the film. Redmayne certainly earns the accolades that have been heaped upon the performance. Unfortunately, there's really nothing else in the movie that can match up to it. Felicity Jones is very good at portraying the quiet strength of Hawking's wife, and she makes the most of a meatier role and more screen time than the average supportive wife in this type of biopic, even if she doesn't leave as lasting of an impression as Redmayne. There's enough content on their romantic life to fill out the two-hour running time, but it comes at the expense of exploring Hawking's ideas and processes in greater depth, which is a bit of a shame considering that the film is at its most fascinating when it looks into how Hawking thinks, and how he adjusts as ALS continues to take its toll on his body (especially considering what we ultimately learn about the marriage near the end of the film). Any criticism of the film as "A Beautiful Mind Lite" is neither unfair nor inaccurate, but despite storytelling shortcomings, it succeeds on the back of superb acting.

B+

B+

This is acting Oscars heaven. Of course Eddie Redmayne is wonderful with a part that offers itself up so well to showcase some acting chops, but the real highlight here is Felicity Jones, the quiet beacon in the storm of emotions. I loved the chemistry between the two of them and that kept me involved all the way through - because otherwise it is no more than your generic biopic about an extraordinary person. The only other thing that stood out was the great score that is also assured an Oscar nod, even though it is occasionally manipulative - worked on me!

paralyzingly boring

Like its brilliant subject, The Theory of Everything is largely immobile, but there's fantastic and vibrant life brimming in its eyes, a joy that is contagious throughout. For all its weaknesses, the film is basically a love story, through all its triumphs and tragedies. It's a lot closer to true love despite its ending.

Sadly though, it plods along at times, supported only by two terrific performances from Eddie Redmayne (his Oscar to lose) and Felicity Jones. Because its true main plot is the story of Stephen and Jane, it awkwardly handles Hawking's achievements. Even the story of his physical deterioration feels stunted at times, glossing over his struggles to overcome, opting for a more sunny outlook. It never seems he's down and out at any time. One sad, sullen glance, and suddenly the eyes re-ignite and he marches forward, so to speak. I'm not disputing that the man had an infinitely positive outlook, but it's impossible not to struggle, especially mentally. For that, this feels like a made-for-TV version of the story. No grit, just a lot of overcoming and personal success.

What would be otherwise forgettable is saved entirely by the two leads. The film triumphs because of them. With a better script (at least a better idea of where the film should and shouldn't go), this would be a clear-cut frontrunner for best movie of the year.

B

Truth

BJs Grade:

B+

The Theory of Everything

An extraordinary performance by Eddie Redmayne. Keaton and Cooper are good, and Steve Carell is very good, but none of them reach the impressive heights of Redmayne's portrayal of Stephen Hawking. He deserves the Oscar. End of discussion. As for the film, it was respectable, but outside of Redmayne's performance, it was nothing spectacular. That being said, I can't believe how much the film plucks at the heart strings, and it half-worked, and Redmayne perfectly captures the sense of humour that I never knew Hawking had. I liked having Felicity Jones in the film, but her scenes with Charlie Cox (and some of the delivery/dialogue in the film) just didn't seem authentic for my liking. I also wish they had focused more on the physics side of his life (you know, since it is called The Theory of Everything) and tried to educate us more than just wow us with Redmayne's brilliance. I really don't care for his personal life. Other than being disabled, it's really not that unique. But his professional life is, and I had hoped for more. I understand it's an impossible task to fit a lifetime into 2 hours, but I also wish that if they're going to make the film about his love life, then they could have at least shown more of when his wife was pregnant and how they coped (that is very interesting for me right now!). But yeah, what is also spectacular is how he certainly bangs out the kids! No problems in that area! (wink wink).

The film was also very good at stressing the impact of motor neuron disease, which is something that I was ignorant to before. It's the sort of film that confirms you have a heart. A terrific performance, expressive cinematography, average score, and overall a film that I will probably never watch again.

B+

It’s good but it’s the stronger film for Jane than Stephen Hawking for me. It’s about Jane pushing them to stay together after his diagnosis, then holding up the marriage by taking care of him, then doing the “right thing” by pushing Jonathan away, etc. Stephen Hawking’s career doesn’t have any interesting conflict whatsoever in this film because he’s such a wrecking ball and his flirting for the Elaine character works less than Jane’s with Jonathan. With Jane/Jonathan it makes sense why Jane would grow restless in her marriage, while Stephen has everything he could want in Jane and there’s nothing specifically Elaine has over her other than being new. When Jane gets together with Jonathan I was mostly happy for them, while Elaine just comes off as a hom wrecker. On top of this while Redmayne is great I was even more impressed by Felicity Jones, she had great non-verbal acting and reactions in this film showing just what she’s feeling. Redmayne was great but I feel like he could've taken the performance to another level if his face and eyes expressed more when Stephen either couldn't talk or barely could. I was more impressed by his performance in the first 30 minutes when he was normal but eccentric. I appreciate the film mostly because of how much better a character Jane is than the vast majority of biopic wives

Now that I think of it you're right, other than his initial reclusion after getting diagnosed, there is really not much emotional arc for Stephen Hawking in this film other than "horny" when Elaine shows up. How he feels about his wife being in love with another guy-possibly sleeping with him isn't covered all that much as he's mostly cool with them, and they don't make him react emotionally to him losing his voice hardly at all, it takes him about 30 seconds to get in the swing of things. I would say this looks like a bigger issue for the script than Redmayne

The acting and the score are awesome. While it's not perfect, I personally was never bored with the story. I'm a sucker for this kind of movie though.

A

Considering what life threw at him, if one was to only go by this 2-hour flick, you would have to assume Hawking didn't mind any of his physical deteriorating at all. Just a hiccup!

I believe in a different, ballsier movie, this would have been much more about Jane than Stephen. It felt like that's what 75% of the movie strived to be, but once things got going, they realized they needed more of Stephen so they added hastily.

Solid movie. Nothing amazing but well-made with a great performance from Redmayne. Just felt like something was missing.

7/10 ( B )

This was a very heartbreaking movie to watch, but it was well worth it. The story of Stephen Hawking's life really gives one hope for the human spirit. Imagine if he really had just lived 2 years. Also, this movie handled the whole faith vs. science debate in a very sensitive way. No one should be offended. Felicity Jones really reminded me of Jennifer Connelly's character from a beautiful mind; her performance may have been a bit behind it's time. Eddie Redmayne is very good here as well, especially in the parts where Stephen could not speak.

A-

Ranking the 2014 BP candidates (some of my grades have changed)
Whiplash A-
Birdman A-
The Theory of Everything A-
The Imitation Game A-
American Sniper B+
Boyhood B
The Grand Budapest Hotel C

Best Actor
1. Eddie Redmayne
2. Michael Keaton
3. Bradley Cooper
4. Benedict Cumberbatch

Best supporting Actress
1. Emma Stone
2. Meryl Streep
3. Keira knightley
4. Patricia Arquette (so overrated!)