I’m going to come right out and say that I really didn’t like this movie very much, and think that a lot of the effusive critical praise (and Oscar buzz that comes with that) should really be going to some of the better films out there. [Foxcatcher and Whiplash come to mind.] I have no doubt that Eddie Redmayne will take a slot in this year’s Best Actor race, but I can’t help but feel that slot would be so much better in the hands of Whiplash’s Miles Teller or Nightcrawler’s Jake Gyllenhaal.
What Works: Redmayne does look a great deal like Stephen Hawking (the primary reason he seems to have been cast). And nobody does supportive-parnter better than Felicity Jones. And the (too few) scenes that focus on Hawking’s scientific breakthroughs are the most exciting in the movie…
What Doesn’t: …And maybe the only exciting scenes in the movie. This film makes the absolutely bizarre decision to frame Hawking (world-renowned for scientific breakthroughs arguably as revolutionary as anything Albert Einstein came up with) as a genial good-guy in a movie that’s more Hallmark Channel than Mental Floss. It’s squarely focused on Hawking’s relationship and marriage, and it doesn’t seem interested in the science behind what Hawking is actually famous for. By the end, I felt like we’d seen countless scenes of Hawking’s wife looking worried—and pushing her religious views—but barely understood the discoveries of Hawking.
I understand the movie wants to play to a wide audience that maybe doesn’t understand this stuff, but when a movie about a legendary scientist is borderline afraid to really delve into the science (or atheism) of its subject? That’s a problem. Not showing you the way Hawking’s mind really works or his discoveries kind-of defeats the purpose of making a biography…and even more puzzling that the film focuses so much on Hawking’s wife’s sexual tension with a male caretaker. He’s literally the third most important character in the movie.
Plus, I think Redmayne may be getting a little too much credit in the acting department. There’s an affable but icy distance he never fully loses, and the way he plays Hawking doesn’t really change much even as literally everything about Stephen’s circumstances change.
What I Would Have Done Differently: I don’t even like the way this movie is shot, all soft-romantic gloss and sepia-toned gauziness. For most movies, I would do little tweaks, but if I’m not even feeling that a film has the right look for the material, you know I’d probably do a top-to-bottom tear down: a trade-in has value, this is one I might scrap.