Skip to main content

Theory of Everything - Film Review

Boring.  While it held my attention in the first half it started to drift and become somewhat monotonous in the second.  Intriguing moments are rare and the focus seems to be on emphasizing the obviously harsh reality in which the brilliant mind of Doctor Stephen Hawking had to function whilst also overcoming the threat that his very life may be over in short order.

To me emphasizing the details of a disease that is unavoidably brutal, and a given does not add anything to the experience of watching the film.

The characters (lead role for Hawking and his first wife) are well played yet the screenplay gets uninteresting after 45 minutes.  The scenes seem repetitive in their sequence adding no new insights.

It is important to realize that a successful person (in the case of a major intellectual force like Hawking) is not a stand alone phenomenon but a result of lot of pain and effort from a loving and caring cohort that plays a crucial role in supporting him - from his wife to his parents to his professor and friends all are contributing architects in helping Hawking succeed in presenting what he had to offer the world.

While the math and physics are not important per se in the movie - it requires Newtonian intellect to  truly understand or imagine the beginnings of our universe and what state we are in now - the dialog seemed muffled as well.  I could not understand half of what was being said.  That could be viewer auditory error as well - what with it being on the end of a long work week.

Not sure if the director has much experience with getting a film made - from what I can tell he definitely has produced work that highlights the experiences of unusual individuals but this particular production failed to be enjoyable, or inspiring which I think a work of art should do.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

But What If We're Wrong?

I attempted to read this book by author Chuck Klosterman backward to forward but it started hurting my brain so I decided to stop and do it like any other publication in the English language.  Start from page 1 and move to the right. Witty, caustic and thought provoking this is a book you want to read if you believe that the status quo might, just might be wrong. At times bordering on being contrarian about most things around us it tries to zero in on the notion of what makes anything believable and certain in our minds.  The fact that there is a fact itself is ironic.  Something analogous to the idea that you can never predict the future because there is no future. Many books and movies have tried to play on this concept - best that I recollect (I think I am) was 'The Truman Show'.  This book by Klosterman attempts to provoke the reader to at least contemplate that what they think they know may be wrong. He uses examples like concept of gravity, and how it ...

You are important to us

Followed by piano music.   Followed by 'we are experiencing heavier than usual call volume'.  Sounds macabre like bleeding during menstruation or after a ghastly attack with a weapon on a hemophiliac.  Sorry Mrs. Johnson but it appears little Gertrude here has been bleeding heavier than usual what with her night time activities competing with the woodchucks in your neighborhood. Some services even go as far as to pick a random day to say - 'if you were to call us during the Chinese lunar month when the moon is axiomatically hugging the polar star with Jupiter intravenous when call volume is light'.  Well I will be damned.  I thought  I had checked with my astrologer before I placed this well focused call but  I guess this is what you get for listening to a quack. Umph! I am not sure which marketing genius came up with this personal touch concept of informing the caller that you are really a jackass for actually calling the customer serv...

Of Jims and Johns

Here is another essay on the subject of first names. As in birth names. Or names provided to an offspring at birth. While the developed world tends to shy away from the exotic like Refrigerator or Coca Cola for their new production there is a plethora of Jims and Johns and Bobs or Robs. Speaking of which I do not think there is a categoric decision point at the time of birth if a child will be hereafter called as Bob. I mean have not yet met a toddler called Bob or Rob for that matter. At some point though the parental instinct to mouth out multiple syllables runs out and they switch from calling the crawler Robert to simply Robbie to Rob. Now speaking of - it is strange that the name sounds like something you would not want Rob to do - i.e. Rob anyone. Then why call someone that? After all Rob Peter to Pay Paul is not exactly a maxim to live a young life? Is it? Perhaps Peter or Paul might want to have a say in it? Then there is this matter of going to the John. Why degrad...