Home Forums Movies Theory of Everything(Focus, 2014)

Theory of Everything(Focus, 2014)

CREATE A NEW TOPIC
CREATE A NEW POLL
Viewing 15 posts - 16 through 30 (of 50 total)
Created
6 years ago
Last Reply
5 years ago
49
( +1 hidden )
replies
4512
views
34
users
seabel
3
Kristen Boyer
3
Denis
3
  • Profile picture
    Atypical
    Joined:
    Dec 1st, 2011
    Topics:
    Posts:
    #157424

    Very moving trailer. This looks like Eddie Redmayne’s moment finally.

    ReplyCopy URL
    Profile picture
    seabel
    Joined:
    Nov 21st, 2012
    Topics:
    Posts:
    #157425

    You’re so cheesy!!!!!!!!!!!!

    ReplyCopy URL
    Profile picture
    Joined:
    Jan 1st, 1970
    Topics:
    Posts:
    #157426
    This post was found to be inappropriate by the moderators and has been removed.
    Profile picture
    seabel
    Joined:
    Nov 21st, 2012
    Topics:
    Posts:
    #157427

    I am curious about this in a good way, but something is a bit off about this. Maybe it is because Jones and Redmayne look like brother and sister.

    Yeah.

    The fact that they IMMEDIATELY give Jones the sympathy/affection for Redmayne’s accident is unfortunate, just because the story hasn’t had enough time to develop her passion (Not intelectually, but PHYSICALLY, attraction). 

    ReplyCopy URL
    Profile picture
    Joined:
    Jan 1st, 1970
    Topics:
    Posts:
    #157428
    This post was found to be inappropriate by the moderators and has been removed.
    Profile picture
    Beau S.
    Joined:
    Feb 10th, 2013
    Topics:
    Posts:
    #157429

    Saw this last Thursday. It’s a formulaic, mediocre biopic. Very inconsistent and awkward pacing throughout. Surprisingly not as melodramatic/heartstringy as I expected it would be. The film opens strong before suffering a horrid middle but picking up again at the end. The middle third was so bad I found myself spacing out and coming close to dozing off a few times.

    The film exists to showcase the actors, and it does so quite well. Eddie Redmayne’s transformation is really something to behold. The Academy will eat this performance up and continue to lick the juices off of the plate. Redmayne could easily win Best Actor (even though, with many contenders still sight unseen, I would rank him no higher than fourth). The real star of the film, however, is Felicity Jones who gives a beautiful, understated, absolutely marvelous performance as Jane Wilde. This is film is not Stephen Hawking’s story, it is Jane Wilde’s story, and Stephen Hawking just happens to be a major character. Redmayne gives the showier performance but Jones carries the film on her back. She doesn’t give an Oscar winning showy performance (especially compared to her competition) but will certainly be nominated alongside Redmayne.

    I suspect the film will go nowhere beyond the acting categories. If adapted screenplay ends up being as weak as it looks it could get in there, but I doubt it. It would be a deserving nominee for score but that category also looks pretty stacked this year.

    Grade: C+

    ReplyCopy URL
    Profile picture
    Daniel Montgomery
    Joined:
    May 14th, 2011
    Topics:
    Posts:
    #157430

    I agree that this is kinda formulaic, though maybe a little better than mediocre. What did strike me was the disconnect between the lead performance and the rest of the movie. Not so much that Eddie Redmayne seemed like he was in a different movie, but rather that he was acting for a better one. Part of me resists this kind of showy performance — play a real-life character with severe, visibile disabilities and collect your Oscar — but by the end of this I couldn’t deny what a remarkable thing Redmayne is doing. It’s a cliche to say I forgot he was acting, but screw it — I forgot he was acting. There’s so much technical difficulty just in embodying the specific physical and vocal mannerisms of Hawking’s disease, and to do it while making me not notice he was doing it — remarkable.

    That said, the rest of the movie goes through a lot of the usual motions. Though this is based on Jane Hawking’s memoir, her character feels mostly defined by being Stephen Hawking’s wife, like a lot of other Long Suffering Wife roles in biopics.

    ReplyCopy URL
    Profile picture
    KyleBailey
    Joined:
    Nov 15th, 2013
    Topics:
    Posts:
    #157431

    Seeing this tonight! 

    ReplyCopy URL
    Profile picture
    Kristen Boyer
    Joined:
    Dec 13th, 2012
    Topics:
    Posts:
    #157432

    Let us know what you think!

    ReplyCopy URL
    Profile picture
    FreemanGriffin
    Joined:
    Feb 19th, 2012
    Topics:
    Posts:
    #157433

    Eddie Redmayne is going to win this year’s Best Actor Oscar. I know it’s ridiculous of me, but I am sincerely hoping the Academy comes to its collective senses and leaves Michael Keaton OFF the list of nominees (he’s still on my predictions list; I get that others don’t see his “performance” (sic) as one-note, boring, dull, and insipid). Well, anyway, Redmayne is going to win. He gives an AMAZING, PHENOMENAL, all-out BRILIANT acting performance!

    Felicity Jones is superb also and will be nominated for Best Actress. I also believe the film will get a Best Picture nod, and a Best Adapted Screenplay nomination. The jury is still out for Best Director though – the director’s branch is very idiosyncratic and it’s the category that is almost always the hardest to predict (remember when both Ben Affleck and Kathryn Bigelow were not nominated? I agreed with the director’s branch on those two, but hardly anyone predicted it).

    The film is visually beautiful and highly cinematic. It’s not just a made-for-television movie. I was enthralled throughout the film, it didn’t lag at all. This film will definitely make my top ten! (:

    ReplyCopy URL
    Profile picture
    KyleBailey
    Joined:
    Nov 15th, 2013
    Topics:
    Posts:
    #157434

    This is a beautiful movie. Eddie is remarkable taking note from Daniel Day Lewis in “My Left Foot” adding humor and his wit and charm to such a sad story. Felicity Jones is wonderful as well and the supporting cast members all do a nice job. The music, directing, cinematography, and writing are all beautiful as well. It is such a touching movie that made me tear up during the finale. Will Eddie win the Oscar? Not sure just yet (I want to see Carrell, Spall, and Oyelowo before I use the words Sure Thing) but man does he make a strong case for it. 4 1/2 /5 stars 

    ReplyCopy URL
    Profile picture
    Nick Spake
    Joined:
    Jul 5th, 2012
    Topics:
    Posts:
    #157435

    My Review

     

    Stephen Hawking is
    somebody we often view as a deep thinker, but not necessarily a deep feeler.
    Most people seem to assume that he’s just a giant brain and a voice box. Anyone
    who’s seen Hawking in interviews, though, will tell you that he has a wonderful
    personality and sense of humor. In “The Theory of Everything,” we learn that
    Hawking’s life isn’t merely defined by his contributions to the scientific
    community. Rather, his life is truly a love story about family, finding passion
    in your work, and celebrating human existence.   

    “The Theory of
    Everything” stets itself in the 1960s as Hawking studies physics at the
    University of Cambridge in England. Yeah, you probably missed the fact that
    Hawking is British based on his American computer generated voice. The gifted
    student almost immediately falls in love with Jane Wilde (Felicity Jones),
    who’s got a beautiful heart to match Hawking’s beautiful mind. Tragedy strikes
    when Hawking is diagnosed with amyotrophic lateral sclerosis and given two
    years to live. Of course he lives much longer than expected, but virtually
    loses the use of his body. Regardless, this doesn’t stop Hawking’s quest for
    knowledge, ultimately amounting to his book, “A Brief History of Time.”

    Eddie Redmayne of
    “My Week with Marilyn” and “Les Misérables” takes another huge step forward in
    his young career as Hawking. On both a physical and emotional level, Redmayne couldn’t
    be more convincing in his transformation, which spans several decades of
    Hawking’s life. “The Theory of Everything” is just as much about Jane Hawking
    as is it about Stephen, however. It should be since Jane wrote the original
    memoir that inspired James Marsh’s film. Felicity Jones is magical as the woman
    who stands by Hawking through hell and back. While Jane never falls out of love
    with her husband, it does justifiably become harder for her to be married to
    him as the years go by.

    The movie is given
    the opportunity to completely misfire when Jane meets a churchgoer named
    Jonathan
    Hellyer Jones (Charlie Cox). As Jonathan volunteers to help out around the
    Hawking household, Jane can’t help but develop an attraction to him. This plot
    point never turns into a sappy love triangle out of a soap opera, though.
    Rather, Stephen, Jane, and Jonathan spend much of the film discussing their
    feelings and treat each other with rational understanding. These are all
    essentially good people that want what’s best for everybody. Part of that has
    to do with Jane and Jonathan’s devout faith in God’s teachings, which somewhat
    rubs off on Stephen.

    While Stephen Hawking has publically
    declared himself as an atheist, he does recognize the value in other people
    placing their faith in God. After all, science and religion aren’t as different
    as we make them out to be. Both are largely based on ideas and philosophies
    that have yet to be proven. “The Theory of Everything” demonstrates that life
    isn’t necessarily about finding concrete answers. It’s about sharing and listening
    to each other’s beliefs about how this mysterious, limitless universe works.
    The more people realize this, the more our society will evolve.

    A-

    ReplyCopy URL
    Profile picture
    Denis
    Joined:
    Oct 14th, 2011
    Topics:
    Posts:
    #157436

    /\ Great post.

    I watched this yesterday and eventhough somehow, the film seems incomplete for me, and I didn’t like the screenplay that much, I have to say Redmayne must win that oscar, I was all for Matthew for “Interstellar” a few days ago, but Redmayne is just brilliant in this, man, what a performance, also, Felicity Jones give a much better performance than many past oscar winners, it would be a shame if she isn’t even nominated, the only nominations I would give this film are for the beautiful score, actor, supporting actress and editing.

    ReplyCopy URL
    Profile picture
    Kristen Boyer
    Joined:
    Dec 13th, 2012
    Topics:
    Posts:
    #157437

    I agree, Denis. I liked the film but the screenplay could have been better. I also was not too fond of how they approached the ending. That said the performances were phenominal and I am definitely going to continue riding the Eddie Redmayne train unless I see a better performance which I have not seen yet. Felicity was wonderful and if she doesn’t get a nomination it will be a complete rob. 

    ReplyCopy URL
    Profile picture
    FilmGuy619
    Joined:
    Jan 13th, 2013
    Topics:
    Posts:
    #157438

    I caught this Saturday and it blew my expectations away. Before I watched it, I didn’t expect much and was worried it would end up being A Beautiful Mind 2.0 (A film I disliked by the way), but this was ten times better imo. I thought the cinematography and the score were done beautifully. I also loved the performances by Redmayne and Jones. Although Redmayne’s performance is very physical, I felt he still became Hawking internally as well and I thought Jones gives her character plenty of emotional depth. I cross my fingers that if Jones does get nominated, which I really hope happens along with Redmayne, they put her in the right category (Lead). 

    ReplyCopy URL
Viewing 15 posts - 16 through 30 (of 50 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.

Similar Topics
thatner... - Jul 12, 2020
Movies
Cordelia - Jul 12, 2020
Movies
vlaxym - Jul 11, 2020
Movies