--- title: "The Theory of Everything" year: 2014 kind: "film" canonical: "https://film.one/film/the-theory-of-everything" fi1m_score: 72 critics_score: 70 critics_reviews: 26 published: "2026-09-17T08:00:55.787875+00:00" updated: "2026-09-18T08:38:45.088731+00:00" region: "US" licence: "© Fi1m Ltd. Written by AI under a human editor; checked against sources before publication. Quote with attribution and a link to the canonical URL." --- # The Theory of Everything (2014) Directed by James Marsh · 2h 03m · MPA PG-13 · Drama, Romance **Fi1m score: 72** · Critics 70 from 26 reviews *In a sentence:* Even Stephen Hawking cannot make marriage look simple > Eddie Redmayne and Felicity Jones make *The Theory of Everything* worth seeing for the marriage alone. James Marsh’s drama is touching and often funny, though it is too polite about the pressures that marriage places on Jane Hawking. ## Synopsis Stephen Hawking (Eddie Redmayne) pursues theoretical physics, with Dennis Sciama (David Thewlis) among the people around him. His relationship with Jane Hawking (Felicity Jones) promises a shared future, but motor neurone disease begins to limit his movement. He wants to continue his work and his life with Jane Hawking; she must consider what that life will ask of her. As the couple confronts the illness, their relationship takes on practical demands alongside the expectations of romance. Scientific ambitions, physical dependence and the prospect of caring for a partner begin to compete for their attention. ## Review James Marsh makes the right decision in treating *The Theory of Everything* chiefly as a story about a marriage. The science matters, but the daily business of loving someone with a progressive illness gives the film its weight. We recommend it for Eddie Redmayne and Felicity Jones, who make the affection convincing and the strain difficult to dismiss. The familiar biographical shape and a reluctance to be unkind limit what the film can tell us about either person. Eddie Redmayne’s Stephen Hawking retains humour and charm as movement becomes harder. The performance makes room for the pleasure he takes in other people, so that we never feel we are being asked merely to admire an actor’s control of his body. That matters in a drama about disability, where physical technique can attract so much attention that character gets forgotten. His humour makes him good company, and gives the romance something more persuasive than admiration to work with. Felicity Jones gives Jane Hawking the attention that a more reverential film might have reserved for her husband. Her affection takes effort, and the performance allows us to see how much being supportive can require without making her endlessly patient. We were moved by the tiredness in her attentive face, because she makes caring look like work even when she is being kind. The chemistry between the leads is strong enough for their difficulties to hurt, and neither seems to be waiting politely while the other acts. Benoît Delhomme photographs the couple with a warmth that helps us believe the attraction, although the polish sometimes makes their difficulties look too presentable. John Paul Kelly’s production design shares that tidiness: everything looks carefully chosen, and we miss the sense that living together might leave a mess. Jóhann Jóhannsson’s music encourages tenderness, occasionally more insistently than the performances need. These are skilful contributions, but James Marsh could have let the film look and sound less reassuring. Anthony McCarten’s screenplay is less comfortable with the unpleasant parts of devotion. It acknowledges the strain, then too often moves on before either person has to spend much time being difficult or unreasonable. Jinx Godfrey’s editing keeps the account moving, but the pace contributes to that feeling of being ushered past an uncomfortable conversation. A biographical romance does need to choose what to leave out; here we wanted less ground covered and more time with the couple. The modest place given to theoretical physics is not, in itself, a fault. A marriage need not become a lecture simply because one spouse is a scientist. Yet the film gives us too little sense of why the work absorbs him, which weakens our understanding of the man whose working life the marriage has to accommodate. This is a familiar problem in biographical dramas: we are given enough to recognise someone’s importance without getting much opportunity to share their excitement about the work. There is enough humour here to prevent the suffering from becoming oppressive, and enough tenderness to make the romance worth following. Its politeness is frustrating because the actors seem capable of handling a less flattering account. They still give us two people worth spending time with. Choose it for a thoughtful, accessible romantic drama; anyone hoping for a substantial account of the physics should make other plans. *Fi1m score 72, published 17 September 2026.* ## What the critics say Most critics find The Theory of Everything moving, with praise centred on Eddie Redmayne and Felicity Jones as Stephen and Jane Hawking. The reviews repeatedly credit their chemistry with making the marriage’s affection, strain and compromises convincing; Redmayne’s physical performance draws particular attention, while Jones is often judged essential to the emotional weight. Several critics also admire the cinematography and James Marsh’s sensitive direction, accepting the emphasis on the relationship rather than the physics. The main disagreement is over how much those performances overcome a conventional script. Supporters see restraint and an adult account of a difficult marriage; more qualified reviews find the storytelling formulaic, too polite or reluctant to explore its complications. The spread reaches from warm approval to outright rejection: Time Out praises the avoidance of schmaltz, whereas Eye for Film finds the film sentimental and superficial, with both the science and the characterisation underserved. ### Reviews we read (26) - **Evening Standard**, David Sexton (85/100, inferred): The film is deeply affecting thanks to astounding performances from Redmayne and Jones that make the unusual marriage into a love story speaking to all. It prioritises the relationship over theoretical physics in a conventional biopic structure elevated by inventive cinema techniques. [Read](https://www.standard.co.uk/culture/film/the-theory-of-everything-film-review-eddie-redmayne-and-felicity-jones-give-performances-that-are-not-to-be-missed-9941675.html) - **Total Film**, Kevin Harley (85/100, inferred): Marsh's biopic honours both brain and body in a poignant, probing portrait of an ordinary marriage sustained in extraordinary circumstances, driven by the chemistry between the lead performances. It avoids awards-season clichés while balancing science, emotion and support turns. [Read](https://www.gamesradar.com/theory-everything-review/) - **Empire**, Helen O'Hara (80/100, inferred): The film offers a compassionate and inspiring look at an extraordinary life, anchored by two of the best performances of the year from Redmayne and Jones. It focuses on the couple's mutual respect and the strains on their marriage amid Hawking's illness. [Read](https://www.empireonline.com/movies/reviews/theory-everything-review/) - **Radio Times**, Andrew Collins (4/5): Highlights Redmayne's Oscar-winning transformation but credits Jones's performance as key to the film's success in foregrounding the relationship. It's a grandly photogenic work based on Jane's memoir. [Read](https://www.radiotimes.com/movie-guide/b-k1mow9/the-theory-of-everything/) - **The Guardian**, Peter Bradshaw (80/100, inferred): The critic finds the film an unexpectedly charming and moving portrait of a difficult marriage, crediting strong performances especially from Eddie Redmayne and Felicity Jones for creating a grown-up study of compromises under unique pressures. [Read](https://www.theguardian.com/film/2015/jan/01/the-theory-of-everything-review-stephen-hawking-biopic-gravity) - **Time Out**, Joshua Rothkopf (4/5): It smartly avoids schmaltz while delivering approachable science and focusing on the couple's relationship with painful strains below the surface. Praises the extraordinary performances, especially Jones's strong portrayal. [Read](https://www.timeout.com/movies/the-theory-of-everything) - **Slant Magazine**, Ed Gonzalez (3/4): The film offers an elegant but conventional and risk-averse biopic that sands down the complexities of the Hawkings' marriage, though Redmayne and Jones succeed in subtle moments of empathy. [Read](https://www.slantmagazine.com/film/the-theory-of-everything/) - **Film Comment**, Eric Hynes (70/100, inferred): The film slots Stephen Hawking's story into formulaic biopic conventions despite its unconventional subject. Redmayne delivers a standout central performance founded on genuine characterization. [Read](https://www.filmcomment.com/article/review-the-theory-of-everything-james-marsh/) - **IndieWire**, Nikola Grozdanovic (70/100, inferred): The biopic focuses on the relationship between Stephen and Jane Hawking with strong performances from the leads at its Toronto premiere. [Read](https://www.indiewire.com/criticism/culture/tiff-review-james-marshs-the-theory-of-everything-starring-eddie-redmayne-felicity-jones-272768/) - **Los Angeles Times**, Kenneth Turan (70/100, inferred): The film's emotional effectiveness comes down to the chemistry between Eddie Redmayne and Felicity Jones as they portray the Hawkings' complex marriage. Director James Marsh brings energy and intelligence to an effective script focused on personal challenges over physics. [Read](https://www.latimes.com/entertainment/movies/la-et-mn-theory-everything-review-20141107-column.html) - **Screen Daily** (70/100, inferred): It's an absorbingly lovely and sad recounting of a marriage, with stellar performances, though it can seem too rigid and prestige-picture precious at times. Singles out the performances and technical aspects like cinematography. [Read](https://www.screendaily.com/the-theory-of-everything/5077237.article) - **The New York Times**, A.O. Scott (70/100, inferred): The film tries to show Stephen Hawking in full, exploring his ideas, emotional life and struggle with illness. It succeeds as a moving portrait of marriage and resilience centered on strong performances. [Read](https://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/07/movies/in-the-theory-of-everything-stephen-hawkings-home-life.html) - **Variety**, Justin Chang (70/100, inferred): Superb performances from Eddie Redmayne and Felicity Jones anchor this sensitively directed inspirational biopic about the Hawkings' marriage and Stephen's struggle with motor neuron disease. It plays more as a stirring bittersweet love story than a cerebral scientific exploration. [Read](https://variety.com/2014/film/festivals/toronto-film-review-the-theory-of-everything-1201300258/) - **Little White Lies**, Simran Hans (2/3/3): The critic finds it a stylish but slightly fusty love story that mostly evades mawkishness thanks to strong performances, though it has occasional melodramatic lurches. Praises the lead performances of Redmayne and Jones for making the marriage as compelling as the science. [Read](https://lwlies.com/reviews/the-theory-of-everything) - **Vulture**, David Edelstein (60/100, inferred): Eddie Redmayne's performance is astonishing and a triumph of sympathetic imagination, but the film has many problems, shallow dramatic technique, and lousy final scenes that prevent it from jelling. [Read](https://www.vulture.com/2014/11/movie-review-the-theory-of-everything-stephen-hawking.html) - **The Hollywood Reporter**, Leslie Felperin (50/100, inferred): The film is a solid, duly moving account of the Hawkings' complicated relationship made with professional polish, but a disappointment for fans of director James Marsh as the highs are not frequent. [Read](https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/general-news/theory-everything-toronto-review-730837/) - **Consequence** (80/100, inferred): The film refuses to wallow in tragedy or indulge in hagiography, instead highlighting Hawking’s humanity and drive through strong performances by Redmayne and Jones. It immerses viewers in the protagonists’ lives with lush visuals and avoids typical biopic cynicism. [Read](https://consequence.net/2014/11/film-review-the-theory-of-everything/) - **Den of Geek**, Ryan Lambie (4/5): The film is a compelling, even-handed portrait of Hawking and his wife that avoids excessive sentimentality. Redmayne and Jones deliver superb performances, supported by astute direction and imaginative cinematography. [Read](https://www.denofgeek.com/movies/the-theory-of-everything-review-2/) - **HeyUGuys**, Stefan Pape (80/100, inferred): The critic praises the authentic portrayal of the relationship and standout performances by Redmayne and Jones, noting it transcends typical biopic tropes with humor and emotional depth, while criticizing its overambitious scope covering too much ground. [Read](https://www.heyuguys.com/the-theory-of-everything-review/) - **Collider**, Phil Brown (B): The film is a beautiful and moving but flawed biopic that shoots straight for the middle in telling Hawking’s life story. It excels in Redmayne’s extraordinary performance depicting his physical decline while retaining wit and charm, though it glosses over some complexities. [Read](https://collider.com/the-theory-of-everything-review/) - **The Playlist**, The Playlist Staff (B): The review highlights beautiful cinematography and strong performances by Redmayne and Jones but notes it's a standard biopic that may disappoint on the science side, ultimately calling it accomplished and emotional. [Read](https://theplaylist.net/tiff-review-james-marshs-the-theory-of-everything-starring-eddie-redmayne-felicity-jones-20140907/) - **Paste**, Andy Crump (6.5): The film follows boilerplate romantic comedy tropes in depicting the Hawkings’ life together but succeeds through restraint and strong performances by Redmayne and Jones. It is earnest and anchored by the actors despite its formulaic biopic trappings. [Read](https://www.pastemagazine.com/movies/theory-of-everything) - **Digital Spy**, Emma Dibdin (3/5): The earnest biopic elevates a lacklustre script through strong direction and performances, with Redmayne and Jones shining. It remains too polite and reluctant to engage with harsher realities of the story. [Read](https://www.digitalspy.com/movies/a618927/the-theory-of-everything-review-eddie-redmayne-shines-as-stephen-hawking/) - **The Wrap** (55/100, inferred): The film is a conventional biopic that renders the Hawkings' story standard-issue despite its extraordinary real-life basis. It singles out Eddie Redmayne's captivating performance for praise while noting the formulaic approach overall. [Read](https://www.thewrap.com/the-theory-of-everything-review-eddie-redmayne-stephen-hawking/) - **The Skinny**, Philip Concannon (2/5): The film is a straightforward, clichéd potted history aimed at awards voters with no artistic ambition. The leads' chemistry provides the only elevation above mediocrity. [Read](https://www.theskinny.co.uk/film/new-releases/the-theory-of-everything) - **Eye for Film**, Jennie Kermode (30/100, inferred): The critic finds the film superficial and sentimental, like a life insurance commercial, criticizing the lack of depth in characterizations, sidelining of science, and overly polished but empty portrayal. [Read](http://www.eyeforfilm.co.uk/review/the-theory-of-everything-2014-film-review-by-jennie-kermode) ## Details - **Director:** James Marsh - **Director:** James Marsh - **Screenplay:** Anthony McCarten - **Cinematography:** Benoît Delhomme - **Editor:** Jinx Godfrey - **Music:** Jóhann Jóhannsson - **Production design:** John Paul Kelly - **Costume design:** Stephen Noble - **Producer:** Eric Fellner, Lisa Bruce, Anthony McCarten - **Cast:** Eddie Redmayne as Stephen Hawking; Felicity Jones as Jane Hawking; Charlie Cox as Jonathan Hellyer Jones; Emily Watson as Beryl Wilde; Simon McBurney as Frank Hawking; David Thewlis as Dennis Sciama; Maxine Peake as Elaine Mason; Harry Lloyd as Brian - **Runtime:** 2h 03m - **Certificate (MPA):** PG-13 - **Release (the US):** 26 November 2014 - **Genres:** Drama, Romance - **Budget:** $15 million - **Box office:** $124 million - **Trailer:** https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_EnhOKk7BxM ## Where to watch in the US - Netflix: streaming, leaving 2026-09-30 - Apple TV: rent $3.99, hd - Apple TV: buy $14.99, hd *Checked 2026-09-17.* Also available in: AE, AR, AT, AU, BE, BG, BR, CA, CH, CL, CO, CZ, DE, DK, EE, ES, FI, FR, GB, GR, HK, HR, HU, IE, IL, IN, IT, JP, KR, LT, MX, MY, NL, NO, NZ, PA, PH, PL, PT, RO, RS, SE, SG, TH, TR, UA, US, VN, ZA. Add `?region=XX` to this URL for another country. ## Awards - Academy Awards 2015: Best Actress (nominated); Best Original Score (nominated); Best Picture (nominated); Best Writing, Adapted Screenplay (nominated); Best Actor (won) ## If you liked this - *Away from Her* (2006): Another marriage tested by illness, with room for uncomfortable feelings. - *My Left Foot* (1989): A sharper, less decorous portrait of talent, disability and family dependence. - *A Beautiful Mind* (2001), Fi1m 62: For another romance negotiating the demands of an exceptional mathematical mind. — [Fi1m page](https://film.one/film/a-beautiful-mind.md) - *The Lunchbox* (2013): A quieter romance that gives practical kindness the attention it deserves. - *Late Spring* (1949), Fi1m 92: Family duty and private wishes, observed with patience and little fuss. — [Fi1m page](https://film.one/film/late-spring.md) --- © Fi1m Ltd. Written by AI under a human editor; checked against sources before publication. Quote with attribution and a link to the canonical URL. Canonical: https://film.one/film/the-theory-of-everything