Theory v A Beautiful Mind

A Beautiful Mind is far better.

I only disagree about Crowe. Redmayne did better, but had worse material.

Both examples of why I detest bio-flicks, especially of living people, with very rare exceptions. There is so much actual Hawking material on video concerning his life not just his work that a made up movie confection about him is superfluous, premature and too egregiously fake. A Beautiful Mind is even worse filled with omissions that would not reflect well on its subject and misrepresenting the nature of the illness in order to make cinematic effects.

To name two example subjects take Seabiscuit and John Forbes Nash for which there are well made American Experience documentaries (1) about them, Seabiscuit, and A Brilliant Madness. In both cases, the documentary is not only more faithful to fact and more informative, but I found them to be better more effective storytelling and more entertaining than watching pretty people pretend and the "artistic license" with facts of the puffed up "major motion picture" version. It is something like the difference between fine food well prepared and presented, and cotton candy. Sweet is not satisfying, and the public that does not agree in all its numbers is welcome to it, and mind decay that goes with it.

CB

Good Times, Noodle Salad

(1) a bit redundant since all American Experience documentaries well made.

Simple.

A Beautiful Mind - 9/10
The Theory of Everything - 6/10

I wouldn't think of this comparison, I don't see many similarities in the two except "genius scientist struggles against adversity".

But in terms of screenplay and overall effect, I would certainly vote for A Beautiful Mind, I think it's a far more influential movie. The Theory of Everything, on the other hand, was extremely well-made and well-acted, so it may win on a technical level, but certainly not overall.

By the way, the more obvious comparison to me, due to theme and timing, was between Theory and the Imitation Game, which, again, I found a better movie and I don't understand why it was overshadowed by the Theory of Everything in the various awards. It was equally well-acted and well-made and the story was way more interesting. It's just that Hawking is a more high-profile academic than Turing and that award committees always seem to be impressed by actors who have to make radical physical changes in their portrayal of the character (there is a history in the Oscars for awarding actors who radically change their normal appearance, like Eddie Redmayne did for Hawking: an excellent performance, no doubt, but Cumberbatch as Turing was equally good)

~*~

Agree that ABM is a far better movie than TTOE.

Disagree that Crowe was better than Redmayne. The characters they play are so different I am not even sure how you'd compare their performances. I think they were both great but I was paticularly impressed by Redmayne considering how little he had to build his performance on. However, he still managed to make his Hawking look believable (not just physically but, somehow, on the emotional level as well) despite the fact that the screenwriting was pretty poor and all the characters in the movie were flat and undeveloped.

To me this is pretty clear. BM is far superior. Honestly there wasn't much of a story with Theory. Sort of focused on Hawking's illness vs his science . Dude is one of the most brilliant people who has ever lived. Yeah I get it he is disabled. That has never defined Hawking but it defined the movie. BM had more moving parts for the main actor and Russell Crow did brilliantly. Much better character development. The Nash story was inaccurate in places but they really gave props to his mind and gave the story a ton of heart. I agree Redmayne was great but they sort of did a disservice to Hawking in my opinion with the lack of science. Anyone agree?

I'm not surprised that most people preferred Beautiful Mind to Theory of everything, it is a more "entertaining" movie. Of course it does that by diverting from the truth more. A Beautiful Mind definitely plays with the facts more and adds purely fictional events to make the story more engaging. Let's be honest, most people's lives are boring, even famous scientists. It is interesting that at least one reply adds Imitation Game to the discussion. Again a more entertaining movie, but again because of how and where they took detours from the truth (newsflash, Turing was apparently a very social person and not the Sheldon-esque character portrayed in the movie). So it is perhaps an unfair comparison as TTOE might have tried to stay truer to the real events and thus suffered from less "enhanced" drama.

I love both movies so it's hard to say one is better because they are not really that similar to me personally. But if I have to pick one it will be theory of everything because it showed more of a struggle with the illnes which made it sad and felt more real.

Having family with similar struggles it resonates more to me. ABM was also very wonderfull and had a lot of suspense. Both movies move you towards adoration of the genius minds of these ill men. I'm more amazed by how Hawkins stayed brilliant while well aware of his decaying state sort of speak. He still managed for his light not to be dimmed. That ending was also very beautiful "look at what we made''.

I'm nothing if not optimistic