Too much of everything

Fantastic!

It's fun, it's light, [but] it has a hard time when its tries to get heavy.

The acting in this movie is really good.

I confess that I have never read the book of the same name by Stephen Hawking, and although I have a broad interest in questions about the origins of the universe, I lack the scientific background, knowledge and training to really be able to do more than scratch the surface of the subject. Having heard many people over the years speak highly of the book, I thought this movie might help me do more than scratch the surface - but it really didn't. In fact, the movie in many ways is less about science than it is about Stephen Hawking's life. It's a documentary style biography, as opposed to the dramatized biography presented in the 2014 movie "The Theory Of Everything." And I have to say that the biography part of this is excellent. One does get a feel for Hawking's life from his childhood (really, from his birth) onward. I've always been something of a fan and admirer of Stephen Hwking - feelings that are enhanced today, quite honestly, by his willingness to make regular guest appearances on a TV show like "The Big Bang Theory." Aside from his TV appearances and his scientific research, Hawking is probably best known for being afflicted with ALS (in every day terms, Lou Gehrig's Disease.) What we learn from this movie (at least it was speculated by his mother) is that it was his ALS diagnosis that really motivated him in his work. Before the disease, he was a very bright but often unmotivated young man. Perhaps it was the prospect of having a limited time to live that made him what he is today - at least, that seems to be what's suggested here. This is an interesting look at his life - even very inspiring. If Hawking could overcome the challenges he faced and become what he's become, how can I complain about my relatively minor inconveniences? So the bio part of this movie is well done.The scientific part of the movie I thought, though, was a little bit lacking, for two reasons - which are a little bit contradictory, I confess. First. a lot of what was offered was admittedly over my head. I could be impressed by Hawking's knowledge - but it's kind of like being impressed by anyone who says a lot about things you know little about. I have to accept that he's right, because I don't know enough to say he's wrong, or even to question his ideas - which, as one of the interviewees in the movie said, is the very heart of science. But I don't know enough to raise the questions. And yet, at the same time (and here's the contradictory part) while I may not have the knowledge to question what Hawking says or his theories, I also felt there was a little bit of a lack of depth to this. We hear a little bit about a lot of his theories - which is maybe all the average scientific lay person can even begin to process, but the lack of depth was still noticeable. He raises a lot of intriguing ideas - but they don't seem to come to any real definitive point. Perhaps that's appropriate, given his conclusions about the universe having no real singularity (and thus no real beginning) and the ongoing lack of the infamous "theory of everything." I shouldn't be bothered by the lack of depth - because if this had been any deeper it would have been even more inaccessible to me - but somehow I was.Having said that, this was an interesting film. If I thought there might have been a lack of depth in the presentation of the science, the interviews that were at the heart of it (from family members, friends and colleagues) gave us real depth into Hawking the person. He's is an intriguing (even fascinating) man. I'm not onside with some of his conclusions. Admittedly (as I've confessed) my scientific knowledge about the origins of the universe is limited, but I still see nothing that was presented here (or that I've seen from Hawking since) that convinces me that there's no God. His research likely blows holes in some of the creation myths of various religions - but they are, of course, myths that seek to reveal truth rather than fact (and truth and fact are not identical - the former is philosophical, the latter is scientific.) Even one of his colleagues interviewed in the movie acknowledged that he personally believed that "the universe" has a "purpose" - which is a philosophical (and potentially even theological) statement. As a person of faith, I've always found that science (which I'm fascinated with) deepens faith rather than detracts from it.In any event, this movie was one that I found thought provoking. Perhaps not without its weaknesses - but definitely thought-provoking. (7/10)

Most of the movie is about Stephen Hawking's life rather than Stephen Hawking's ideas. It's more a biography than a document about the science behind time. For a title 'a brief history of time', it's rather talks about anything about time at all. The movie forget to add the subtitled in the book in which the movie based on. It should had the subtitled "From the Big Bang to Black Holes") added to it. A Brief History of Time was supposed to explain a range of subjects in cosmology, including the Big Bang, black holes and other super-string theory, to the non-specialist thinker, but the movie doesn't follow that. Although they share a title, the film is a biographical study of Hawking, and not a filmed version of the book. While the movie gives a great insight of the life of Hawking and how he end up in the wheelchair. The movie doesn't mix the story of his life with that of his research that well. The theories come out of nowhere like the Big Bang and leaves while we move back to the story of Hawking's personal life, then back to another theory and then back to the story. It doesn't seem intertwined. I would rather have the movie address the subject using examples of Hawking's life rather two different subjects trying to share screen time. While the choice of topics is well balanced and gives you an interesting introduction into the modern view of our universe. The movie is a bit outdated with its facts. In particular the introduction of sometimes contradictory models explains how physics works the evolution of ideas. Yes, since we live in a static, (which means a fixed or stationary), Multiverse. Space and Time are illusions, according to scientific principles. Each of our now's, are like a succession of snapshots, that we chose with our free will to form probabilities, to make our reality. According to Quantum Mechanics, nothing at the subatomic scale can really be said to exist until it is observed. Until then, particles occupy uncertain "superposition" states, in which they can have simultaneous "up" and "down" spins, or appear to be in different places at the same time. The mere act of observing somehow appears to "nail down" a particular state of reality. Because our concept of time means ever thing has to be moving in linear fashion, it is very difficult to fathom that time and space are illusions but since science proves that they are illusions, everything is static and eternal. Ultimately, this documentary postulates the theory that there must have been a beginning of time (and the universe), but then suggests that perhaps that the universe is indeed eternal in origin without a point of creation in some oval shaped model he showed, as opposed to the classic point model where the laws of time and modern science breakdown and the dawn of time. Watch Lawrence Krauss's lecture for a much more complete/contemporary cosmological painting. Still an interesting personal perspective of Hawkin's experience but the audio quality is terrible though. The other people sounds like they are speaking through a computer like Hawking. After a while, it's get really annoying. Still it was very interesting movie.

Sadly I only found this excellent film when transferring a well used VHS copy to DVD for another university lecturer who uses it in her classes - it's tragic that it's only currently available in PAL format abroad, since this well packed 80 minutes is one of the best layman's summations of Hawking's theories (more thoroughly and eminently "readably" gone into in Hawking's book of the same name) together with as nice a companion biography of the man that I can imagine. By leading us through the chronology and the process Hawking went through in arriving at his conclusions, we not only find them but the admirable man himself and the family which he came from far more comprehensible.This should be aired at least once a year on cable channels as an example - along side Ken Burns admirable work with figures of the past - of how enthralling a documentary on a living subject can be, and be available on a reissued DVD for every college library in the country. Why only 9 our of 10? I wish the film itself were longer and the "Woody Allenish" type on the year cards which index the milestones in Hawking's life and thought were a bit bigger - but these are mere quibbles. The film is both emotionally warm and intellectually wonderful. See it if you can.

Errol Morris's "A Brief History of Time" manages to be, in its succinct 80 minutes, a moving biopic and a thought-provoking documentary. Based on the best-selling book of the same name by British cosmologist Stephen Hawking (1942- ), it is accessible for those who are not science experts (without being condescending), yet still have an interest in questions about the origins of the universe and, therefore, ourselves (will time ever come to an end? which came first, the chicken or the egg?; and so on).Featuring interviews with the Hawkings (Isobel and Mary Hawkings, Stephen's mom and sister, respectively), Janet Humphrey (Stephen's aunt), several people related to the world of science (astrophysicists, professors, researchers, etc.), plus interviews and clips from lectures with Mr. Hawkings himself, we reflect on some of the most fundamental questions about our creation. The beyond reasonable, sensible and bright conclusions presented by this man whose body might be paralyzed, but whose mind is one of the greatest of all time (few would argue against this statement) make this film both a fascinating lecture (or, even better, meditation) and an inspirational life story. And with his fantastic reasoning and suavity, Hawkings ends up proving (as far as reasoning can prove, or define, the power of faith), the very existence of God. A great achievement of filmmaking, perception, philosophy, science, and perseverance. Bravo, Mr. Hawkings. Bravo, Mr. Errol Morris.