This drama concerns the early days in the life of Professor Stephen Hawkings. It tells the story of how he battles against MND and the mind set of famous Astronomer Fred Hoyles. It also tells of his relationship with soon to be first wife Jane and of the help given to him by Roger Penrose. Intersected within the story are snippets of Nobel prize winners Arno Penzias and Bob Wilson who's discovery of background radiation gave Stephen the "fossil" he would need to back up his theory.

Well written with good performances from the principle characters and set amongst the beautiful background of Cambridge Hawking is a surprisingly enjoyable hour and half.Although viewers not familiar with Hawkings or his work may find parts of the story a bit dull or confusing at times, ultimately it's an inspirational story (even with the artistic liberties) and a first class piece of drama.

Excellently inspiring and faithful depiction of Stephen Hawking from Cumberbatch. The films itself isn't that brilliant but better than the Theory of Everything movie, though Redmayne did a good job too. The problem with both films, and any film about Stephen Hawking's life, is that magnitude of Stephen's academic achievements are far and beyond what the lay person can understand or appreciate with an explanation in a 2 hour movie. So when the film tries to show what it is he actually discovered and achieved it's difficult for us to really be impressed because we have no idea what is being talked about. Both films could have done better with communicating this to the audience. And therefore what any film on Stephen should focus on is his character and what he had to overcome to achieve what he did. Both films got lost in quasi scientific references which to the layman aren't interesting, and I imagine to the experts are cheesy and simplistic.

'Hawking', which I saw recently on BBC2, is a fictionalised telefilm biography of physicist Stephen Hawking ... known to Homer Simpson as 'that wheelchair guy'. (Hawking is also the only person ever to make a guest appearance *as himself* in an episode of 'Star Trek: The Next Generation'.) Some modern-day public figures are so well-known -- in vocal patterns and physical appearance -- that any actor's attempt to portray them on screen must be to some extent a physical impersonation. A depiction of Hawking presents unusual opportunities and challenges. Firstly, audiences have no idea what Hawking's speaking voice sounded like, as he did not become a public figure until the progressive degenerative disease which afflicts him (amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, or ALS) had worsened to the point that he now 'speaks' with the aid of an electronically-generated voice that makes him sound like a Dalek. In the early scenes of 'Hawking', before Hawking acquires ALS, actor Benedict Cumberbatch (great name!) speaks in a cultured voice that is certainly appropriate to the character he plays on screen, if not the actual Hawking.

More problematic is the physical portrayal, as we're aware that an 'able' actor is portraying a disabled person: if Cumberbatch's rendition of Hawking's symptoms is accurate, inevitably some audience members will accuse him of overacting. This is a no-win situation, which would have daunted any non-disabled actor in such a role.

Cumberbatch is appealing and charismatic (more so than the real Hawking) in the early sequences, leading up to when Hawking first experiences tremors at age 21. There's an awkward scene in a jazz club, that could have degenerated into self-parody. We see Hawking, physically challenged but not yet incapacitated, watching enviously while others dance. Awkwardly, he rises and attempts to join in. (By all accounts, Hawking was socially uncoordinated long before he was physically so.) Cumberbatch gives as much dignity as possible to a portrayal which we recognise as that of a graceful actor depicting a man who has both social and neurological disabilities.

The portrayals of some of the other real-life figures are not very well-thought. I knew Sir Fred Hoyle, and the actor who portrays him here is neither especially accurate nor especially credible in his portrayal ... except for the scene re-enacting the famous incident when Hawking denounced Hoyle's latest theory in the auditorium of the Royal Society. Roger Penrose, the developer of tile theory, is played here as an absent-minded boffin who witters away at the public bar without remembering that he'd meant to order a pint.

The most ludicrous scene (a fictitious incident?) occurs when Hawking is in a railway compartment with a woman who can talk the hind leg off a donkey, prompting Hawking to suddenly imagine Time reversing itself. This scene appears to be inspired by a sequence in 'A Beautiful Mind', but that film depicted scientific inspiration much more cleverly than is done here.

Cumberbatch is quite good in the early scenes, yet he gets even better in the later scenes as Hawking's ALS takes its toll on his body. Inevitably, Cumberbatch's role gravitates into Lon Chaney territory, yet his portrayal is so deft that it never quite tips over into histrionics. The period detail and production design are impeccable throughout.

SLIGHT SPOILER NOW. There is an awkward framing device, reminiscent of several Tom Stoppard plays or Michael Frayn's 'Copenhagen', yet less effective than either. We see two Nobel laureates giving a TV interview, discussing a noise they've discovered, which turns out to be the background microwave radiation that fills the universe ... the leftover sound of the Big Bang. (Fred Hoyle invented that term, but intended it derisively: he rejected the Big Bang theory which is now widely accepted.)

I'll rate 'Hawking' 8 out of 10, as a flawed but excellent attempt to depict a difficult biographical subject who is involved in a field that audiences don't readily comprehend. ALS, the disease that crippled Stephen Hawking, is known in America as Lou Gehrig's disease, in honour(?) of the baseball player whose brilliant career and promising life were ended by it. Lou Gehrig's story was told brilliantly in 'Pride of the Yankees', but that great film remained very shadowy and nebulous about the terrible disease at the centre of its story. 'Hawking' does not pull such punches, and I recommend this excellent bio-pic.