needs moar science?
Film makers and script writers (especially in Hollywood) mostly seem to have no idea at all about the science behind the films they're making. Sometimes, though very rarely, I do see something where they get the science mostly right. I can only really think of three films that stand out because the science part is believable and actually adds to the enjoyment...
Proof (2005). OK, more about maths than science, but the premise is totally believable as is how they figure out who wrote the proof in the end. Also, the rant about jojoba oil and how hair is dead raised a chuckle.
The Arrival (1996). Charlie Sheen plays a SETI action hero in this alien invasion conspiracy film. Best science bit is where he builds a telescope array out of "borrowed" TV satellite dishes. Just when you're thinking it can't work because they're pointing the wrong way, you see him taking control and steering them all. Hooray for making radio interferometry a plot device.
Primer (2004). All the science and engineering talk is slightly gobbledegook, but at least it has the ring of authenticity about it. As for the actual time travel, it gets my thumbs up because apparently the only slightly possible way we might have of making it work is to go back to the time and place where we built or turned on the first time travel device (but we can't go back any further). There was one glaring mistake, but I can let it slide because the film worked as a whole. The error was when they were removing the two 12v batteries. Going from 24v and removing one 12v battery gives 0v, not 12v, because the batteries were in series. Schoolboy error!
Virtual Nightmare (2000). A made-for-TV virtual reality film. In most such films, the VR is just a convenient McGuffin or excuse to indulge in special effects (eg, Matrix, Lawnmower Man). Watching this has aspects of an Asimov or PKD short story, along with reminders of They Live, Stepford Wives among others. Thumbs up because the rationale for the virtual world pretty much works, unlike, say, the Matrix's terrible "humans as batteries" premise. I just happened to see this on TV one day, and I think that it deserves to be better known.
Limitless (2011). Like the previous one, this is more sci-fi than real science. I'll even let it off for oft-repeated lie that "we only use x percent of our brain". Gets a mention because I like the kind of sci-fi where the advanced technology has clear downsides and isn't just a panacea (eg, like in most of Star Trek).
Pi (1998). Again, more sci-fi (and maybe supernatural) than science, but I'm giving it a mention due to the fact that the protagonist is at least trying to follow scientific methods. Not sure whether the auto-trepanation at the end is more phrenology than neuro-science, but it's satisfyingly in keeping with the science vs mysticism debate running through the rest of the film.
I know that film-making has a large dose of make-believe (even biographical stuff or things "based on real events"). It's part of the implied contract when we sit down to watch something. Based on the above (maybe—feel free to disagree) I think that it is possible to tell a good story and not offend the critical, scientific mind too much. There's probably won't be that much food for thought in this film, but maybe enough that it'll be worth watching as a historical/science-based flick rather than a straight romance/drama. It's worth remembering what Hawking himself said about A Brief History of Time, that (paraphrasing) each formula included would halve the readership. He ended up with no formulas at all (<pedant>apart from that one</pedant>), so we probably shouldn't expect that much hard science from the film either.