GamerTab That was an excellent one.

CommentsXp Best movie ever!

Voxitype Good films always raise compelling questions, whether the format is fiction or documentary fact.

Paynbob It’s fine. It's literally the definition of a fine movie. You’ve seen it before, you know every beat and outcome before the characters even do. Only question is how much escapism you’re looking for.

eladb573 On the surface, this movie should have been a great one. Here we have a great true story, involving a relentless search for truth, a government agency cover-up, a secret confidential source, and a tragedy that shook the nation. Coupled with a hero in the charismatic, eccentric and brilliant Richard Feynman, this could easily have been as good or better than say "Spotlight", or any other great movie of that genre. Yet, this movie, although OK, somehow misses. It's not great, has no great powerful moments, nor particularly funny or self deprecating. Something to watch when nothing else is on and no more.Some of the blame must go to the portrayal of the main character, on which the entire story revolves - prof. Richard Feynman. One of the greatest physicists in history, with a crazy rich past and eccentricities that are legendary, and he is simply boring! It is clear to me that neither William hurt who plays him, nor the director has bothered to watch any of his many televised lectures ind interviews. First of all - the famous Brooklyn accent. Than the constant cocky smile and sharp humor. The many anecdotes and metaphors that are often his way of explaining. Non of it are present here. If it were up to me Alan Alda would play him as he is both sorta looks like him and is funny, serious and can do a great accent. Also the constant emphasis on his illness is over the top and distracting.About the only really good thing I can attribute to this film is it's uncharacteristic accuracy. I didn't notice any factual errors, and that is rare in Hollywood.In summation, this is a mediocre movie, that with a better cast and writing staff could have been a great one. Too bad!

kai ringler i remember what I was doing when the Challenger blew up,, I was eating breakfast laying in bed,, home for school.. first time we got off for MLK day,, back when it was a federally mandated holiday,, William Hurt did an awesome job with this,, very good acting,, totally credible,, it was amazing to see just how much of a cover up there really was going on at NASA,,after all those accidents there for awhile,, people were saying that NASA stood for not another shuttle accident.. I know it's cruel,, but there was more than just that accident... also the company that NASA dealt with Morton Tyicol I believe they too were at fault and tried to cover the whole thing up,,, I enjoyed the movie very much, as was glad to see that the Challenger Disaster was finally put to the screen.

tv-striker This is an extremely well done telling of the investigation surrounding the explosion of the space shuttle Challenger in 1986. Despite the fact that we all know the outcome of the findings, there are constantly rising stakes here which help keep you glued to the story.William Hurt is exceptional as physicist Richard Feynman, a member of the fact-finding commission, who almost single-handedly recognized the cause of the disaster and pushed the commission in the right direction. I did find his failing health issues to be important but overdone. The "peeing blood" and dialysis tended to take me out of the story when I'd already gotten and understood his health problems with the "x-ray" scene.Brian Dennehy also did a remarkable job of channeling William Rogers (as head of the Challenger fact-finding commission) who from the beginning wants to whitewash the whole the thing. Rogers was the Secretary of State under Richard Nixon which is hardly a vote of confidence for the man and any real neutrality.Overall, it would seem that history is not going to be kind to the Reagan Administration. The film does bring out facts that were never a part of any official commission findings implying those were repressed for apparently legitimate national security issues of the time. In a nutshell, the Reagan budget cuts caused NASA to promise the military the ability to launch military spy satellites via the shuttles almost on demand instead of the military developing their own new missile. Decidedly, putting temperature restrictions on such shuttle launches would not be something to tell the Soviets about. However, maybe in future years someone will realize that even this was a false concern because the launches would have been from the California coast where freezing temperatures would be almost non-existent.I highly recommend this film to relive this piece of recent history.

johnmcc150 How times flies when watching a good film! The story is compelling because it is based on real events, though the sets, script and acting also all contributed. The result is not only moving but you get a great insight into the dilemmas and vested interests that can exist at top of government and management. The film is based on the last of Feynman's autobiographical works "What Do You Care What Other People Think?" so it is told from his perspective. The film shows how Feynman was pointed in the right direction. However the story is more complicated. For example there was not time to mention the role of Roger Boisjoly of Morton Thiokol who wrote a damning report about the O-rings six months before the disaster. The report was ignored. He lectured on work-place ethics.William Hurt is physically similar Richard Feynman and did incredibly well with his impersonation. You can see Feynman in action in videos of him lecturing to a lay audience in Auckland and judge for yourself. Feynman died one year and nine months after the publication of the Rogers Commission Report with his appendix, and sadly his wife Gweneth also died the following year.