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!

Robert J. Maxwell Admirably done story of physicist Richard Feynman's involvement in figuring out the reasons for the explosion of the space shuttle Challenger in 1988.Three agencies were involved in deciding to launch that freezing morning -- NASA, Raytheon, and Morton-Thiokol. This isn't made clear in the film, because the film is about Richard Feynman. But a New Yorker feature article years ago described what the agencies did about their doubts. Calls were made back and forth between the experts at each agency, each anxious to "check its six o'clock", and the question being asked gradually underwent evolution -- from "Should we launch?" to "Why SHOULDN'T we launch?" The results were disastrous.A committee was formed to investigate the causes of the failure, with Feynman being the only independent members, all the others tied up with the military or with political considerations. But this isn't one of those dumb and oversimplified stories in which there is some sort of military/industrial conspiracy against the whistleblower. It belongs to the genre but is a pretty good example of it. So was the more commercially oriented "The Pentagon Wars." An example of a dumbed-down rendition is "The Insider," which really has little to say and shamelessly invents incidents to hype the drama.William Hurt captures Feynman's personality with accuracy. Not his speech or his gestures. It's not an impression. But he has a grasp on Feyman's inner character -- devoted to science and outspoken. Feynman was actually quite a guy and might be described as abrasive. He didn't hesitate to demolish the ideas of others, whether they were equals or subordinates. He didn't do it viciously. He simply pointed out how stupid the notions were and then went on about his business.The climactic scene is unforgettable. All the engineers (who generally hate physicists for having their heads in the clouds) are testifying before the committee and throwing up a blizzard of jargon about "ambient temperatures" and "Kelvin coefficients" and directions to "the Wheatstone Bridge" and other unfathomable cant in order to keep the water so murky that no one can detect their own part in the catastrophe. I won't give away the climax except to say that Feynman pulls a "Bill Nye, The Science Guy" stunt that shuts all the connivers up and embarrasses the experts.The BBC put this out. I suppose they could afford to be a little less careful with American political sensibilities. William Hurt and his scowl of amazement is about perfect. Feynman's illness isn't dwelt on for sympathetic effect but it was real enough; he died a short time later.

Prismark10 This is a drama-documentary that has been co produced by the BBC and they managed to attract a star cast with Oscar winner William Hurt playing distinguished scientist Feynman and Bruce Greenwood continuing his mini run of playing nice guys as General Kutyna.The drama is based on the Space Shuttle Challenger disaster of 1986 and the Presidential commission set up to investigate the accident and the various factions some with their own self interest at stake who wanted to hinder the investigation or put it down to human error.The film had to summarise these investigations and sell it to the viewer in an easy to understand way and Feynman is the vehicle who was famous for making science accessible.Hurt portrays the man as dogged but he was also very ill at the time of the investigations. Kutyna gives him clues along the way. Eve Best who plays Sally Ride was rather sidelined, in real life she was more outspoken with the deficiencies of NASA when it comes to safety.It all came down to 'O' rings and how they reacted in sub zero temperatures and the reveal at a press conference was exactly how it happened in real life.A good well acted drama but a little bit too nicely packaged to make it digestible for the viewing audience.

jegpad Recent revelations of the Lyndon Johnson taped conversations exposing the sabotage by Nixon of the Vietnam peace talks in 1968 had me reeling at the extent to which the pursuit of power and money causes politicians to cover up the facts, even if it costs lives.Feynman was the critical independent factor which foiled such attempts when the Challenger exploded during take off in January 1986.This factual account reveals Feynman was by chance adopted onto the investigative commission over the Challenger disaster at a time when he was critically ill. Unlike the rest of the commission members who had other agendas, Feynman approached the problem objectively and, through his popular demonstrations of physics for which he'd become famous, had the skill and passionate commitment to reveal the truth to the public. As he wrote in his report, 'For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for nature cannot be fooled' Throughout this gripping drama you are taking the part of the underdog, frustrated at the increasing knowledge that the commission members, bar one or two, were driven by political agendas which meant the truth was trying to be covered up. Feynman represents the common man, and as such makes you part of the battle to foil the exasperating corruption.William Hurt is magnificent playing Feynman, depicting non-conformist behaviour which is only tolerated because of his brilliance. I found his nuances of expression fascinating and wonderfully representative of how we, the public, would have reacted when faced with pompous authority attempting to control our behaviour. Brilliant stuff, and all the more telling because it is true.