Movie discovery

Explore stories across every screen

ڈرامہسال2013دورانیہ1h 30mIMDb7.2

The Challenger Disaster

ڈرامہتاریخ

Factual drama exploring the truth behind the space shuttle Challenger's 1986 disintegration.

ابھی دیکھیں

ٹریلر

کاسٹ

James Hawes

Director

William Hurt

Richard Feynman

Bruce Greenwood

General Kutyna

Brian Dennehy

Rogers

Joanne Whalley

Gweneth Feynman

Eve Best

Sally Ride

Stephen Jennings

Neil Armstrong

Meganne Young

Michelle Feynman

Kevin McNally

Mulloy

Nick Boraine

SRB Engineer

Henry Goodman

Dr. Weiss

Langley Kirkwood

Avionics Engineer

Stevel Marc

Taxi Driver

Sean Cameron Michael

Judson Lovingood

Danny Keogh

Head Of Recovery

Robert Hobbs

Allan J Macdonald

Nicholas Pauling

Bill Graham

Adam Neill

Blade Engineer

Clayton Boyd

Reporter 4

Kate Gartside

Writer

آپ کو یہ بھی پسند آ سکتا ہے

ڈرامہ★ 7.2

The Challenger Disaster

ڈرامہ★ 3.3

Warrior Queen

ڈرامہ★ 4.8

Paradise Club

Deepwater Horizon

دستاویزی فلم★ 6.3

Spy Ops

دستاویزی فلم★ 8.4

Turning Point: The Bomb and the Cold War

دستاویزی فلم★ 7.8

Challenger: The Final Flight

دستاویزی فلم★ 8.4

The Space Shuttle That Fell to Earth

دستاویزی فلم★ 5.4

Greta Thunberg: A Year to Change the World

دستاویزی فلم★ 6.7

Living Next Door to Putin

ڈرامہ★ 8.6

Call the Midwife

ڈرامہ★ 7.2

Domina

ڈرامہ★ 7.3

Domina

ڈرامہ★ 6.9

Jamestown

ڈرامہ★ 7.4

Lockerbie: A Search for Truth

ڈرامہ★ 5.3

Great Expectations

ڈرامہ★ 7.7

The Paradise

ڈرامہ★ 6.9

The Trial of Christine Keeler

ڈرامہ★ 5.6

Anne Boleyn

ڈرامہ★ 6.5

Gunpowder

ڈرامہ★ 6.5

The Gallows Pole

ڈرامہ★ 7.4

Banished

ڈرامہ★ 6.9

Taj: Divided by Blood

ڈرامہ★ 7.4

Bangkok Blossom

تبصرے

10 تبصرے

@asiel21May 29, 2023

source: The Challenger Disaster

Mundaw bae😍May 23, 2023

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.

Naomi Mâture KankouMay 23, 2023

This is an excellent made for TV docudrama concerning the investigation of the shutter disaster. Five minutes into the film, the space shutter blows up. Dr. Richard Feynman (William Hurt) is asked to be on a commission to find the cause of the disaster. He is the outsider of what is a NASA good ole boy commission. The film was fascinating as one sees the importance of contacts and dollars. Eve Best did an excellent job as Sally Ride, the lone woman on the commission. While we all know the climax of the film with the ice water demonstration, I had no idea how we got to that point...and that is why the film is worth watching, a man struggling to find the truth while fighting a terminal disease

Christine ChiromboMay 23, 2023

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.

AMU GRG SHAHMay 23, 2023

I remember where I was at work when the disaster happened, I've read everything there is, and early on knew.. so watching this apparently first airing of this sensitive event on UK TV tonight.Firstly, who was brave enough to do it.. BBC? I guess its time and the facts have been in the public eye for years. Yes, this seems to be a very accurate depiction of what must have happened as it happened. This TV airing has lasted an hour and a half.. not two hours, so what was dropped I wonder. Enough to make me want to buy a DVD if released? Maybe. William Hurt was so good as the knowing he was up against authority physics expert. One feels for him, and know the usual reactions of, oh no, what will he stir up. Everything about this 90 min version worked, I hope the 120 min version works too.

hano__tr97May 23, 2023

I have NOT seen the movie but having read the book I have a cautionary comment,so I presume to review the other reviews. I am doing my damnedest to get access to the movie. Like many others, as is evident from most of the 17 preceding reviews, I have a great enthusiasm for the Feynman character and his books. I have read his book, "What Do YOU Care What Other People Think" (W.W. Norton & Company,2001) - twice, including recently. More than half of that book is devoted to Feynman's part in investigating the Challenger disaster. For that reason alone I'm mad keen to see the movie, which I only just heard about. BUT in one review a Doctor Judson A. Lovingood makes a spirited defence of what he sees as errors in the movie, including some that he believes are unfair to him. The only reason I'm writing this is because, as a retired engineer, like Dr Lovingood, and specialised in aeronautics, and particularly in Reliability, I implore readers to not let their no doubt well-founded enthusiasm for Feynman cause them to rush to judgement of Dr Lovingood. In spite of his genius (responsible for the basis of modern Quantum Theory, if I understand correctly - just ask Sheldon Cooper) Feynman was very human, and I believe at least one of the subject errors may be due to omission by Feynman from his investigations. Not to detract from the enormous credit due him for the result he and others achieved between them. The matters Lovingood complains of are very complex. I note that he is mentioned in several places through Feynman's book, as indicated in its Index. Because of this complexity, anyone wishing to judge the merit of Lovingood's complaints needs first to study them and Feynman's writings, and analyse very carefully. If you cannot spare the time and energy to do this, the only fair thing to do is to give Lovingood the benefit of the doubt, and accept his arguments as valid. Which is why I beg you, don't rush to judgement.

TwavuMay 23, 2023

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.

SOLANKI_0284May 23, 2023

After the dramatic opening scenes where realism is achieved by using actual footage of the "Challenger disaster", the movie slowly develops as the audience begins to realize that what they are experiencing is not merely a factual drama/documentary about an unfortunate malfunction, but rather a thriller with "Good Guys" and "Villains" The choice of William Hurt to play Richard Feynman was brilliant. Hurt is acknowledged as a character actor who lives and breathes every role that he accepts and as the movie progresses it is remarkable that the viewer becomes so involved with the character that they actually forget that it is an impersonation. Hurt who in real life is a complex, some say awkward person, brings aspects of his own complexity to the role. Joanne Whalley is supportive as his wife, but the story is very much that of theoretical physicist Richard Feynman. Bruce Greenwood is a vital link in the whole drama. He deserves a lot of credit for his strong portrayal of General Kutyna a disciplined loyal military man who acts as the catalyst for the truth to prevail. Greenwood looks like he was born in a uniform. He assumes the role as naturally as if he'd taken leave from the battlefield to make the movie. Eve Best provides a solid and sensitive performance as Sally Ride (First woman in space). Her role in the Rogers Commission remains a mystery and we only learn of it just before the credits roll. Brian Dennehy as William P. Rogers (Chairman and, former secretary of state) exudes the physical appearance of a persuasive man who has his own agenda and delivers a powerful performance. Dennehy is a master at conveying meaning in a story merely through the raising of an eyebrow, a glint in his eye or a subtle shift of body position. One needs to make special mention of the good performance by many of the South Africans who were used in supporting roles. In particular Robert Hobbs who plays Allan J Macdonald a man torn between doing what is right whilst realizing the personal cost that might result. There is no mention of the members who made up the "Rogers Commission". (Not even in the credits). The commission was comprised of some of the most influential members of the military and should surely be identified. James Hawes directs with firmness and allows the story to flow and develop with fascinating insights into Feynman the scientist, but also Feynman the man and husband who had to fight his own person battles as a subplot. Lukas Strebel camera shots are interesting. I feel the use of camera positioning where half the frame is blocked was at first novel, but maybe repeated too often and in some scenes it would have been better to allow the subject to take up the full frame. The ending comes suddenly almost as if the editor had to condense the material into exactly 90 TV minutes. It is rumored that there might be a movie release where the running time will increase to 120 minutes. The Challenger is scheduled for the Discovery channel in the USA in November. Most probably renamed "73" – (Challenger broke apart 73 seconds into its flight).

JeremyMay 23, 2023

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.

KIDIMay 23, 2023

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.

Featured Picks

مزید entertainment چاہتے ہیں؟ ہمارے recommended gaming hub اور short-drama destination کو explore کریں۔

Instant Games

Gamixo

Puzzles، cards، sports اور quick challenges والے casual browser games چند سیکنڈ میں کھیلیں۔

Short Drama

VSKIT Drama

Trending mini-series، romance stories اور نئے short dramas کو fast daily updates کے ساتھ دیکھیں۔