User Reviews

The “Houston, we have a problem” is the main problem. I watch 'Apollo 13' for the first time amid all the media noise surrounding Artemis II. I come into this experience with a limited journey through space cinema: 'Interstellar' a couple of years ago and '2001: A Space Odyssey' a few months ago. Drawing from the problematic scarcity of having seen little of the genre - and from my own prejudices - I've always had the feeling that many films about spaceships and lunar detours (not counting 'Star Wars', which I've also seen) end up as failed attempts, leaning on poor visual and special effects or on a false sense of epic grandeur that cannot sustain itself. But this time I decide to give it a chance because I have the DVD and feel like finally watching it. There is no constant search here to impress visually with vast expanses, spectacularly designed ships, or cosmic elements meant to immerse me in the "corners" of space, nor is visual wonder pursued as an end in itself. And yet, that aspect works. The effects have an almost invisible quality: they never call attention to themselves, but they preserve credibility. The weightlessness, the movement inside the spacecraft, the feeling of isolation... everything is done well enough that I never doubt what I am seeing. And I cannot help but compare this film to the giants of Nolan and Kubrick in terms of results. Those films aspire to the monumental - in Kubrick's case, literally - to the philosophical, to the transcendent. 'Apollo 13' seems far more interested in the erratic situation itself and in the procedure of dealing with it. My main difficulty - and I'm sure for many others as well - is intellectual. The film works heavily with constant technical jargon, a language that is not familiar to me. Still, it never becomes a major obstacle to accessing the story. The physical behavior of the actors and the clarity with which the actions are organized allow me to understand the essentials without needing to decipher every term. It is like following a conversation in another language while catching key words with subtitles: I do not understand every term, but I understand the meaning. And that is not a flaw, but a necessary element for the authenticity of what is being told. The screenplay cannot simply reduce itself to "the ship is running out of energy and oxygen." Of course, my limited knowledge of physics is not the film's problem, but my own. Tom Hanks is approachable, recognizable, and comforting. He has charisma, and he is never overbearing. But there are specific moments where that naturalness works against him. The famous line - "Houston, we have a problem" - arrives stripped of the gravity I expected: his delivery, at least in that interpretation, barely brushes against the weight of the moment. The phrase does not allow me to fully feel the historical significance it carries. It does not ruin the scene, not at all, but it creates a slight dissonance for me. I do not feel that, for example, with 'Casablanca', where simply mentioning Paris moves me. There, it is the way it is said. In any case, Hanks has never been an actor who fascinates me - not even in 'Forrest Gump', a film whose overwhelming positivity I have never quite understood. As for the rest of the characters, I cannot say much because none of them truly left an impression on me. They all feel archetypal, functional, practical. There is not a single face that makes me think, damn, what an incredible actor. They are simply there, carrying out their orders both inside and outside the script. Where the film really works is in generating impact. I stop observing from the outside. I feel the same confinement as our trio of protagonists, the same pressure as mission control, the same uncertainty as the audience beneath the heavy ceiling of panic. The spacecraft becomes tangible, suffocating, and outer space stops being an artificial concept and turns into a threat. Even knowing roughly where things are headed, the tension holds. It does not depend on an unexpected twist, but on the accumulation of problems. And I follow the story with genuine interest, but it never manages to leave a mark on me. It does not hit me deeply. I do not feel a transformative impact, nor an inner shock that forces me to rethink even the smallest thing. And in the end, 'Apollo 13' is simply a good film. I understand its purpose, because it does not aim to be anything more than the telling of the troubled lunar journey that followed Armstrong's great achievement. It may not be a story that transcends or becomes unforgettable, but there are moments when I truly feel as if I am there, stranded in the middle of nowhere, desperately wanting to make it home alive.

Amazing movie that really stands the test of time. One of Ron Howard's best films. So many great actors in this film with perfect pacing.

"Apollo 13" is perhaps the most impressive space film that is sustaining white-knuckle tension even though the historical chain of events is well-known. Ron Howard lays off the manipulation to tell the true story of the near-fatal 1970 Apollo 13 mission in painstaking and lively detail. It's still easily Ron Howard's best film. The film is humanized by Tom Hanks's reassuring portrait in courage, by Ed Harris's nicotine-stained fingers and Kathleen Quinlan's lacquered French twist. This in IMAX was phenomenal!

The special effects still largely hold him in this cleverly shot and well acted retelling of a truly dramatic true story.

Nice movie, right atmosphere and good historical reproduction of events with good realism. Overall a good movie

Apollo 13 maintains a steady and well-crafted narrative, showcasing a highly polished execution. It serves as a precise cinematic recreation of that unfortunate yet fortunate space disaster.

One of the very few movies I will sit and watch over and over. Even though I know how it turns out, I get caught up in the story EVERY time.

Ron Howard is right in his comfort zone in this dramatic retelling of an early NASA near-disaster, with a bevvy of strong characters to play with, volatile situations to press through and nostalgic heartstrings to tug at. Backed by an all-star cast and an excellent script, it's a lesson in efficient, powerful big-event storytelling. Tom Hanks and Ed Harris are especially convincing as commander of the crippled spacecraft and the flight director in charge of his safe return, respectively. Like you might expect from a Hanks / Howard collaboration, it has more than its share of soft-hearted emotions, but a good sense of humor and convincing special effects help to compensate. Updated thoughts after a 2020 re-watch: My boys took an online NASA course this summer and their teachers touched upon the topic of the Apollo 13 crisis, so this caught their eye while we scrolled through the movie collection together. My eldest earned bonus points for noting that Commander Lovell sounds an awful lot like Woody from Toy Story, but evidently the film wasn't gripping enough to keep him awake past 9:30 on a Saturday night. I still thought it was great. Tons of excellent acting performances - Hanks, Sinese, Paxton, Harris... even Kevin Bacon is a nice fit - and Ron Howard is perfectly in his element as director. He nails the early '70s place-settings, strums all the right emotional notes, emphasizes tension where necessary and wisely employs era-appropriate news broadcasts to quickly summarize most of the tricky seat-of-pants engineering feats. Proficient, effective, engaging large-audience movie-making.

Extremely suspenseful and realistic for that time period. The three main actors share a bond that is unique to most.

NASA very much the early days of space flight. Learning how to deal with problems on the fly. Apollo 13 resolution was such a math nerdgasm.

An wonderful movie with a compelling, expertly paced narrative that is powerful and moving, enhanced by the engrossing cast performances and stunning visual effects.

"Houston, we have a problem," meaning in this case we don't have a problem. Apollo 13, a film that describes a real event. Despite the fact that you know how the plot will turn out, the film keeps you in constant suspense. The star cast of the film, led by Tom Hanks, seems to be a big plus. With a pinch of exaggeration, this film can be considered an ageless classic that not only spaceflight enthusiasts must love. 8/10

Un viaje hacia la luna que termino siendo un ida y vuelta, pero de los más asombrosos y complicados regresos. Simplemente que nuestros personajes o los astronautas hayan estado tan cerca pero a la vez tan lejos de la luna. Pero bueno, quitando lo anterior la película es un viaje no solamente de ellos también para nosotros los espectadores, para que podamos vivir que es ese estilo de vida, que cosas suceden es totalmente informativo y de ser apreciado, por tal complejidad, preparación y conocimientos de toda la NASA, con cierta tensión pero no mucha porque se sabe que vuelven aunque no se sabe si es que hubiesen cambiado algo de la historia. Un guión en general pasable. Personajes que están bien. En lo técnico se tiene que destacar el ambiente de la nave totalmente, como también se mostraba la presión y estrés de los personajes por buenas actuaciones. El montaje o edición que para ese momento era espectacular llevándose por eso mismo un Oscar. Es una película que al centrarse en enseñarnos, en informarnos no llega a otros puntos de clímax o de potencia narrativa que nos deje algo o que toque algún tema interesante o también de los personajes, por su propio límite. Aun así se agradece bastante este conocimiento brindado.

[SPOILER ALERT: This review contains spoilers.]

The mission control scenes are some of the best in any movie about space travel. It amazingly captures the preasure everyone was on, and how instensely they had to work to figure out how to get the astronauts back home.

The film fulfills in accurately and truthfully reproducing the events of a lunar mission that went wrong and became a race against time to bring astronauts home and alive. The actors also fulfill their task; but it feels that it is due to generate suspense.

A reasonably good space film with good acting and music though takes a while to get going.

It's definitely a movie you should watch on the fourth of July, to get a better emotional kick. Ron Howard does a great job making this film seem as real as the actual Apollo 13. It has suspense, tension, and relief even though everyone already knows how the story ends, and that takes plain good filmmaking. It's for sure to have people cheering 'USA' on the inside.

Movies about historic events are always pretty interesting in itself, and Apollo 13 is no exception. The astronauts have to overcome situations no human on Earth has had to deal with, and the movie shows this in great detail. That's a treat to see. The acting is well done, especially by Ed Harris playing Gene. He's shows leadership, a positive and calm attitude and probably saved the astronauts with those qualities. The scenes with control and the shuttle are very entertaining. However... the scenes with THE WIFE are extremely annoying. Besides the fact that Jim Lovel's wife in this movie has the worst haircut i've seen in a long time, she interupts the interesting scenes repeatedly with staring at radio's and tv's. We get it, you are worried about your husband... but that should not have been shown this much. And that also goes for that particular school kid who looks like he's trying to catch flies with his open mouth. By the end of the movie you'll feel like it would have been a better movie without the harrasing of the wife scenes, but it does keep you on the edge of your seat. I give this movie an 8/10, it is an excellent movie.

Such a classic, awesome movie. This is just one of those movie that when you are flipping through the tv and find it on you just have to stop and watch it. It never gets old.

This movie tells the story of the Apollo 13 mission, one of the most famous missions to the Moon, not because of it's success but because it almost became a disaster. The script is based on actual facts and could be somewhat boring for those who don't know the theme but, since everything was barbarously simplified, anyone understands it quickly. Unfortunately, this effort to synthesize and simplify has made the plot unrealistic, predictable and forced, especially if we take into account the jokes around number 13 and other minor situations like that. The plot gives great attention to how the astronauts was prepared and chosen, as well as how NASA sweated to bring them back. In this field, the film is engaging and leaves the audience stuck to the screen. Another issue that it tackles, in obvious criticism, is the initial lack of interest from the media in that mission, but this is ancillary. The film has some special effects but they're not attractive or stunning except for scenes in zero gravity. Personally, I didn't have any problem with that, I think it leaves more room for drama. As for actors we need to consider the following: the cast is full of stars (Tom Hanks, Bill Paxton, Kevin Bacon, Gary Sinise, Ed Harris...) but the film definitely doesn't know what to do with them. Hanks is the protagonist but is misused and spends more than half the film's length wishing for the Moon and trying to control his flight colleagues. Ed Harris, in a supporting character, shines almost as much as him and holds the final half of the movie in an excellent performance, but within the standards the actor has accustomed us to. The rest of the cast does not shine and there are several supporting actors who end up being demoted to extras with lines. In conclusion: it's a satisfactory movie but its far from being really good. The blend of a strong cast, a script reduced to the basic and an uninspired direction is as inefficient as a Ferrari engine in a Beetle.

Apollo 13 is a dramatization of the incredible true story of three astronaut-actors who were stranded in a sound stage on a Universal Studios lot when a gaffer absent-mindedly locked them in for the night. Well acted. Highly recommended.

was it the door.. Apollo 13 It takes too much of the time to set the plots and the characters (almost the first hour is spent on it) but when it hits, it hits hard and fast with gripping screenplay that keeps the audience engaged until the curtain drops (its second act is thrilling). Ron Howard makes it look like easy and effortless through his brilliant execution skills but unfortunately isn't supported well enough on the editing department. Tom Hanks leads the way with another stellar performance from his side and is supported by a great cast like Ed Harris and Kevin Bacon. Apollo 13 isn't as important or nail biting as the makers think but it surely is witty and thought provoking that was just piled upon by the undercooked emotions like it was essential to install.

I personally think that Apollo 13 is the best movie ever made, the combination of drama and historical accuracy really brings to light what happened in the vast empty of space all those years ago.

It is a pretty intense movie with a lot of thrills with the Space ship potentially killing everyone. But also It had some parts like the mess els guy being accidentally put on the ship and the loss of the wedding ring in the shower were just stupid.

Apollo 13 is a truly masterpiece, because of it's cool mix of true history, serious work, suspense, gorgeous interpretation, intelligent direction and great story-telling. This fantastic film could become some kind of boring for the future audiences (and it is now), but it's not them fault. And that's why this film is the best of 1995.

If Bob Dole and other industry critics want to continue attacking Hollywood, they’d better not see “Apollo 13.” With its rah-rah, gung-ho, can-do attitude and cast full of good-looking young white men in buzz cuts, this engrossing account of the nation’s most perilous moon shot embodies what many people consider to be old-fashioned American virtues in a virtually pristine state. Sufficiently suspenseful despite its historically preordained happy ending,slightly overlong real-life thriller will appeal to mainstream audiences across the boards and land a commercial bull’s-eye for Universal. Scarcely embellishing the story of how three astronauts barely avoided becoming the first Americans to die in outer space, director Ron Howard and his team walk a narrative line that’s almost as narrow as the course of the mission itself. Pic’s exceedingly linear structure, while unavoidable, renders it rather methodical and shallow in characterization. There is also something of the sense of the film as a live-action storyboard, so highly developed is its sense of organization and calculated effect. Nevertheless, the film works in a primal way as the story of three brave explorers who manage to find a way home in the face of hazardous obstacles and heavy odds. The verisimilitude with which the mission has been visualized is impressive, and the positive, virtuous, “failure-is-not-an-option” posture of the characters has been adopted winningly by the entire cast and crew. Placing the opening scenes in a family context manages the twin feats of conveying some needed exposition and establishing the film’s wholesome credentials. A bunch of NASA personnel and their kin assemble to watch the dramatic moment on July 20, 1969, when Neil Armstrong became the first man to walk on the moon. The host, family man Jim Lovell (Tom Hanks), was aboard Apollo 8 when it passed just 60 nautical miles above the moon, and he’s only got to wait nine more months to get his chance to become the fifth man to set foot on the lunar surface. As the April 11, 1970, launch date approaches, command module pilot Ken Mattingly (Gary Sinise) is exposed to measles and has to be replaced by swinging bachelor Jack Swigert (Kevin Bacon). But by the time they and lunar module pilot Fred Haise (Bill Paxton) blast off on their 600,000-mile trip, the public has come to regard moon missions as almost routine and worthy of only passing interest. Two-and-a-half days later, and 50 minutes into the picture, this attitude abruptly changes. During a routine “stirring” of the oxygen supply, an oxygen tank explodes, which quickly leads to three significant problems for the crew: a dissipating oxygen supply, reduced power on board and a filtering system on the blink, leaving the men susceptible to carbon dioxide poisoning. Through this critical portion of the six-day mission, events in Houston prove considerably more dramatic than goings-on in space, where the men shiver and await the fateful moment when they must attempt re-entry. A number of nicely individualized scientists and nerdy computer geniuses argue the merits of different courses of action, with Kranz making the ultimate decisions through a sort of consensus by decree. While chain-smoking flight director Gene Kranz (Ed Harris) overseas the rescue operation, some of the key contributions are made by Mattingly. Physically, “Apollo 13” pulls off some stunners, notably the giant rocket launch, the separation of the boosters as the spaceship soars away from Earth, the views of the moon and scenes of weightlessness that were filmed aboard a high-flying Air Force plane that afforded the actors brief moments of zero gravity. Kudos to the special effects hands at Digital Domain, production designer Michael Corenblith, costume designer Rita Ryack and the army of technicians on board for an outstanding display of authenticity. Dean Cundey’s lensing works to seamlessly blend f/x work with normal scenes, but look of the images leans toward the grainy and soft. Casting Hanks as Lovell gives the film a human center, someone with whom the audience can easily feel at home, but his dramatic opportunities are more limited here than of late. His most powerful scene has him calming down his two partners when their dilemma threatens to get the better of them late in the journey. Bacon brings a colorful **** to the one “Top Gun”-style flyer in the bunch, while Paxton is obliged to suffer quietly with a high fever during much of the journey. Harris’ coiled tension provides a strong focus of attention in the control room, and Kathleen Quinlan gives depth of feeling and understanding to the necessarily compartmentalized role of Lovell’s omen-fearing wife. “Apollo 13” will inevitably be compared to the only previous large-scale film about the U.S. space program, 1983’s “The Right Stuff.” New effort is much more succinct and conventional in its aims and will no doubt play more successfully with the public.

Apollo 13 - In my opinion, one of the best sci fi films ever made. The intense scenes and great acting all make the 2 hours of film worth it to watch. Though it may get a tad boring and confusing at times, it still is a great piece of art from Ron Howard. I recommend this film. 10/10

Lovable and enjoyable, Apollo 13 will keep all your eyes on the movie while grabbing popcorn and a seat. Come join the excitement Apollo 13 has got for you!

Okay, I'm old; I was in college when this happened and I remember TYs set up around campus so we could keep up on the latest developments. But this movie goes in depth to show how it affected the people involved, not just the 3 astronauts, but their families and the ground crew trying to bring them back. You talk about making tough decisions where it's life and death. This included having the whole world watching. That's pressure. Who knew what the controllers and engineers at the Manned Flight Center were doing? I don't have many DVDs but this one is in my collection.

I just saw this film for the 1st time in a long time and I forgot how great it was. You really saw the terror in everyone's eyes and their emotions. It actually is one of the only movies that gets me choked up because I recognized the bravery the actual astronauts had to go through. Simply amazing. 9/10

Dramatically stunning, and at times at the profound level, Apollo 13 is a magnificent retelling of the doomed Apollo space mission. It succeeds in fleshing out the heroism and determination in what is the quintessential modern story of mankind's greatest adventure and victory over adversity.

from director Ron Howard ( Rush , DaVinci Code and the producer of Changeling ) which DaVinci code was good movie also as the over rated Changeling was good as well . Anyway the movie stars tom hanks as a space astronaut which sounds good and is awesome for the Acamedy Award Winner as his performance was sort of out breaking also tempting , danger thrill in space but it was cool in 3d great directing from Ron Howard . Grade A

Apollo 13 is a riveting experience about reaching to the edge of a dream and backing off for family. Extraordinary performances and score. If you are anyone who is anyone you have to see Apollo 13.

Great acting as always from Tom Hanks, as well as good supporting turns from Bill Paxton, Kevin Bacon, and Ed Harris, as Apollo 13 manages to capture the suspense, excitement, and potential tragedy, that is packed into this true story. The film is certainly slow at points, but for me, throughout, I was very intrigued by the film. From when they were preparing to when things start going wrong to the end, I was hooked. The film is never great, so to speak, but it was still very good and, while it needed no help in doing so, did a great job creating suspense when things went wrong, as well as sympathy for the families of the men aboard. The suspense is constant and really leaves you on the edge of your seat as you see the inner workings of the ordeal and it almost leaves you in tears as you watch their families deal with the ordeal back at home. Overall, a very enjoyable film that is not great, but is still very good.

The most astonishing thing about this movie is that it really happened! You can experience a precarious travel. It's sometimes a bit booring, but I can't complain about sth. else.

I was watching this on my laptop, and about an hour in I accidentally closed the tab. I didn't bother re-opening it and continue watching. It is a very well made movie, with great direction. But I ended up not caring at all about the 3 leads, in due to how boring this film is. i can handle boring, so long as I care about the characters. But I really didn't. The film does nothing to establish what these men are like. To us they are just random people who are in a space shuttle, and we don't care if they live or die.

One of the best movies I have ever seen. Wonderfully acted with a powerful story. Even though you know the ending, it still has you on the edge of your seat.

A cast of remarkable actors do some of their absolute best in a story well crafted by the directorial expertise of Ron Howard. "Apollo 13" is a solid, rousing, and beautiful historical drama.

Fantastic acting in a fantastic movie. This is one of Tom Hank's best films and is one of my personal favorites. The movie can get boring at times but overall its realistic, interesting, and well done.

Great acting performances. Tom Hanks, Bill Paxton, and Kevin Bacon were incredible. It's epic length must be considered. Although acted very well, it was boring at some times. Overall, I give it an 8. If it was cut down maybe to 120 minutes I might give it a 9. It's length is probably why I certainly agree with their choice of Braveheart as Best Picture winner.

Ron Howard's "Apollo 13" may be boring as hell with some cheesy moments, but the realistic direction and the powerful lead by Tom Hanks makes this space movie a movie you must watch.

Great acting, directing, dialogue. Very intense with the Apollo disaster and astronauts, interesting family problems and politics. A little slow at times but that really does not effect how good the movie is overall.

Based on a very dramatic event that got the globe coming together at the time praying that the astronauts would be okay, Apollo 13's realistic story and strong performances made it not-better-but-as-good-as the real event. Apollo 13 was supposed to be the third shuttle to land on the moon but an oxygen tank exploded and the astronauts found themselves in a real situation. Going through hell to get back to Earth, the guys finally made it and the world was happy. An interesting story but very simple. Thanks to writers William Broyles Jr. and Al Reinert, the story became a complex challenge of life or death situation. Also helped by strong performances particularly from Ed Harris and Kathleen Quinlan, Apollo 13 became an instant classic when it came out in 1994.

I did not like the movie one bit. First of all, most of the time it is just too obvious that this is a movie, the set looks way too artificial. Fake. Then, all the acting is too forced. Forced cool, forced dramatic, forced heavy, it is just too easy to see that these are actors acting. It is just never convincing. If every look, every word, and every movement wants to forcefully convey significance, everything becomes just too much. That is what happened with this movie. Together with the ever dramatic soundtrack, it becomes unbearable to watch. In addition, how close is this to the truth, that two of the crew members so obviously do not trust the third crew member ? In all, there is no drama because every second is dramatic. No change in pace, no change in intensity. One you want to walk out of after 10 minutes.Quite a shame with that incredible cast.