bandw Most of this movie concentrates on the life of Nobel Prize physicist Richard Feynman (born in 1918), roughly from age twenty to twenty-seven. During this time he got his Ph.D. from Princeton and participated in the Manhattan Project. Also in that time frame he met and married Arline Greenbaum. There are a couple of scenes, with Feynman being around the age of six, that establish his inquiring mind and his relationship with his father, but the main thrust of the movie details the relationship between Richard and Arline.Having read Feynman's books "Surely You're Joking Mr. Feynman" and "What Do You Care What Other people Think," as well as having viewed several of his videos on YouTube, I felt that this movie did not capture what I perceive as Feynman's impishness and openness. Maybe this was because during the time period covered Feynman was dealing not only with his early career challenges but also with the serious health problems of Arline. I thought the movie did a good job of detailing how Feynman coped with the difficult conflict between his professional ambitions and his love and devotion to Arline.I suppose most people's image of the 1940s comes from looking at bleached out color photos and videos from that time. Whoever decided on the lighting for this movie must have been under the impression that that is what things looked like at the time, since there seems to be some sepia-toned cast to much of the film. I suppose the desire was to add some sense of nostalgia for a past era, but I found the rather dark filming fosters an overall fogginess.Feynman's academic career was glossed over with there being little desire to inform the audience as to what his scientific interests were. There was no mention of what his contributions were to the Manhattan Project, or why he was chosen to go to Los Alamos. There was some odd editing like the insertion early on of a hand tossing out small pieces of paper from atop a wooden post. After the atomic blast at Alamogordo there is a scene of Fermi doing some measurements of how the pieces of paper were scattered in order to estimate the power of the blast, but this was not made clear enough for most people to make the appropriate deduction. Also, the movie has Feynman looking at the atomic blast with unaided eyes which would have caused retinal burns.The score tries to be manipulative, but winds up being intrusive. Every time there is a tender moment some sappy music is played.I wish this movie could have given more of a hint of Feynman's being a witty, free-spirited genius, which I think he was.

abhilash-1 I give this movie 9/10, the one mark is deducted because this movie is not the best introduction to Feynman's life and does not do enough justice to his great personality. To fully enjoy the movie you must first read Feynman's two books, "What do you care what other people think?' and 'Surely You're Joking, Mr. Feynman!' The first is essential, the second is optional. Both are light reading type of books with loads of jokes but they have their sensitive side as well. On the whole well balance.Now if you read the book, you will get a good insight into Feynman's personality. Then the movie will be like the frosting on top of your Feynman cake. I wish the director had done a better job, it would have introduced so many more people to the life and works of Richard P. Feynman.

rbanerji I'm at odds with this film. I first launched myself into physics because of the books that feynman wrote (well, spoke) and i received the full set of the feynman lectures before i started college.Matthew Broderick has always been one of my favorite actors. I liked his nerdiness and i could relate. So he was one of my reasons for deciding to branch off from physics and start a film career.In the end, though, i see why i always have a little regret for not sticking with physics. Film could never fully realize what it means to be in love with science. I understand that Feynman loved his wife, but he loved everything, that's what made her so important, he could never tire of learning to look. just like her.But this film really doesn't get that across. Plus, instead of relying on smart direction and good editing they give the game away in the opening titles, which are ridiculously lame.**SPOILER** (please it's a real story go read the book)The intercut to the parallel line of the Trinity test explosion is a neat idea, but ultimately poorly executed and timed. But i see where they were going. But they missed it. Because the explosion for feynman is when he sees the dress, not when she dies. remember that great advice, you can call it whatever you want in a thousand languages but that doesn't mean you know it. When feynman sees the dress, he *knows* what it means for arlene to die. He can't share with her anymore, that is what her death *is*. and that should have been the point. you've got to learn what a thing is before you can tell someone else. Feynman was a great man, but he had his flaws. However, the number of people he has influenced is incredible. And i'm glad that somebody made a film about him. However, Feynman's clipped style of speech, what made him so unique and distinct, is not available to the viewer and it cheapens it.I'm sorry to say that i did not like this film. In fact, it made me a little angry to watch it and see my hero stripped of his unique story.

VLeung Cute and well meaning, if not exactly riveting. It should be given extra marks for trying very very hard not to be schmaltzy, even though it still is. British viewers may be reminded throughout of Frank Spencer - the modulation of Matthew Broderick's 'jewish' accent has distinctly ooh Bettyish notes.