On A List of Movie Reviews

(For optimum viewing, adjust the zoom level of your browser to 125%.)


Apollo 13 (1995)

Rate: 7
Viewed: 1/04, 4/18

Ap13
4/18: Oh, excuse me, Ron Howard...why is Apollo 13 about saving Tom Hanks in outer space?

Does he realize there are others with him? And their names are Jack Swigert and Fred Haise? That's all I saw in the film: the need to save Tom Hanks as drama unfolds. To my no surprise, Jim Lovell is saved because he's Tom Hanks!

Oh, yeah, his two buddies, Jack Swigert and Fred Haise, managed to make out okay. Thank you for not asking or caring. By the way, Apollo 13 was meant to be America's third Moon landing mission, but a mechanical failure occurred along the way, causing an on-board explosion which deprived the spacecraft most of its oxygen supply and electric power. Hence, the three astronauts had to turn around and head for home which occurred on April 11-17, 1970.

Although the film is somewhat accurate and detailed with no actual mission footage, the high level of technospeak is over my head. At the same time, the special effects are awful, especially during the launch scenes. I didn't care for Lovell's family who was the only one to get attention as compared to the other two.

Of the performances, Ed Harris' is worth mentioning. He had NASA experience by playing John Glenn in The Right Stuff. Everybody else is fine enough to see the show through. The famous quote that's uttered in the film "Houston, we have a problem" is wrong as it's actually "Houston, we've had a problem." "Failure is not an option" was never mentioned, either.

All in all, I would've liked Apollo 13 more if it wasn't about Tom Hanks all the time.