Challenger (1990) Reviews

• Made Too Soon

  Eric-62-22004-11-20

  I revisited this for the first time in 14 years after watching more recent docudramas of the space program like "Apollo 13" and "From The Earth To The Moon" to see how well it held up. I have no problem with the acting, or the manner in which the Challenger's crew is depicted. What I do think hurts this film though is the decision to not depict the explosion and the aftermath and just end it with the launch. I realize this was done because in 1990, the events were still too fresh in public memory to want to see the images of disaster again, but this decision ultimately hurts the film's ability to be a long-term definitive telling of the story. What was needed instead was a flashback framing device of the Rogers Commission investigation, with Roger Beaujolay and Lawrence Molloy being subjected to the painful admissions of what went wrong, and how they were impacted by the tragedy. And thumbs down for the cheesy ending of the Challenger astronauts reciting the poem one line at a time instead of providing something more moving like President Reagan's remarks to the nation that afternoon. For all it's virtues, the story of the "Challenger" disaster ultimately deserves a better treatment than this version gave it because it was simply made too soon after the tragedy for there to be appropriate perspective.

• A great chance of high potential sadly missed

  paul_draper20012002-09-01

  There have been some great or plausible movies or made for television films focusing on disasters or news events in history, such as 'Alive' and 'Hillsborough'. Sadly, 'Challenger' isn't one of them. It perhaps could've been improved with not leaving the launch until the end of the film, and instead perhaps leaving it until about two thirds of the way through, leaving room for the investigation into the Disaster. It hardly breaks new ground either, apart from maybe that the teachers knew before the White House conference who was chosen to go into space. Although i have not minded her in other films, i don't think Karen Allen was anywhere near the ideal choice to play Christa McAuliffe, she was at times irritating and wooden occasionally too, it also seemed to rely on her looks more than her acting ability, and also over-done the scene where she makes her speech at the White House about taking ten souls on board with her. The disaster happened in 1986, the film was made 1990, a bit too early in my opinion. Had it been made at present times, less emotional feeling would be used during the making of it, I'm not saying that it's wrong, just that you can tell it was obvious it was made in a time when the world was still not fully over the shock of the disaster. May all seven astronauts rest peacefully. May this film have reached its potential and not been a disappointment.

• Deeply disappointing on every possible level

  Starsnstripes19742006-03-23

  This was the first attempted dramatization of the 1986 tragedy and came out as an ABC TV-movie 4 years after, airing February 25, 1990. The movie was filmed in Houston in the late summer of 1989. Sadly, this production disappoints on virtually every imaginable level: It is horribly written, badly acted, cheaply directed and abysmally edited. It is loaded with flaws and gaffes from start to finish, such as the apparent desire to just throw in any archival footage of any space shuttle that looks "pretty". In two scenes at least, the scene is launch day and they are using roll-out footage of the vehicle moving towards the pad, because it ilks pretty! In the very last shot where they are supposedly aiming to show Challenger's final fateful liftoff they've cut together footage from a bright, afternoon launch with an early morning takeoff that is so mis-matched it is irritating. The sets are horrible too. They try to pass off the Mission Control room in Houston as the Florida launch control firing room. They pay no attention to detail. They have photographs and mission emblems decorating the NASA offices that were from flights AFTER the disaster. The dialogue is horribly cheesy and makes the astronauts sound dumb. In one early scene, Christa the teacher can't do a simple 3rd grade multiplication problem in her head, and Onizuka welcomes her on first meeting as " our journalist in space," to which Smith corrects him "TEACHER in space, fool!" Come on! These are some of the brightest people in the country, are we supposed to buy that they're this lame? The press asks stupid questions, not knowing who Judy Resnik is, among other things. Also ridiculous is how every scene with Onizuka makes him out to be a dipstick, such as coming home from the bar at 2 a.m. and arguing with his wife, or her teasing him as a "pineapple picker from Hawaii" in front of the other families. Who dreamed up the need to fake this " family drama" crap? I could itemize every stupid line or every gaffe in this production, but the point is it is very badly and cheaply done. The acting is second-rate at best, the lines are stupid and bland, and the production seems randomly thrown together with whatever archive film or video of space shuttles they could find. Someday, hopefully, there will be an actual movie about Challenger, hopefully an epic done by Ron Howard or the like, similar to Apollo 13 or The Right Stuff, something that will excel and honor the story and the astronauts and not cheapen everything. I'm looking forward to THAT movie and hope it's not too far off in the future, now that the 20th anniversary of this tragedy just passed this winter.

• A look at the lives of those who died in the Space Shuttle, Challenger, disaster and why it occurred.

  barry-woods2012-12-23

  As others have mentioned, this movie would have more meaning had it depicted events after the Challenger explosion, as well as before. In respect to the families of those who were killed in the accident, I believe the producers chose not to depict the explosion itself. The film is very engrossing and holds one's attention from beginning to end. The primary point is that bureaucracy and politics are often at odds with the value of human life. The film is surprisingly well acted for a made-for-TV movie. Performances are believable and help us to understand and appreciate the lives and persona of those aboard the Challenger, and the sacrifice they made. Families of those lost in the Challenger disaster I am sure appreciate the fact that this film did not exploit the sensationalism of the event, but instead concentrated on honoring the lives of those aboard and trying to understand the bureaucracy responsible for this tragedy. I highly recommend you watch this film, as you will gain insight into the lives of the people who bravely accepted the risks of human exploration.

• Liked it

  sundar-22001-08-04

  I was waiting for a bus in southern India when I noticed the headlines in a Tamil newspaper banner announcing the Challenger disaster. Being interested in Space, I was saddened. In the following days, the Soviet Union callously spread a disinformation story in some Indian newspapers charging that the Challenger was secretly carrying explosives as part of a clandestine plot to militarize Space. Therefore, I watched "Challenger" with interest when it was first shown on television in 1990. I liked it then. I am not sure I'll think so now. Here are the impressions this film made on me at that time. I identified with Julie Fulton as Dr.Judy Resnick, because of the character's feminism, an ideology in which I believed - at that time. I was a little annoyed by Christa McAuliffe because as a Social Studies teacher she proclaims (in the movie) that there are too many scientists in the Space Program and not enough ordinary people. The film only hints at the role of Roger Boisjoly, an engineer who urged NASA to cancel the Challenger flight because of faulty O-ring seals. Like all engineers, he was overruled (you guessed it; I am an engineer). The film follows the lives of the doomed astronauts during their final days - I was rather moved by that. Strangely, the film never shows the famous Challenger disaster footage. Maybe, it was too well-known. (Reviewed by Sundar Narayan)