Challenger: The Untold Story (TV Movie 2006) Poster

User Reviews

Review this title
2 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
An interesting story but the melodramatic delivery, dodgy acting and repetitive nature of the telling rather undoes how good it should have been
bob the moo2 April 2006
In 1986 the Challenger spacecraft took off from the Kennedy space centre. Seventy three seconds later it exploded in midair, instantly killing all seven of the astronauts on board, including a teacher who had been selected as part of a NASA public relations programme. During the launch a small group of engineers watched on in fear of their worst fears – fears they had tried and failed to get over to those in charge of the project. Within days President Regan had set up a public enquiry into the disaster and the painstaking job of putting everything together had begun.

Screened recently as one of many docu-dramas on channel 4, this film uses interviews, documents and Government enquiry documents to present the facts while at the same time re-enacting them in dramatised scenes. The risk with this approach is that the documentary element is made less effective by the drama to the point where it could feel dumbed down – very much a documentary for the masses who do not like what they perceive as dry, dull and technical documentaries. Sadly that is the problem with this film – the dramatisations give the whole film a very melodramatic feel that infects the factual presentation to the point where it is quite simplistic – exactly like a documentary for people who just want a bit of general sweep with characters rather than facts.

This is not to say that it is boring, because it is quite interesting and has some good contributions but I just didn't like the dramatic air it had in everything from the acting to the narration to the sweep of the delivery. I was still engaged by it but I would have liked to see the same film with the talking head contributions significantly increased and the dramatised scenes reduced. Another reason for wanting this is how average the acting is in these scenes. Specifically the civilian teacher is terrible but the portrayal of Boisjoly is another good example – he just doesn't compare to the real thing but the actor has more screen time! These things also combine to make the film longer than it needs to be and it only really gets up to speed in the final 30 minutes – up till then the film had been quite repetitive and relied on the melodrama to keep it moving.

Overall though the facts save it even if the majority is not that great. The story is simple and is all the more shocking for it – essentially it boils down to managers placing safety second; which is something that should never be true in business. The acting is a bit ropey, the delivery melodramatic and the running time too long – it is still interesting but such a tragic and avoidable event deserves a better documentary than this one.
4 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
9/10
A coherent story about a tragic event.
PWNYCNY8 August 2018
Warning: Spoilers
This movie is structured in the form of a documentary that dramatizes the events associated with the Challenger disaster that occurred on January 28, 1986. The movie recounts the events that led to the decision to launch the rocket. Everything that could go wrong went wrong. it was as if the mission was fated to fail. NASA had so many opportunities to abort the mission but did not. The same can be said for the contractor, Morton Thiokol, which designed and manufactured the boosters. The movie argues that both NASA and Morton Thiokol knew about the problem with the O-rings, yet chose to base their decision to launch on factors other than safety. Everyone shares the blame. No one person or organization bore total responsibility for the decision to launch. It was a team decision. The issue was not one of risk. All understood that the shuttle was an experimental vehicle and that things could go wrong. Rather, the problem was that the O-rings were going to flown under conditions that had not yet been tested. So nobody knew for certain whether the O-rings would fail. As the movie points out, NASA had been flying the shuttle for four years without a failure. This record of success made it more difficult to support a decision to abort the mission over a possibly defective item which to date had not failed. The climax of the movie is the scene in which Morton Thiokol, Marshall Space Flight Center and NASA decide to launch. Although the Morton Thiokol engineers had told their managers not to launch, when NASA asked if anyone at Morton Thiokol disagreed with the decision to launch, no one expresses disagreement, including the engineers who were sounding the alarm. Instead of speaking up, they say nothing. So NASA decides to launch and the next day The rest is history. As for the scenes that cover the subsequent investigation of the disaster, the movie losses much of its dramatic power. There are no good guys or bad guys. No one individual is assigned blame. That is, there are no scape goats. The movie provides no dramatic catharsis because there is none to be delivered. Yet, the movie does succeed as a semi-documentary that provides a coherent account of a truly tragic event.

Ultimately, this movie is not about the flaws in the design of a rocket engine, but rather about flaws in a decision-making process that produced a tragic outcome. One can only speculate as to why the engineers at Morton Thiokol, who had spoken out so strongly against launching the rocket, remained silent at the call conference.
1 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

See also

Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews


Recently Viewed