Challenger

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.

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)

Just a note to say that I happened on Challenger, the TV movie from c. 1990 tonight on cable and came here to IMDB to see what I could find - because I thought it was kind of interesting. Found I was even more interested in the few comments I found here (no reviews).

It was also interesting to me that the "rating" votes from those 60 something people who made a choice were all over the map, but the two (statistically significant?), most often chosen numbers, were 6 and 7. That's about right. (I'm giving it a six.)

But, to get to the main point <s>, all but one of the comments written in for the movie were trashing and what I would call trashy: all of them seemed to be hugely swayed by the subject of the show. Too "meaningful", too "important for our nation"??? The fact, I'm pretty sure, is that Challenger is a somewhat better than average docudrama. And Karen Allen is a distinguished actor. And almost all of the rest of the cast were at least OK. I thought the tone set was quite good, trying pretty successfully for "this is the way it was". No melodrama, no Hollywood "effects", just straight ahead "documentary" acting and other movie skills. Not overwritten.

It's hard for me to figure where the low average of the comments came from. Something I guess about the subject being too Big and Serious (in the pseudo sense, non gravitas) for anyone, particularly the automatically suspect TV movie crowd, to make a respectable film about. I guess. ??? Interesting.

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.

I very much enjoyed the film.... perhaps it was filmed too soon after the tragedy, but that doesn't mean it wasn't a good movie. My question is why the DVD version of the movie was cut by 20 minutes -- only 140 minutes of the 160-minute movie?