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.

Although I agree with other reviewers that the reaction of the Feynman character to his wife's death is so restrained as to appear cold, that is but a minor flaw in a striking film featuring a fantastic performance by Patricia Arquette.I have seen many tearjerkers in my life, but this is one of the few that actually makes me choke up when I remember certain scenes.The characters' integrity, the tragic backdrop of the Manhattan Project, the revealing details, the respectful rendering of quaint aspects of the era, the simple truths simply portrayed all make this a small masterpiece.

What a nice movie! If you do not know who Richard Feynman was, then this is a great way to be introduced. He was a brilliant, eccentric, witty scientist who came of age during the 1930s and 1940s. This movie doesn't show his entire life, just the parts that lead up to his involvement with the atomic bomb and the Manhattan Project during WWII. It's based on his books called 'What Do You Care What Other People Think?' and 'Surely You're Joking. Mr. Feynman!' The Movie doesn't deal with his actual scientific work so much as his unconventional approach to it. It also deals with his first marriage to Arline, who was very ill with systemic tuberculosis. The movie takes you from his childhood and university years to his marriage and time at the famous Los Alamos Lab. I think I liked this movie because it doesn't come out and tell you what to think, it just shows snippets of his life and how he overcomes the sad times with humor and grace. I can't say enough about this film. It's that good.

This movie is long and not very well made, but not offensively bad. Why is it when actors direct they love to have long long takes and scenes that don't go anywhere? The story of this man needs to be told, but in a bold and interesting way. This movie did it in a meek and 'decent' way, and it's a real shame. Patricia Arquette obviously wants to bring it some verve, and you kind of feel for her. Matthew Broderick has a lot on his plate, and perhaps should have turned over the directing to someone else. Someone who would've made a few cuts. I give it a 3 on a scale of 10.