Own the rights?
8 out of 8 people found the following review useful: Francis Crick's comments, 1 September 2005 Author: johnmcc150 from United Kingdom
The late Francis Crick said: "In spite of the intention to soft pedal the science, a surprisingly large amount has been included... It is obviously unfair to criticise the BBC for not achieving complete accuracy... What Life Story was trying to do was to get over the general nature of the discovery and how it was received... The ending was distorted to make a theatrical climax whereas Watson & I were worried that it might all be wrong and we had again made fools of ourselves...I think Jeff Goldblum is too manic as Jim Watson and far too interested in girls... Mick Jackson complained to me that no-one had told him that Jim didn't chew gum...Jim's natural manner was more subdued. Goldblum caught it rather well in the costume party scene when he is asked whether he is a real vicar. His American questioner quizzed him for half an hour about the upbringing of her children and was rather cross when she eventually discovered he was not a vicar at all... The other actors were all immediately recognisable as the people they portrayed... The key performance is by Juliet Stevenson. Her comments show that she had a real insight into Rosalind's character... The film gets over the obvious fact that scientific research is performed by human beings with no trace of the stereotyped emotionless scientist...It tells a good story at a good pace so that people from all walks of life can enjoy it and absorb some of its lessons. All in all, Life Story must be considered a success. In other hands it could easily have been nothing quite as good." End of quoteand I think it is brilliant!
8 out of 8 people found the following review useful: Good scientific history, 9 May 2002 Author: Stephen Hitchings from Sydney, Australia
Not the world's best piece of film making, perhaps, but this is one of the most historically accurate movies ever made about science. As a biology teacher, I found it a great way to cover a rather difficult part of the syllabus. I'm sorry all those other biology students found it so boring; I can only hope that if their teachers had explained what was going on a bit better they would have found more to enjoy. This is a particularly good portrayal of the often bizarre and non-linear way in which science works, in contrast to the typical unrealistic expositions about the scientific method. The discovery of the structure of DNA was one of the most ground-breaking advances in 20th Century science, and one which is still having and will continue to have an enormous impact on our lives, so the value of the film as a depiction of history is very significant.The only things that annoyed me were Jeff Goldblum's usual failure to speak clearly (made even worse in some scenes by talking with his mouth full of food) and all the rather puerile digressions (accurate though they may have been) about James Watson's tastes in girls.
4 out of 4 people found the following review useful: Excellent visual of the discovery, 17 February 2006 Author: jadiechristine from United States
This film, designed on the FACTS of the discovery, aptly depicts the saga of Watson, Crick, Wilkins and good ol' Rosie, the personalities that combined to create the correct sequence of our very own DNA. The amount of current technology based on their discovery is incredible, and the small piece of their lives that is shared in this film is to be examined by all. Jeff Goldblum plays the character he is so good at; the eccentric, extreme, intelligent scientist type, in this case, Jim Watson. Juliet Stevenson plays a Rosalind Franklin who exhibits the struggle of being a brilliant woman on the verge of a great discovery in time of mans rule. This film has great performances by excellent actors who actually understand the scientific struggle.(Rosalind Frankin was the only contributor who didn't receive the Nobel Prize; she died from cancer before the prize was awarded. Watson, Crick, and Wilkins were awarded the 1962 Nobel Prize.
3 out of 3 people found the following review useful: Beautiful, 7 January 2007 Author: david-bartlett from United Kingdom
What a difficult story to tell, but what a beautifully executed result. I loved the performances from all of the actors. Goldblum and Piggot-Smith are splendidly accessible, and Alan Howard is mesmerising and painful as the tormented Wilkins. I'm not a great scientist or fan of "accurate" history pieces, but I thought this was a fabulous piece of drama, and an invaluable one. More dramatic and dynamic than BRAVEHEART and more moving than TITANIC. A triumph! This film is strangely and hypnotically beguiling, interweaving the plots of scientists with all their flawed characteristics while describing the race to define the DNA structure with aplomb. And even more of an achievement considering the potentially dull details of the story.
2 out of 2 people found the following review useful: Great Movie, 31 December 2005 Author: raheel69 from New York, New York
I watched this movie in my Biology Class and I do not know why anyone found this boring, it was actually pretty interesting. We actually learned a little bit more about them before watching it and read their original papers in my class so maybe thats why, we found it a little easier to understand and more relevant for us. Watson and Crick were extremely funny and their focus on things other than science was a perspective into the world of scientists, where not everything is science, science, and more science and except you go about it in a roundabout away. I would recommend this movie for anyone, but I suggest to get a little more background into the who the people actually were and what they did and it will help you understand the movie a lot better.
2 out of 2 people found the following review useful: Incredibly rich, well-acted, well-told, 31 December 2003 Author: tomdb2 from Chicago, IL
One of the first multimedia products was developed around this film, which I worked on, so I've probably seen it about 100 times. In the course of creating the disc around it, I had to read a lot of the actual history as well as watching interviews with the real people (except Rosalind, unfortunately, but we did talk to her very fierce and wonderful biographer, who vigorously attacks some of the scenes in the movie on the disc). On the whole, I found it remarkably accurate as these things go (except with respect to some aspects of Franklin's story and character), very rich, very well-acted, well-paced, but I can see (I guess?) how today's 9th grader (the most recent review) might find it terrible and boring, though that's sad...I found this site while looking for a DVD of it--I wish someone would make one...
2 out of 2 people found the following review useful: Well-done drama about science, 12 November 1999 Author: Alan One (jeffo@infomagic.com) from Flagstaff, AZ
The Race for the Double Helix effectively brings to life James Watson's book (upon which it was based), which tells the story of how he and Francis Crick came to be the first to correctly describe the molecular structure of DNA. Crick and Watson's scrappy, boyish spirit is translated well by Jeff Goldblum and Tim Pigott-Smith. The story follows the highs and lows of the two and their drive to make the discovery, thankfully without enshrining them; their success was as much due to luck and rudeness as it was to genuine scientific integrity. The film is also set well in Europe of the 40s and 50s.
4 out of 6 people found the following review useful: One of the greatest BBC films of all time!, 7 August 2004 Author: ebneslo (ebneslo@juno.com) from Grays Harbor, Washington
I could not disagree more strongly with the previous reviewer. I don't know that I've enjoyed any movie I've been forced to watch at school. That aside, this is a fantastic film about one of the watershed scientific discoveries of the 20th century. "Race For The Double Helix" is just that, a fantastic race to see who will discover the "secret of the gene." Jeff Goldblum and Tim Piggot-Smith are outstanding as Crick and Watson--the team that eventually goes on to build the model of DNA--but it is Alan Howard and Juliet Stevenson that really steal the show in portraying the relationship between Maurice Wilkins and Rosalind Franklin. Anyone who loves history, or science with be enthralled. The French dialoge adds a terrific touch of realism and the period is depicted with tremendous detail. I call this the "Rocky" film for science geeks, but it is so much more, a fascinating look at a real scientific discovery. Outstanding. 10/10
1 out of 1 people found the following review useful: Good story, good acting, historically accurate, 28 September 2009 Author: john_seater from United States
This movie was shown in the US under the title "Race for the Double Helix." I taped it many years ago and have watched it several times since. I like the history of science, and this movie does a good job of presenting the story accurately. I have read James Watson's book recounting the story. The movie was based on the book and follows it quite closely. My wife is a molecular biologist, and she tells me the science is well presented. A friend of ours got his doctoral degree in molecular biology under Watson and then did a post-doc under Crick. He told us that Watson said the film was well done and accurate, with one exception - Watson did not chew gum! Of course there are the routine Hollywood-type liberties to add drama and so on, but they are minor compared to the main thread of the story.The discovery of the double helix was, in my opinion, one of the most consequential scientific discoveries of all time. For good or ill, it opened the door to genetic manipulation, modified crops, test tube babies, and so on. For that reason alone, it is an interesting story. There also was much rivalry involved in the quest, as the American title of the film suggests. Watson's book was quite forthright in explaining the rivalries. Several scientists connected with the story were somewhat miffed at the time Watson's book came out because they did not like science's dirty linen being put out in plain view for all to see. The kind of rivalry depicted in the book was contrary to the ideal presented to the public, of a grand brotherhood of researchers all sharing their discoveries and cheering each other on. That's not how it is at all. The rivalries are intense, jealousies are rampant, and there is even outright theft of ideas. The movie does a good job of presenting all that, even being quite explicit in a bit of dialog between J. T. Randall and Rosalind Franklin about the terrestrial and territorial nature of scientific research.I fault the movie on some minor slips, mostly occasional trick photography that seems pointless and occasionally excessively dramatic dialog. I also was annoyed by the excessive abrasiveness of all the American characters in the movie, typical of BBC productions for quite some time. In terms of substance, there is one quibble I have. Rosalind Franklin is presented as completely admirable, typical of movies of the time that seemed to think it necessary to put important women on pedestals instead of treating them equally with men. In fact, Franklin's stubborn insistence on not following Maurice Wilkins's guess that DNA would be a helix prevented her from discovering the structure on her own before anyone else. She stayed stuck in a blind alley for quite some time ("the A form") before she turned her attention to the fruitful path (the helical structure of "the B form"), even though Wilkins's ideas suggested the helical structure.Overall, the movie is excellent. For those who like the history of science, this movie is both exciting and informative.
1 out of 1 people found the following review useful: Very Excellent, 27 January 2005 Author: lauraemcmaster from United States
I am involved in research myself, and I thought this movie portrayed perfectly what female scientists had to deal with in the 50s just to present their work and have it taken seriously! This is a painful, accurate, and meaningful film. I only wish more people could see it. The actress who plays Rosalind must have been active in science to understand that she had to play the role as icily as possible, simply because that is what the life choices of Franklin boiled down to: be emotionless or useless to the scientific community. I loved it, and I think every female who must publish, present, or argue for her research/work must watch this film to understand what is at stake and what "the worst case scenario" actually entails.-LM
Add another review
