Another Hanks attempt to monopolise the Oscar...

Rating: 9/10 (9 March 2001)

"Apollo 13" is yet another movie where Hanks is cast as the 'everyman' overcoming some difficulty. He IS a fine actor, and "Apollo 13" IS a great film, but does anyone else get the urge to see Tom Hanks playing a real scumbag for once? His characters always seem so WORTHY, making them a cert for Academy nomination at least. Sometimes I wish he'd be a little more brave in his career choices. Academy recognition aint the be all and end all. There are plenty of fine actors never to be recognised in such a way. I think I'm right in suggesting Johnny Depp? Still, onto the film.
Director Howard has assembled a superb ensemble cast, and has a decent script to work from. Everybody should know the basic story by now but this fact is impressively never allowed to destroy dramatic tension. No-one with any sense would label Howard an auteur, and this works well for A13 because it allows us to concentrate on the individuals IN FRONT of the camera rather than the guy behind it (take note Scorsese.) The moods in this picture are impressively judged, the historic build up (which admittedly does drag slightly), the perilous middle and the triumphant end. The effects are superb, but they aren't the only thing here, making this a true blockbuster with soul. The crew on the ground, led by Ed Harris, are almost as impressive as those in space, if not more so. The whole production has obviously been polished until it gleamed...
Definitely Ron Howard's best film, and one of the best pictures of '95. As I mentioned before, I just wish the Academy weren't so obvious in their Oscar choices...
Incidentally, I didn't like this film when I first saw it. Never has it been more apparent that your taste and attention span increase as you get older!