I don't have all the words right now but this film is a work of art.

An absolute waste of money

As somebody who had not heard any of this before, it became a curious phenomenon to sit and watch a film and slowly have the realities begin to click into place.

The story, direction, characters, and writing/dialogue is akin to taking a tranquilizer shot to the neck, but everything else was so well done.

I give this movie 9/10, the one mark is deducted because this movie is not the best introduction to Feynman's life and does not do enough justice to his great personality. To fully enjoy the movie you must first read Feynman's two books, "What do you care what other people think?' and 'Surely You're Joking, Mr. Feynman!' The first is essential, the second is optional. Both are light reading type of books with loads of jokes but they have their sensitive side as well. On the whole well balance.Now if you read the book, you will get a good insight into Feynman's personality. Then the movie will be like the frosting on top of your Feynman cake. I wish the director had done a better job, it would have introduced so many more people to the life and works of Richard P. Feynman.

This was kind of a strange, low-key movie, one that isn't going to get a lot of attention, especially with a younger audience which wants anything but a slow- moving story. But, whatever your age, if you want simply a nice movie, you have one here.Other reviewers here have gone into the details about the real-life persons this film is based on, so I will just make a few general comments I had while watching this.First, I enjoyed Matthew Broderick's narration. Broderick usually plays likable roles and is an underrated actor, I think. I've never seen him in a bad performance. Even though this story is an emotional one, I found little emotion in the film but that makes it intriguing in parts.Sometime past the halfway mark, I asked myself, "What is the point of this story?" There is a point, and there is more than what meets the eye to this. Those who have seen this film know what I mean. I'm making vague statements, but I don't want to give away anything.I enjoyed the 1940s look to this, appreciated Patricia Arquette's against-type role; appreciated the fact there were no villains in here and the profanity was low. As I said, it's a nice film and touching drama.Broderick and his mother wrote, produced and directed this film.

Spoilers herein.Some theorists live in the world of their theories. If you are going to pay attention to people, these are the most worthwhile. And certainly if you are going to build a film around them, you have some pretty rich possibilities. That's because the best films - in my opinion - take you to an alternative world, and the world of these theorists is often wonderful indeed. Nash was one of these thinkers who lived in the world he created, which is why `Beautiful Mind' was such a disappointment. Feynmen was a different sort of beast altogether. For him, the world was real, and he lived in it. He was among the best at forming elegant models and describing them to others, but it was all from the solid foundation of him in the real world. So a film about him in an artificial film world is not possible, which is why Broderick's approach is so apt. The problem is that if you focus on him as a person, he is a pretty ordinary person.I suppose that's what the Brodericks wanted, a `small film' that they could manage. It is done well enough, especially the agent in disguise as an Indian. There's nothing wrong. It is just too slight. Ted's Evaluation -- 2 of 4: Has some interesting elements.

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.