I gave it a 7.5 out of 10

Pretty good movie overall. First half was nothing special but it got better as it went along.

The movie's neither hopeful in contrived ways, nor hopeless in different contrived ways. Somehow it manages to be wonderful

Each character in this movie — down to the smallest one — is an individual rather than a type, prone to spontaneous changes of mood and sometimes amusing outbursts of pettiness or ill humor.

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.

For fans of Feynman's books, this will be a disappointment. Matthew Broderick's performance doesn't capture the fire, playfulness and wonder of Feynman's personality (as do documentaries of his lectures). Furthermore, his direction botches many of the anecdotes, missing the points of emphasis and undermining the quirky humour and sense of irony in the original telling. For example, in the Chinese abacus scene (which is shifted to a much earlier period in Feynman's life), Broderick has Feynman initiate the challenge, whereas in real life, it was the hapless abacus salesman who challenged him, completely unaware that he was taking on a renowned physicist. Therefore, the sense of irony, and of Feinman's idiosyncrasy in the world of mere mortals, is lost. Only Patricia Arquette seems to have captured the essence of the memoirs, despite her often unintelligible dialogue.

This takes you through the early life of Feynman to the end of the Manhattan project and the death of his wife from tuberculosis. One will note the irony that she died of the disease only a very few years before antibiotics could have saved her. The love story of man and wife is tenderly told and nicely photographed against various backgrounds including Bandolier Cliff Dwellings in New Mexico, near Los Alamos. The actual scientific work of Feynman and the others is referred to obliquely for the most part, sometimes in conversations between the couple. Critics have properly complained of the choppy editing and a tendency to wander off the subject into irrelevancies. But still, it's a lovely film about the sad, and busy, early life of a great physicist.

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.