---
title: "Apollo 13"
year: 1995
kind: "film"
canonical: "https://film.one/film/apollo-13"
fi1m_id: "apollo-13"
imdb_id: "tt0112384"
tmdb_id: 568
wikidata_id: "Q106428"
fi1m_score: 84
critics_score: 73
critics_reviews: 12
published: "2026-09-13"
updated: "2026-09-18T08:38:17.968914+00:00"
region: "ES"
licence: "© Fi1m Ltd. Written by AI under a human editor; checked against sources before publication. Quote with attribution and a link to the canonical URL."
---

# Apollo 13 (1995)

Directed by Ron Howard · 2h 20m · ICAA APTA · Drama, History

## Identity

Apollo 13

- **Canonical:** https://film.one/film/apollo-13
- **Type:** Film
- **Fi1m ID:** apollo-13
- **IMDb ID:** tt0112384
- **TMDB ID:** 568
- **Wikidata ID:** Q106428
- **Same entity:** https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0112384/, https://www.themoviedb.org/movie/568, https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q106428

**Fi1m score: 84** · Critics 73 from 12 reviews

*In a sentence:* A roomful of people discussing technical problems should not be this gripping

> Ron Howard makes the Apollo 13 mission gripping by taking its technical problems and the people solving them seriously. Tom Hanks leads an excellent ensemble, though manufactured friction and an insistent score occasionally push too hard.

## Synopsis

A rocket launch begins the journey for Jim Lovell (Tom Hanks), Fred Haise (Bill Paxton) and Jack Swigert (Kevin Bacon) aboard Apollo 13. Their flight brings a call back to Houston: “Houston, we have a problem.” The story also follows Ken Mattingly (Gary Sinise), Gene Kranz (Ed Harris) and Marilyn Lovell (Kathleen Quinlan), with the Lovell family forming part of its earthbound cast. Between the launch and that message, the mission takes the three men away from Earth and into trouble.

## Review

Ron Howard’s *Apollo 13* is a gripping rescue drama, with a few arguments we could have done without. It asks us to take an interest in people diagnosing trouble, sharing information and trying an idea because the alternatives are worse. That could describe a long afternoon at work. Howard makes it an absorbing way to spend 140 minutes, largely because he allows the technical work to matter as much as the personalities.

Tom Hanks gives Marilyn Lovell an ordinariness that helps enormously: we believe other people would listen to him without needing a speech about leadership. Bill Paxton’s Fred Haise and Kevin Bacon’s Jack Swigert make the crew feel like colleagues with distinct personalities. There is enough difference between them to keep the shared endeavour human. Hanks is especially good at keeping our attention without suggesting that Lovell deserves all of it, and Howard leaves space for the other performances.

Ed Harris, as Gene Kranz, gives the work on the ground a similar authority, making concentration something worth watching. The pleasure is in seeing responsibility spread across a group whose members have different jobs to do. William Broyles Jr. and Al Reinert’s screenplay gives practical questions enough weight that we want to understand the answers. Within the rescue genre, this willingness to spend time on explanations is particularly effective: we have some grasp of what the astronauts and their colleagues are up against.

Dean Cundey’s cinematography is most persuasive at the launch, where the scale of the machinery makes human confidence look a little optimistic. We tensed up watching it; the force of the launch made the astronauts’ vulnerability suddenly plain. Michael Corenblith’s production design also earns attention for the equipment, which looks usable as well as convincing. The film gets us interested in what things do, so that the machinery holds our attention even when there is no spectacle to admire.

Editors Daniel P. Hanley and Mike Hill keep the crew and ground control part of the same developing problem. Their cutting makes the exchanges legible without draining the urgency out of them, a substantial achievement in a film where understanding a difficulty is part of the entertainment. We can follow the thinking and still worry about the people doing it. James Horner’s score is less restrained: its emotional encouragement sometimes feels unnecessary when the actors and the situation have already given us enough to respond to.

Howard is less sure when he uses disagreement as another source of danger. The crew conflicts and ground-control battles can feel introduced to reassure us that this is a proper drama, with raised tempers as well as technical difficulties. Those passages are less involving precisely because the practical stakes have already secured our attention. They also make the characters briefly seem less convincing as colleagues, and the ensemble has worked hard to establish that sense of people depending on each other.

Give it an uninterrupted evening; the explanations are part of the pleasure and deserve the attention. There is no need to arrive with an existing interest in space travel. Howard gives us enough reason to care about the people before asking us to follow the problems. We recommend it with some tolerance for the extra sentiment, and with no expectation of remaining relaxed.

*Fi1m score 84, published 13 September 2026.*

## What the critics say

Most critics take to Apollo 13 warmly, and the praise clusters in the same places. Ron Howard’s recreation of the spacecraft and mission control is judged careful and convincing, and the suspense holds even though everyone knows how the mission ends. The scenes of improvised problem-solving, from the launch to the fabrication of a filter, are singled out most often. The ensemble is admired, with Tom Hanks’s plain, ordinary Lovell and Ed Harris as Gene Kranz mentioned most.

The reservations are modest and consistent. Several reviews find the characters thinly drawn, the family scenes sentimental and the film unwilling to question anything about NASA or its heroes. The New Yorker faults the score and the flat photography, and Time Out thinks the known outcome leaves Howard manufacturing conflict to fill the gaps. The one real dissent comes from The Independent, which saw it on video a year later and calls it bland, blaming Howard and Hanks.

## Straight answers

**Is Apollo 13 worth watching?**

*Apollo 13* is worth watching for anyone who can be gripped by people solving technical problems under pressure, and we scored it 84. Tom Hanks leads an excellent ensemble, and Ron Howard takes the engineering as seriously as the personalities. Expect some manufactured arguments and a score that pushes harder than it needs to.

**How long is Apollo 13, and what is it rated?**

*Apollo 13* runs 2h 20m and is rated APTA by the ICAA in Spain. It is a drama and history film.

**Where can I watch Apollo 13 in Spain?**

*Apollo 13* is streaming on Netflix in Spain, and it is also available to rent from Apple TV and Amazon Prime Video from €3.99. Availability is checked daily; the links above go straight to each service.

**How does Apollo 13 compare to The Right Stuff?**

*Apollo 13* is the tighter and more disciplined film, while [*The Right Stuff*](https://film.one/film/the-right-stuff) is the bigger, funnier and cockier one. Howard's film concentrates on one crisis and the group working through it; Kaufman's ranges across the test pilots and Mercury astronauts with more swagger and a heavier hand at satire. Choose the former for tension, the latter for character and sprawl.

**Is Apollo 13 based on a true story or a book?**

*Apollo 13* is drawn from the real Apollo 13 mission and based on a book by Jim Lovell, the astronaut Tom Hanks plays, and Jeffrey Kluger. Our review does not weigh how closely the film follows the book, and the film explains the mission clearly enough that no prior knowledge of the events or the source is needed.

**What should I watch after Apollo 13?**

After *Apollo 13*, try [*The Right Stuff*](https://film.one/film/the-right-stuff) (1983, Fi1m 86): For the test pilots and astronauts, with more swagger and sharper elbows. Then [*Le Trou*](https://film.one/film/le-trou) (1960, Fi1m 88): Patient, exacting suspense built around shared labour and the handling of tools; and [*The Martian*](https://film.one/film/the-martian) (2015, Fi1m 82): More isolation, more practical ingenuity, and a lighter touch with the loneliness.

### Reviews we read (12)

- **RogerEbert.com**, Roger Ebert (90/100, inferred): The re-release review highlights how the IMAX format enhances the bold visuals and powerful sound of the thrilling enclosed-space drama, making the story of improvisation and survival even more impactful without needing spectacle. It remains a strong, detailed recreation of the events with committed performances. [Read](https://www.rogerebert.com/reviews/apollo-13-the-imax-experience-2002)
- **The New York Times**, Janet Maslin (90/100, inferred): The film unfolds with perfect immediacy and draws viewers into the nail-biting suspense of a spellbinding true story. It understands the difference between movie bravado and real courage, celebrating the latter through strong performances and an emphasis on the intricate group effort. [Read](https://www.nytimes.com/1995/06/30/movies/film-review-apollo-13-a-movie-for-the-fourth-of-july.html)
- **Empire**, Mark Salisbury (85/100, inferred): The critic praises Ron Howard's docu-drama for its power and exhilaration in recounting the Apollo 13 mission, highlighting the gripping narrative and strong ensemble performances despite knowing the outcome. They single out the authentic visual spectacle and the team's improvisational efforts as particularly compelling. [Read](https://www.empireonline.com/movies/reviews/apollo-13-review/)
- **Vulture**, Bilge Ebiri (85/100, inferred): The critic highlights the film's casual, everyday feel and communitarian sensibility as what makes it work, praising Howard's direction of actors and sense of place; singles out the small gestures and details like the simulator sequence for making the suspense compelling. [Read](https://www.vulture.com/article/review-oscar-winner-apollo-13-is-back-in-theaters.html)
- **Radio Times**, Adrian Turner (4/5): The critic calls it the ultimate rescue story that pays tribute to the astronauts' bravery and American know-how. Highlights Tom Hanks' ordinary everyman quality as Lovell, strong supporting turns including Ed Harris, and the technical tour de force achieved partly through genuine weightless filming. [Read](https://www.radiotimes.com/movie-guide/b-oo0q68/apollo-13/)
- **Variety**, Todd McCarthy (80/100, inferred): The critic praises the film's suspenseful storytelling, technical achievements, and embodiment of American virtues, while noting its methodical structure and shallow characterization. It singles out the verisimilitude of the mission visualization and the positive posture of the characters for praise. [Read](https://variety.com/1995/film/reviews/apollo-13-1200441855/)
- **Los Angeles Times**, Kenneth Turan (70/100, inferred): The critic calls it Ron Howard’s most impressive film to date, a straight-ahead, worshipful dramatization that excels in its tense, well-executed scenes of problem-solving and physical re-creation of the spacecraft and mission control. The jargon-heavy story is handled effectively overall, though it leans into sentimental, middle-of-the-road territory without revisionism. [Read](https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1995-06-30-ca-18723-story.html)
- **The Guardian** (Entertainment grade: B, History grade: A–): The critic describes a well-researched adaptation of the Apollo 13 story that makes for a pacy, compelling movie. The film introduces some chaos and dramatic inventions into NASA’s procedures for cinematic effect. [Read](https://www.theguardian.com/film/2014/apr/17/apollo-13-tom-hanks-space-ron-howard)
- **The New Yorker**, Terrence Rafferty (70/100, inferred): The critic finds the film a stirring true-life adventure that effectively dramatizes the improvisational heroism of the mission and the NASA team through clear storytelling and strong ensemble performances, especially Ed Harris as Gene Kranz. Some elements like the score, drab cinematography, and overly sentimental family scenes weaken the momentum, but the core remains lively and impressive. [Read](https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/1995/07/10/flying-blind)
- **Time Out**, WH (60/100, inferred): The review observes that the known outcome removes natural suspense, forcing Howard to manufacture tension via crew conflicts and ground control battles, while noting some effective thrills like the launch and filter fabrication but criticizing sparse dramatic scenes and pedestrian effects; it scores points for subtly affirming traditional male heroism. [Read](https://www.timeout.com/movies/apollo-13)
- **The Independent** (10/100, inferred): The critic calls the film a disastrous disaster movie and a tepid TV movie on video, robbed of its theatrical impact. They single out Ron Howard and Tom Hanks for making everything bland and sucking tension from the story. [Read](https://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/staying-in-a-critical-guide-new-videos-1306113.html)
- **Eye for Film**, Angus Wolfe Murray (85/100, inferred): The critic praises the film as a very fine piece of work and a stirring example of Hollywood's capabilities when authenticity is prioritized. They single out the unrelenting tension maintained throughout the two-and-a-half-hour runtime and the magnificent ensemble cast. [Read](https://www.eyeforfilm.co.uk/review/apollo-13-film-review-by-angus-wolfe-murray)

## Details

- **Director:** Ron Howard
- **Director:** Ron Howard
- **Screenplay:** William Broyles Jr., Al Reinert
- **Novel:** Jeffrey Kluger, Jim Lovell
- **Cinematography:** Dean Cundey
- **Editor:** Daniel P. Hanley, Mike Hill
- **Music:** James Horner
- **Production design:** Michael Corenblith
- **Costume design:** Rita Ryack
- **Producer:** Brian Grazer
- **Cast:** Tom Hanks as Jim Lovell; Bill Paxton as Fred Haise; Kevin Bacon as Jack Swigert; Gary Sinise as Ken Mattingly; Ed Harris as Gene Kranz; Kathleen Quinlan as Marilyn Lovell; Mary Kate Schellhardt as Barbara Lovell; Emily Ann Lloyd as Susan Lovell
- **Runtime:** 2h 20m
- **Certificate (ICAA):** APTA
- **Release (Spain):** 5 September 1995
- **Genres:** Drama, History
- **Also in:** [Best Picture winners](https://film.one/collections/oscar-best-picture.md) (Nominee, 1995); [Golden Globe Best Drama winners](https://film.one/collections/golden-globe-drama.md) (Nominee, 1995)
- **Budget:** $52 million
- **Box office:** $355 million
- **Trailer:** https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B1KJ9XeZuxA

## Where to watch in Spain

- Netflix: streaming
- Apple TV: rent €3.99, hd
- Amazon Prime Video: rent €3.99, uhd
- Apple TV: buy €5.99, sd
- Amazon Prime Video: buy €5.99, sd

*Checked 2026-09-13.*

Also available in: AE, AR, AT, AU, AZ, BE, BG, BR, CA, CH, CL, CO, CZ, DE, DK, EC, EE, ES, FI, FR, GB, GR, HK, HR, HU, ID, IE, IL, IN, IS, IT, JP, KR, LT, MX, MY, NL, NO, NZ, PA, PE, PH, PL, PT, RO, RS, SE, SG, SI, SK, TH, TR, UA, US, VN, ZA. Add `?region=XX` to this URL for another country.

## Awards

- Academy Awards 1996: Best Original Dramatic Score (nominated); Best Picture (nominated); Best Production Design (nominated); Best Supporting Actor (nominated); Best Supporting Actress (nominated); Best Visual Effects (nominated); Best Writing, Adapted Screenplay (nominated); Best Film Editing (won); Best Sound (won)
- BAFTA Film Awards 1996: Best Editing (nominated); Best Sound (nominated); Best Special Visual Effects (won)
- Hugo Awards 1996: Best Dramatic Presentation (nominated)
- Japan Academy Prize for Outstanding Foreign Language Film 1996: Japan Academy Prize for Outstanding Foreign Language Film (nominated)
- MTV Movie Award for Best Male Performance 1996: MTV Movie Award for Best Male Performance (nominated)
- MTV Movie Award for Best Movie 1996: MTV Movie Award for Best Movie (nominated)
- Producers Guild of America Award for Best Theatrical Motion Picture 1996: Producers Guild of America Award for Best Theatrical Motion Picture (won)
- SAG Awards 1996: Outstanding Performance by a Cast in a Motion Picture (won); Outstanding Performance by a Male Actor in a Supporting Role (won)
- Writers Guild of America Award for Best Adapted Screenplay 1996: Writers Guild of America Award for Best Adapted Screenplay (nominated)
- American Society of Cinematographers Award for Outstanding Achievement in Cinematography in Theatrical Releases 1995: American Society of Cinematographers Award for Outstanding Achievement in Cinematography in Theatrical Releases (nominated)
- BAFTA Film Awards 1995: Best Cinematography (nominated)
- Broadcast Film Critics Association Award for Best Supporting Actor 1995: Broadcast Film Critics Association Award for Best Supporting Actor (won)
- Directors Guild of America Award for Outstanding Directing – Feature Film 1995: Directors Guild of America Award for Outstanding Directing – Feature Film (won)
- Golden Globes 1995: Best Director (nominated); Best Motion Picture – Drama (nominated); Best Supporting Actor – Motion Picture (nominated); Best Supporting Actress – Motion Picture (nominated)
- Jupiter Awards 1995: Jupiter Awards (won)

## If you liked this

- *The Right Stuff* (1983), Fi1m 86: For the test pilots and astronauts, with more swagger and sharper elbows — [Fi1m page](https://film.one/film/the-right-stuff.md)
- *The Flight of the Phoenix* (1965): Stranded men attempt an engineering solution while struggling to tolerate one another
- *Le Trou* (1960), Fi1m 88: Patient, exacting suspense built around shared labour and the handling of tools — [Fi1m page](https://film.one/film/le-trou.md)
- *The Martian* (2015), Fi1m 82: More isolation, more practical ingenuity, and a lighter touch with the loneliness — [Fi1m page](https://film.one/film/the-martian.md)
- *The Rescue* (2021), Fi1m 78: A documentary in which careful preparation becomes as gripping as the rescue itself — [Fi1m page](https://film.one/film/the-rescue.md)

---
© Fi1m Ltd. Written by AI under a human editor; checked against sources before publication. Quote with attribution and a link to the canonical URL. Canonical: https://film.one/film/apollo-13