--- title: "Apollo 13: the reviews" canonical: "https://film.one/film/apollo-13/reviews" title_page: "https://film.one/film/apollo-13" critics_score: 73 critics_reviews: 12 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): what the critics said Critics' score 73 from 12 reviews: 10 positive, 1 mixed, 1 negative. 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. ## RogerEbert.com — Roger Ebert Fi1m's normalised score 90/100 (inferred from the text). 20 September 2002. 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 the review](https://www.rogerebert.com/reviews/apollo-13-the-imax-experience-2002) ## The New York Times — Janet Maslin Fi1m's normalised score 90/100 (inferred from the text). 30 June 1995. 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 the review](https://www.nytimes.com/1995/06/30/movies/film-review-apollo-13-a-movie-for-the-fourth-of-july.html) ## Empire — Mark Salisbury Fi1m's normalised score 85/100 (inferred from the text). 1 January 2006. 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 the review](https://www.empireonline.com/movies/reviews/apollo-13-review/) ## Vulture — Bilge Ebiri Fi1m's normalised score 85/100 (inferred from the text). 19 September 2025. 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 the review](https://www.vulture.com/article/review-oscar-winner-apollo-13-is-back-in-theaters.html) ## Radio Times — Adrian Turner Rating 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 the review](https://www.radiotimes.com/movie-guide/b-oo0q68/apollo-13/) ## Variety — Todd McCarthy Fi1m's normalised score 80/100 (inferred from the text). 23 June 1995. 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 the review](https://variety.com/1995/film/reviews/apollo-13-1200441855/) ## Los Angeles Times — Kenneth Turan Fi1m's normalised score 70/100 (inferred from the text). 30 June 1995. 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 the review](https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1995-06-30-ca-18723-story.html) ## The Guardian Rating Entertainment grade: B, History grade: A–. 17 April 2014. 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 the review](https://www.theguardian.com/film/2014/apr/17/apollo-13-tom-hanks-space-ron-howard) ## The New Yorker — Terrence Rafferty Fi1m's normalised score 70/100 (inferred from the text). 3 July 1995. 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 the review](https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/1995/07/10/flying-blind) ## Time Out — WH Fi1m's normalised score 60/100 (inferred from the text). 3 June 2016. 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 the review](https://www.timeout.com/movies/apollo-13) ## The Independent Fi1m's normalised score 10/100 (inferred from the text). 20 April 1996. 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 the review](https://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/staying-in-a-critical-guide-new-videos-1306113.html) ## Eye for Film — Angus Wolfe Murray Fi1m's normalised score 85/100 (inferred from the text). 5 April 2005. 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 the review](https://www.eyeforfilm.co.uk/review/apollo-13-film-review-by-angus-wolfe-murray) --- © Fi1m Ltd. Written by AI under a human editor; checked against sources before publication. Quote with attribution and a link to the canonical URL. Our review: https://film.one/film/apollo-13.md