Horizon Life Story (1964– ) Online

Not the world's best piece of film making, perhaps, but this is one of the most historically accurate movies ever made about science. As a biology teacher, I found it a great way to cover a rather difficult part of the syllabus. I'm sorry all those other biology students found it so boring; I can only hope that if their teachers had explained what was going on a bit better they would have found more to enjoy. This is a particularly good portrayal of the often bizarre and non-linear way in which science works, in contrast to the typical unrealistic expositions about the scientific method. The discovery of the structure of DNA was one of the most ground-breaking advances in 20th Century science, and one which is still having and will continue to have an enormous impact on our lives, so the value of the film as a depiction of history is very significant.

The only things that annoyed me were Jeff Goldblum's usual failure to speak clearly (made even worse in some scenes by talking with his mouth full of food) and all the rather puerile digressions (accurate though they may have been) about James Watson's tastes in girls.

This film, designed on the FACTS of the discovery, aptly depicts the saga of Watson, Crick, Wilkins and good ol' Rosie, the personalities that combined to create the correct sequence of our very own DNA. The amount of current technology based on their discovery is incredible, and the small piece of their lives that is shared in this film is to be examined by all.

Jeff Goldblum plays the character he is so good at; the eccentric, extreme, intelligent scientist type, in this case, Jim Watson. Juliet Stevenson plays a Rosalind Franklin who exhibits the struggle of being a brilliant woman on the verge of a great discovery in time of mans rule. This film has great performances by excellent actors who actually understand the scientific struggle.

(Rosalind Frankin was the only contributor who didn't receive the Nobel Prize; she died from cancer before the prize was awarded. Watson, Crick, and Wilkins were awarded the 1962 Nobel Prize.

The late Francis Crick said: "In spite of the intention to soft pedal the science, a surprisingly large amount has been included... It is obviously unfair to criticise the BBC for not achieving complete accuracy... What Life Story was trying to do was to get over the general nature of the discovery and how it was received... The ending was distorted to make a theatrical climax whereas Watson & I were worried that it might all be wrong and we had again made fools of ourselves...I think Jeff Goldblum is too manic as Jim Watson and far too interested in girls... Mick Jackson complained to me that no-one had told him that Jim didn't chew gum...Jim's natural manner was more subdued. Goldblum caught it rather well in the costume party scene when he is asked whether he is a real vicar. His American questioner quizzed him for half an hour about the upbringing of her children and was rather cross when she eventually discovered he was not a vicar at all... The other actors were all immediately recognisable as the people they portrayed... The key performance is by Juliet Stevenson. Her comments show that she had a real insight into Rosalind's character... The film gets over the obvious fact that scientific research is performed by human beings with no trace of the stereotyped emotionless scientist...It tells a good story at a good pace so that people from all walks of life can enjoy it and absorb some of its lessons. All in all, Life Story must be considered a success. In other hands it could easily have been nothing quite as good." End of quote

and I think it is brilliant!

The Race for the Double Helix effectively brings to life James Watson's book (upon which it was based), which tells the story of how he and Francis Crick came to be the first to correctly describe the molecular structure of DNA. Crick and Watson's scrappy, boyish spirit is translated well by Jeff Goldblum and Tim Pigott-Smith. The story follows the highs and lows of the two and their drive to make the discovery, thankfully without enshrining them; their success was as much due to luck and rudeness as it was to genuine scientific integrity. The film is also set well in Europe of the 40s and 50s.

One of the first multimedia products was developed around this film, which I worked on, so I've probably seen it about 100 times. In the course of creating the disc around it, I had to read a lot of the actual history as well as watching interviews with the real people (except Rosalind, unfortunately, but we did talk to her very fierce and wonderful biographer, who vigorously attacks some of the scenes in the movie on the disc). On the whole, I found it remarkably accurate as these things go (except with respect to some aspects of Franklin's story and character), very rich, very well-acted, well-paced, but I can see (I guess?) how today's 9th grader (the most recent review) might find it terrible and boring, though that's sad...I found this site while looking for a DVD of it--I wish someone would make one...

I watched this movie in my Biology Class and I do not know why anyone found this boring, it was actually pretty interesting. We actually learned a little bit more about them before watching it and read their original papers in my class so maybe thats why, we found it a little easier to understand and more relevant for us. Watson and Crick were extremely funny and their focus on things other than science was a perspective into the world of scientists, where not everything is science, science, and more science and except you go about it in a roundabout away. I would recommend this movie for anyone, but I suggest to get a little more background into the who the people actually were and what they did and it will help you understand the movie a lot better.

I could not disagree more strongly with the previous reviewer. I don't know that I've enjoyed any movie I've been forced to watch at school. That aside, this is a fantastic film about one of the watershed scientific discoveries of the 20th century. "Race For The Double Helix" is just that, a fantastic race to see who will discover the "secret of the gene." Jeff Goldblum and Tim Piggot-Smith are outstanding as Crick and Watson--the team that eventually goes on to build the model of DNA--but it is Alan Howard and Juliet Stevenson that really steal the show in portraying the relationship between Maurice Wilkins and Rosalind Franklin. Anyone who loves history, or science with be enthralled. The French dialoge adds a terrific touch of realism and the period is depicted with tremendous detail. I call this the "Rocky" film for science geeks, but it is so much more, a fascinating look at a real scientific discovery. Outstanding. 10/10

What a difficult story to tell, but what a beautifully executed result. I loved the performances from all of the actors. Goldblum and Piggot-Smith are splendidly accessible, and Alan Howard is mesmerising and painful as the tormented Wilkins. I'm not a great scientist or fan of "accurate" history pieces, but I thought this was a fabulous piece of drama, and an invaluable one. More dramatic and dynamic than BRAVEHEART and more moving than TITANIC. A triumph! This film is strangely and hypnotically beguiling, interweaving the plots of scientists with all their flawed characteristics while describing the race to define the DNA structure with aplomb. And even more of an achievement considering the potentially dull details of the story.

This film is among those few which exhibit qualities of clear-cut and exciting movie-making. Although it does not stand out in any brilliant way and I do not consider it to be a "must-see," it is a film I recommend to anyone who has the opportunity to see it. Well-developed characters couple with an intelligent and fascinating plotline and make for a truly gripping film that is, in fact, very educational. I had the honor of watching this film with a good friend of both Watson and Crick and for me, the experience in hearing of the reality of the characters heightened the experience.

I am involved in research myself, and I thought this movie portrayed perfectly what female scientists had to deal with in the 50s just to present their work and have it taken seriously! This is a painful, accurate, and meaningful film. I only wish more people could see it. The actress who plays Rosalind must have been active in science to understand that she had to play the role as icily as possible, simply because that is what the life choices of Franklin boiled down to: be emotionless or useless to the scientific community. I loved it, and I think every female who must publish, present, or argue for her research/work must watch this film to understand what is at stake and what "the worst case scenario" actually entails.

-LM

Unquestionable, the quintessential historical thriller of any biology discovery. The slow start jumps into fast mode and truly reflects why people get excited about scientific inquiry. The characters are a bit stereotypical, but I saw Dr. Watson at a presentation at the U. of Purdue in 1987 or 88 and saw that Jeff Goldblum caught the man's brilliance and eccentricity in a performance of a lifetime. Not knowing the other scientists in person, I still believe the characterizations must be on the mark. As the story "races" toward the discovery, the research and its many faceted directions it took reveal the many faces of science and scientists and how we try to understand the universe. Unfortunately, this movie was done by the BBC for TV and cannot be found anywhere. I would recommend this movie to be in the top five of outstanding historical story telling, along with "Marie Curie", "Dr. Erleich's Magic Bullet" and others.

A fun romp through science history. It captures a certain flavor of the times, situations and people. But if you really want to get into _it_, go read Watson's "The Double Helix" or Crick's "What Mad Pursuit" or Judson's "Eighth Day of Creation". I first saw this movie as a junior in high school and it really made my soul soar. I used to watch it over again while in college to pick-up my spirits. This movie had an intro bio class of 300+ applauding!

I confess that I am a Martian -- that is, a male with a love for logic, action and success. We males got that way because it was up to us to go over the horizon looking for food and if we couldn't find our way back to the tribe, we died alone. While action was involved, it was the power of the mind that got it done. OK, women had minds, too, and many of them had these same skills, though it's clear they evolved other, very Venusian, characteristics as well. The life of the mind is full of mystery and excitement, because it directs every action of the body.

"The Race for the Double Helix" (the title by which I will always know it) is the most exciting intellectual adventure I have ever seen depicted on film. The prize is great, the pursuit desperate, the clash of egos titanic, the drama and suspense fingernail-chewing. I especially commend the author for his treatment of Rosalind Franklin, whom most now recognize as the third discoverer of DNA of equal importance to Crick and Watson. This movie is full of excitement while being true to the history. It's a thrill to watch it.

The correct UK (original) title should be "Life Story: A Horizon Special", and it is utterly criminal that this masterpiece from the BBC Horizon team has never been released on DVD. No reason has ever been given that I can see, and yet so many other documentaries, many far less worthy of seeing the light of day, are released on a daily basis. I know that I am not alone in finding this lack of a DVD (or better yet, Blu-Ray?!) release to be suspicious bordering on a conspiracy WHY NO DVD/BD RELEASE?

Though clearly not for everyone, this work was a solid portrayal of what actual personalities might exist within the rarefied world of advanced, cutting edge scientific research. Quirky, egocentric, poorly socialized, dweebs who are absolutely essential for the achievements that we have taken for granted and make our lives so much easier. Having been a mediocre performer as a biology/chemistry major in college, I recognized the superior - though sometimes imperious - performers who have the talent and drive to get to the next levels, leaving the rest of us to labor as garden variety doctors, pharmacists, science teachers, etc. I didn't like the characterization of Dr Franklin. If that was an accurate image, I'd find her intolerable. If it was misconstrued, it was a really shank job.

First of all, let me make it clear. I know NOTHING about this level of science. My father was great at it, but it didn't fall to me to follow in his footsteps.

However, I've always liked good films and this one caught my attention when it was released. It depicts intensity of the scientists tearing their hair out to find how it all worked.

The scene when Jeff Goldblum finally sees where one peptide (if that's the right word) fits into the sequence was very memorable. A real 'voila' moment.

Many years later, a college friend 'ran DNA sequencing' to make money out of his home. And I thought 'oh sure, that's what a man with a PHd in microbiology does'. Again, not at all like my father who went to MIT and worked on scud missile designs for the military. But hey - I speak 3 other languages, so my talent lay in other areas.

If you are oriented towards science and good acting, check this movie out! Once, when I was getting an MRI, I asked the technician who was the Watson and Crick of the MRIs. He had no idea what I was talking about!

Like commentators on other sites, I saw this film when it was broadcast on PBS in the late 80's. The science story is exceptional ( I don't understand a comment that the characters speak in French, there was no French in the original). The interplay between the rival scientists and scientific establishments is realistically portrayed. All three main actors faithfully recreate the feel of the original players in one of the most important discoveries in science. I had the chance to meet James Watson at an industry symposium two years ago. The VHS is only currently available to the educational market. If you want to see how the "business of science" works, this and "Something The Lord Made" are must sees!

I saw this years ago on TV when it came out via the BBC. (Well done 'Auntie') and was enthralled with the realism of the portrayal. My interest was rekindled in it when the ABC (Australian Auntie) announced it would present an updated series on the discovery of the DNA Double Helix from the BBC on 7th July but it was scrubbed by the coverage of the bombings in London. I knew that this film existed but it took some time to research the name and origin. Success, thanks to the database of IMDb.

On 14th July I watched the first part of the ABC presentation which consisted mainly of reruns of original documentary plus interviews with James Watson and Maurice Wilkins.This went a long way to clarify the hostility between Wilkins and Rosalind Franlin. I remember the anger that was portrayed when she announced that she was "not your research assistant" to Wilkins. If he or his boss had clarified the position and what was the working relationship sooner then the angst could have been avoided. Wilkins operated from the position that knowledge should be shared and as head of the team he saw no wrong in letting Watson and Crick have access to Photo 51. There is a similarity in the current position that any discoveries made, become the property of the employer not the individual, regardless of what field the discoveries are in. For anybody interested in the story of the origin of the WCFW DNA Model this would be an excellent starting point. Previous crits about the acting or directing have little bearing on the value of the film.

I too watched this film in Biology. I thought it was marvelous. Though, Jeff Goldblum was eating something or chewing something in almost every scene, even the scene where they probably wouldnt have food. On a scale from one to ten, id say this movie was great. Keep up the good work. I hope to see the sequel soon. Wonderful! A delightful romp through everyones nucleus and private parts. It was like as if the director reached deep down into all of us and pulled something special out, like a twisted ladder composed of nitrogenous bases and phosphate.

Much lovin SkaboombafuX4

Ps: and dave

I find it amusing that the only poor reviews this movie gets are from people (I will assume teenagers or college students) who watch it in biology class.

Well my AP biology class watched it and I found it quite intriguing. Like previous commenters have said, Goldblum brings to life a very interesting character, almost exactly as I imagined it from the book. The writing/directing was a little tedious at times, but overall it was a very educational and often amusing movie. Rosalind Franklin was (in my opinion) portrayed as a good mixture between how Watson depicted her in his book (a little skewed!) and how she probably was in real life. I liked Crick and Wilkins and the atmosphere of, as someone else commented on before, cameraderie, with a touch of competitiveness as these brilliant men (and women) race to find the biggest mystery nature has to offer.

One of the most important films for any film lover to see. The entire bio class was rapt with attention, love, and admiration for the at times hilarious at times dramatic characters. The symbolism and motifs completed the mood with a quirky sense of biological intentness. It was not only a movie that educated me and my entire class on the determination and genius of the past biologist but also entertained us with delicious characterization, good-looking biologists, and a most delightful soundtrack. Four Stars Two Thumbs Up I laughed, I cried It was better than Cats

Perhaps the greatest thing this movie has to offer is Jeff Goldblum as a lead actor. As usual, Goldblum plays the quirky and just-eccentric-enough-to-get-it-right scientist who, in this case, aids in the discovery of the double-helix structure of DNA. This movie humanizes each of the key figures who helped solve this puzzle, a much more enjoyable portrayal of their characters than any textbook could provide. As for the movie's accuracy...I can only speculate. I know I would like to believe that everything transpired in real life just as it did in the movie, since it seemed like a real team sport and the camraderie made it a fun process for everyone associated with Watson & Crick.

If you can obtain a copy, and have the slightest interest in either science or Jeff Goldblum, see this movie.

This movie was shown in the US under the title "Race for the Double Helix." I taped it many years ago and have watched it several times since. I like the history of science, and this movie does a good job of presenting the story accurately. I have read James Watson's book recounting the story. The movie was based on the book and follows it quite closely. My wife is a molecular biologist, and she tells me the science is well presented. A friend of ours got his doctoral degree in molecular biology under Watson and then did a post-doc under Crick. He told us that Watson said the film was well done and accurate, with one exception - Watson did not chew gum! Of course there are the routine Hollywood-type liberties to add drama and so on, but they are minor compared to the main thread of the story.

The discovery of the double helix was, in my opinion, one of the most consequential scientific discoveries of all time. For good or ill, it opened the door to genetic manipulation, modified crops, test tube babies, and so on. For that reason alone, it is an interesting story. There also was much rivalry involved in the quest, as the American title of the film suggests. Watson's book was quite forthright in explaining the rivalries. Several scientists connected with the story were somewhat miffed at the time Watson's book came out because they did not like science's dirty linen being put out in plain view for all to see. The kind of rivalry depicted in the book was contrary to the ideal presented to the public, of a grand brotherhood of researchers all sharing their discoveries and cheering each other on. That's not how it is at all. The rivalries are intense, jealousies are rampant, and there is even outright theft of ideas. The movie does a good job of presenting all that, even being quite explicit in a bit of dialog between J. T. Randall and Rosalind Franklin about the terrestrial and territorial nature of scientific research.

I fault the movie on some minor slips, mostly occasional trick photography that seems pointless and occasionally excessively dramatic dialog. I also was annoyed by the excessive abrasiveness of all the American characters in the movie, typical of BBC productions for quite some time. In terms of substance, there is one quibble I have. Rosalind Franklin is presented as completely admirable, typical of movies of the time that seemed to think it necessary to put important women on pedestals instead of treating them equally with men. In fact, Franklin's stubborn insistence on not following Maurice Wilkins's guess that DNA would be a helix prevented her from discovering the structure on her own before anyone else. She stayed stuck in a blind alley for quite some time ("the A form") before she turned her attention to the fruitful path (the helical structure of "the B form"), even though Wilkins's ideas suggested the helical structure.

Overall, the movie is excellent. For those who like the history of science, this movie is both exciting and informative.

It was almost a rite of passage in my middle school, years ago, to watch this movie after a year of introductory chemistry. Part of the excitement was created by the teachers, who encouraged students to raise hands and shout "Hey!" every time James Watson did something rude, boorish, grossly American, or misogynistic. Furthermore, one teacher would energetically point and shout "He's eating!" every time Jeff Goldblum appears on-screen eating something, which is often. The movie is interesting enough, therefore, to keep a bunch of eighth-graders entertained for several class periods, but this was as much because of the peculiarities of the production and our teachers' carnival attitudes as anything else: it spends a large amount of time (mostly rightfully) reviling Watson. At any rate, if the history of DNA interests you at all, you'll find this movie interesting. If you find such things dull, you won't. If you're ambivalent, chances are that the movie's insights into the politics of science and the characters of the scientists will interest you enough anyway, even if you don't have a crowd of middle-school chemistry teachers, all too ready for summer, present to provide ridiculous callbacks.

I watched this movie in Biology just today, we finished it today. It was a really good movie. I mean, I never thought it would get so in depth of how they discovered the "Double Helix." Although they portrayed Watson kind of weird. He was either eating, drinking, or chewing gum in his scenes. Never seen him without eating or drinking at all. It just stuck out as I was watching the movie. They portrayed Rosalind as kind of cold, but she had to be then or else no one would take her seriously. Seeing as she was a female scientist in the fifties it was hard to do. Also, to me it seemed as if Watson and Krick just waited for someone to make a break through and copied their work and then added their own into it. One of the scenes have them saying "If only we could see their work". It kinda struck me as odd. That's only me though, maybe that's how scientist worked in the fifties. Oh well, it's still a really good movie, and I loved it very much. Everyone else in my class thought it was boring, but I happen to like science, so I didn't.