User Reviews

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.

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

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!

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!

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.

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

I haven't read the story about it yet so I'm no expert on the story. James D. Watson is a genius and has written a lot of best sellers that I'll read now. This movie is based on his brutally honest book about the discovery of DNA itself. So there are some things you might worry about here.

Firstly the budget. It's a BBC production so I kinda expected a bunch of low-budget sets and mediocre acting. But this was in 1987 and they seemingly had way higher quality standards than now. This really does feel like a proper movie. Not a huge production, but there is nothing British about it whatsoever. It feels like a movie made to be a movie and not one of these modern silly projects made by some public founding company. It is of course set in small sets with no huge budget seen anywhere. Yet the old objects, buildings, rooms, tables, observations make it feel like a real setting as they interact in a real world. You really feel like Watson is among real people and really does want to find a wife. It's not a fake set or lazy replication.

Then there is the issue of the science. It will either be too silly or too complicated in most cases. Frankly, 99% of the time it's too silly. I have yet to see a movie with science so complicated that I couldn't understand it. But this one may be the closest one to that ever. The DNA structures and various papers they discuss are out of my area of expertise. Still it's made very accessible and you feel like it all totally makes sense. Like a puzzle you don't quite understand, but as characters react to it you understand why a certain new fact is crucial for the puzzle. It's not boring and not too complicated.

Then there is the story. It could easily have been boring. But nope. It's done as a race. So they are racing to discover the structure of DNA at the same time as geniuses around the world have exactly the same goal in mind. But those other groups don't have James D. Watson. He is the catalyst here. Getting to UK with one single goal in mind: be the first to uncover DNA. While many around him try to stop him and keep him down he is eager to get to the goal and lets no one stop him. It really feels like without him nothing would get done which creates a strong proactive story.

You also have a race with the Dark Lady. Rosalind is hired by the university to take photos of DNA structures, but she hides all her work and even wants to take it with her to France/or another college. So Watson tries to talk to her and make her work with them, but she refuses. It's not quite clear what she wants. She doesn't know herself. But she's a jerk to everyone around her and not really helping science progress at the university overall. Rather she hides data. You always feel like at any point Watson and Crick could be trumped.

The expectation that someone somewhere could steal Watson and Crick's idea and be the first to publish creates a gigantic tension. Especially someone as cruel as Rosalind possibly being the first creates this needed tension in the race to the goal. The other competitors are at least far away and never seen on screen. She is right here and very unlikeable even though they tried to make her into an attractive genius in this movie. The script basically removed all the people around her who did much of the work presented as hers in the movie. It's maybe not ideal history wise, but I think her myth is so strong today that you have to present it this way even if it's not quite factual. Also, she was never really close to uncovering DNA, but we only learn that at the very end of the movie. That's how well the race is presented.

Overall a very strong movie with some weird things that drag it a bit down. Watson for example constantly chases women without success. I'm not sure why they added that. And then Rosalind seemingly wants to marry, but then not really because she just doesn't seem to tolerate men expect a few French men who may be gay or already married or something. Her story feels a bit like a teen girl story put into a movie about science and it becomes creepy at times. She's made into this hot lady all men want. I again assume they wanted to create extra tension. Both these love stories don't work that properly. They also made Watson kinda stupid and constantly mistaken while Crick and Rosalind are geniuses. It yet again works fairly well, but you constantly wonder why they made such artistic choices. I guess that's what writers do. It would be nice to have a huge budget TV show about this without all this silly imaginary cultural stuff in it. Just Watson and Crick doing research for 10 hours straight! Oh boy! But it likely can't sell so we need these hot smart chick/stupid nerd boy stereotypes to create a movie story. I think there could be a way to add in such characters from the outside if you made a long TV show. So you could keep the main characters more realistic without this extra fake drama created from myths or to fit into a movie mold.

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, too, watched this movie in AP Biology class, however, my analysis is different. Now, by no means was it Lawrence of Arabia or Schindler's List, but come on, it was made for Television. It's a clever piece of scientific history, exploring chauvinism, the cunning of two legendary men who were, essentially, leeches, and the not-always-so-philanthropic motivations behind the people who shape our minds today. I have also never seen Jeff Goldblum as a more attractive nerd. However, if the movie itself were an actual nerd--which it definitely is, don't get me wrong--then it would be the kind at which girls coo, not the kind that plays fantasy computer games until four in the morning. Double Helix is nerdy, yes, but in the likable way.

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.

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.

this movie has lame characters, is boring, and poorly filmed. There is no reason to watch this film. My Biology class watched it and i spent most of the time looking at my watch, waiting for class to end. this movie is 1/1000000000000000000000000 *

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 is still my favorite movie of all time, 32 years after it came out. I have seen it at least twice and probably more. It is not a documentary; it is suspenseful, dramatic, and exciting and is historically accurate. I did not know that it is part of a series. Even though I know the events and how it ends, I am still captivated when I watch it, and I still feel happy and triumphant when Watson and Crick arrive at the answer. I agree with the review by David Bartlett. I am a physicist by training, and my appreciation comes partly from knowing that by watching it non-scientists can see how exciting science can be.

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 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.

I enjoyed this TV film and learned a lot. It's somewhat dated by its 80s'-style British television filmmaking conventions, and it's slightly padded with some unnecessary and slightly off-topic quirks, but in the end it's very informative both scientifically and biographically.

From what I've read, it captures the personalities of the four protagonists well, and it also communicates well the "race" and competitiveness between various scientists who were all striving to be the first to determine the structure of DNA -- in the absence of being able to actually view it.

The actors -- Jeff Goldblum, Tim Pigott-Smith, Juliet Stevenson, and Alan Howard -- are all quite good. The storytelling is fine and reaches its climax with flare. I've watched the movie twice, and I enjoyed it even more on the second viewing, perhaps because it made more sense as I understood the overall picture in advance.

The academic market has captured the DVD/VHS rights to this film, so you probably won't be able to get a home video hard copy unless you are a student or teacher. The film is however now viewable on Vimeo, YouTube, and Daily Motion, under the title "Life Story" or "Life Story: The Race for the Double Helix".

After viewing it, I very much recommend viewing the 2003 Nova episode, "Secret of Photo 51", which is excellent and adds another layer of entertaining understanding of the science and the competition involved. It's currently on YouTube.

All in all, if you are able to view this film, do!

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!

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.

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?

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.

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!

This movie does a good job of presenting the story accurately. The discovery of the double was one of the most consequential scientific discoveries of all time. Without its discovery, many things today such as genetic engineering or modification would not be possible. I think the movie did a good job at showing the tension, or 'the race', that was felt between its characters and is realistic to what actually happened. At least according to Watson, the movie's depiction of real-life events was very accurate. 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. The rivalries are intense, jealousies are rampant, and there is even outright theft of ideas. Overall I feel that the production value of the film seemed somewhat low, even accounting for the fact that it is quite an old movie, but is made up for in the fact that it is accurate to real life events.

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.