IMDb-BEWERTUNG
6,5/10
9604
IHRE BEWERTUNG
Dieser Film stellt das Manhattan-Projekt nach, das geheime Kriegsprojekt in New Mexico, bei dem die ersten Atombomben entworfen und gebaut wurden.Dieser Film stellt das Manhattan-Projekt nach, das geheime Kriegsprojekt in New Mexico, bei dem die ersten Atombomben entworfen und gebaut wurden.Dieser Film stellt das Manhattan-Projekt nach, das geheime Kriegsprojekt in New Mexico, bei dem die ersten Atombomben entworfen und gebaut wurden.
- Auszeichnungen
- 2 Nominierungen insgesamt
Allan Corduner
- Franz Goethe
- (as Alan Corduner)
Joe D'Angerio
- Seth Neddermeyer
- (as Joseph D'Angerio)
Jon DeVries
- Johnny Mount
- (as Jon De Vries)
Empfohlene Bewertungen
It's rare for a movie to both encompass the process of problem solving and a fantastically far-reaching moral quandary AND be a fairly accurate historical movie, but Fat Man and Little Boy pulls off this trick.
It's the story of the Manhattan Project -- the World War II effort to build the atom bomb, told as the conflict between the two men who made it happen, Gen. Leslie Groves and Robert Oppenheimer.
The historical figures are a great study in opposites: military vs. civilian, practical vs. idealistic, emotional vs. scientific, brute force vs. consensus-based problem solving, immediacy vs. long-term vision. A fictional character, played by John Cusack, is added as a sort of synthesis of the two historical figures, to show the humanity that oddly escapes the real people (and of course the obligatory love interest, played by Laura Dern). One looking for a straight documentary might criticize the lapses into melodrama (and occasional looseness with the facts, but that's Hollywood for ya), but the purpose of fiction is to synthesize and galvanize events into more universal truths, so I think this can be forgiven.
One of the great visuals in the movie is when Oppenheimer witnesses the first atomic explosion: it's done entirely through his reaction, and considering the awesome visuals inherent in an atomic explosion, it's a brave and entirely effective way of describing in a single moment the ambivalent effect on humans of unleashing such power (the sort of thing lost in the typical Hollywood shoot 'em up version of history.) The use of music is particularly excellent in the last third of the movie.
Fairly accessible and highly recommended as both a historical movie and drama of the highest order.
It's the story of the Manhattan Project -- the World War II effort to build the atom bomb, told as the conflict between the two men who made it happen, Gen. Leslie Groves and Robert Oppenheimer.
The historical figures are a great study in opposites: military vs. civilian, practical vs. idealistic, emotional vs. scientific, brute force vs. consensus-based problem solving, immediacy vs. long-term vision. A fictional character, played by John Cusack, is added as a sort of synthesis of the two historical figures, to show the humanity that oddly escapes the real people (and of course the obligatory love interest, played by Laura Dern). One looking for a straight documentary might criticize the lapses into melodrama (and occasional looseness with the facts, but that's Hollywood for ya), but the purpose of fiction is to synthesize and galvanize events into more universal truths, so I think this can be forgiven.
One of the great visuals in the movie is when Oppenheimer witnesses the first atomic explosion: it's done entirely through his reaction, and considering the awesome visuals inherent in an atomic explosion, it's a brave and entirely effective way of describing in a single moment the ambivalent effect on humans of unleashing such power (the sort of thing lost in the typical Hollywood shoot 'em up version of history.) The use of music is particularly excellent in the last third of the movie.
Fairly accessible and highly recommended as both a historical movie and drama of the highest order.
This is a weird and compelling film. The topic, about the atom bombs created at Los Alamos, NM in the USA and used on Japan during the latter part of World War II, is huge, and of course deeply disturbing. The film's plot takes on a lot of heavy issues and the actors have to carry much of the creative tension. I had never seen the film, or was much interested in it I have to admit, until I read the book "Smoking in Bed: Conversations with Bruce Robinson." Robinson wrote the story and screenplay. I think the film was better than I expected from reading Robinson's point of view in the conversations about it, but I can see how he thought it got derailed. I think Paul Newman is pretty good, but is somehow at bottom, miscast. He's too Hollywood. At one point, a big, mean-looking guy storms into Newman's office and has such a striking presence, I immediately thought he should be playing the character Newman is playing. The other lead, who plays the head scientist, is also fairly good, but somehow not brilliant enough to portray the huge angst that goes with the part - the immense responsibility for creation of an ultimate machine of death and destruction. One of the more effective characters seems to be a composite personality, played by John Cusack. He is oddly affecting throughout, and in the end, is the character whose fate really hits home and who made me think most vividly of the fate of more than 200,000 Japanese people in Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
Cold War enthusiasts are like Civil War enthusiasts in that they get extremely upset when something is portrayed differently than it actually happened (or differently than they THINK it happened). When you read a negative review of this movie, that is what you are seeing. It may not be 100% factual with the timeline and all of that, but who cares? It is still an excellent movie. The acting is wonderful and the message is even better. Dwight Schultz does an amazing job with his role. The entire cast must have lost 50 lbs each to look like skinny 1940s people. If you haven't seen this film, see it. If you have and you didn't like it, please see it again and look at it with an open heart. It truly questions the moral issues of developing the bomb. It makes you think!
If you know anything about the Manhattan Project, you will find "Fat Man and Little Boy" at least an interesting depiction of the events surrounding that story. The film is in all ways a very realistic portrayal of these events, and in many ways it is almost too real (such as some scenes involving radiation poisoning). Paul Newman, as usual, is brilliant in his role and always manages to come off like a real person on the screen. The supporting cast, such as John Cusack, Laura Dern, Bonnie Bedelia, and Natasha Richardson, is fairly good as well. This film is not, however, one of the best examples of turning a true story into a movie. Great films are able to take a true story and use just enough artistic license to keep its audience engaged for the entire movie. This one, however, tends to drag a bit throughout, and some scenes (such as John Cusack and Natasha Richardson's love story) could have been eliminated entirely without causing the film to lose much. Nevertheless, there are enough interesting facts and tiny humorous bits to at least keep the audience interested enough to see the entire film. It does not always entertain, but as far as great depictions go, this is very accurate, fascinating, and will leave the audience with something to think about.
*** out of ****
*** out of ****
It was a fascinating story waiting to be told. FAT MAN AND LITTLE BOY takes us inside the trials and tribulations of a group of top American scientists handed a lofty task during the Second World War: beat everyone else to the atomic bomb. Sequestered in a heavily-guarded New Mexico compound, the brainiacs slowly turn the idea from ambitious concept into immense reality.
FAT MAN AND LITTLE BOY is one of those films that requires your close attention. It's a real thinking person's movie, not only from the scientific aspect of developing a seemingly impossible weapon, but also the moral implications of contributing to killing on a massive scale. Characters are constantly torn between that reality and their wartime duty as Americans. The film is never preachy about, however, leaving us free to marvel at the enormity of the inner turmoil these men face. The performances deserve special mention as well. Paul Newman delivers one of his great, understated performances as the Pattonesque general in charge of delivering the ultimate big stick for the Allied Forces.
Where FAT MAN AND LITTLE BOY loses much of its traction is in the unnecessary romantic component. Dwight Schultz as the leader of the scientific team struggles with his affections for his family and his relentless obsession with his big project. Director Roland Joffe apparently felt the need to explore the more human angles of this story, but the romantic overtones serve primarily as a distraction. Besides, it's the interaction among the scientists and their military hierarchy that give us the greatest insight into the thoughts and feelings of these brilliant men.
Still, it's difficult not to recommend FAT MAN AND LITTLE BOY. It's a largely forgotten gem that puts a human face put on one of the most intriguing stories in human history.
FAT MAN AND LITTLE BOY is one of those films that requires your close attention. It's a real thinking person's movie, not only from the scientific aspect of developing a seemingly impossible weapon, but also the moral implications of contributing to killing on a massive scale. Characters are constantly torn between that reality and their wartime duty as Americans. The film is never preachy about, however, leaving us free to marvel at the enormity of the inner turmoil these men face. The performances deserve special mention as well. Paul Newman delivers one of his great, understated performances as the Pattonesque general in charge of delivering the ultimate big stick for the Allied Forces.
Where FAT MAN AND LITTLE BOY loses much of its traction is in the unnecessary romantic component. Dwight Schultz as the leader of the scientific team struggles with his affections for his family and his relentless obsession with his big project. Director Roland Joffe apparently felt the need to explore the more human angles of this story, but the romantic overtones serve primarily as a distraction. Besides, it's the interaction among the scientists and their military hierarchy that give us the greatest insight into the thoughts and feelings of these brilliant men.
Still, it's difficult not to recommend FAT MAN AND LITTLE BOY. It's a largely forgotten gem that puts a human face put on one of the most intriguing stories in human history.
Wusstest du schon
- WissenswertesThe code names for the weapons - "Fat Man" and "Little Boy" - stem from characters in the written stories of writer Dashiell Hammett. Originally the names "Fat Man" and "Thin Man" were lifted directly from the stories, but the Thin Man weapon design (a Plutonium gun-type weapon) had to be abandoned. The relatively small Uranium gun-type weapon that followed was then named "Little Boy" as a contrast to "Fat Man".
- PatzerIt was actually Seth Neddermeyer who originally conceived the implosion theory, and John von Neumann who refined it to usability.
- Zitate
Richard Schoenfield: Hey Oppenheimer! Oppenheimer! You oughta stop playing God, 'cause you're no good at it, and the position's taken!
- SoundtracksThe Sorcerer's Apprentice
Written by Paul Dukas
Performed by the Wiener Symphoniker (as The Vienna Symphony)
Edouard Van Remoortel, Conductor
Courtesy of The Moss Music Group
By Arrangement with Warner Special Products
Top-Auswahl
Melde dich zum Bewerten an und greife auf die Watchlist für personalisierte Empfehlungen zu.
- How long is Fat Man and Little Boy?Powered by Alexa
Details
Box Office
- Budget
- 30.000.000 $ (geschätzt)
- Bruttoertrag in den USA und Kanada
- 3.563.162 $
- Eröffnungswochenende in den USA und in Kanada
- 1.476.994 $
- 22. Okt. 1989
- Weltweiter Bruttoertrag
- 3.563.162 $
- Laufzeit
- 2 Std. 7 Min.(127 min)
- Farbe
- Sound-Mix
- Seitenverhältnis
- 2.39 : 1
Zu dieser Seite beitragen
Bearbeitung vorschlagen oder fehlenden Inhalt hinzufügen