Die Schattenmacher

... especially after having viewed a far more recent and successful film covering much of the same material - Oppenheimer (2023). The difference being, of course, that Oppenheimer was actually about Robert Oppenheimer's life, thus the extra hour after the atomic bomb is developed, and this film is about the development of the bomb. Plus, this seems much more "Hollywood-ized" than Oppenheimer.

There are two male leads - Paul Newman as General Leslie Groves, the general who wants to see combat action, but because of his engineering background winds up in charge of the Manhattan Project. Then there is Dwight Schultz, the nerd from the 80s show "The A-Team", as Robert Oppenheimer, a theoretical physicist who by his own admission was never good at lab work, asked to lead the team of scientists actually working on the bomb.

Since you have a lead of great gravitas in Paul Newman as Groves, they simply had to give him more to do than go about seeming bombastic, so he does more than just getting Oppenheimer in line so that he can keep the scientists in line. Instead Newman's Groves seems to be trying to convince Oppenheimer to actually think the way that Groves does, an almost seduction of his frame of mind. I'm not sure this works as Schultz's Oppenheimer is just not up to the task of holding his own against Newman's General Groves. Plus, I doubt the actual Groves had the time or the inclination for such stuff.

John C. McGinley plays...well...John C. McGinley, as he did in every role I've seen him in, as a doctor at Los Alamos, and good use is made of him with great one liners and that swagger and cheek that only McGinley could bring to a role. John Cusack plays thoughtful physicsist Michael Merriman whose diary entries narrate part of the film and whose romance with a Los Alamos nurse takes up a good part of the middle.

I'd recommend this one. It's quiet and thoughtful, probably better than its reputation.

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.

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.

Having worked with all historical aspects of nuclear energy, radiation, etc. for 11 Years ( including working with the US D.O.E - Department of Energy during the cleanup of the Chicago site ), I found this film to be VERY accurate with only several exceptions ( such as groves did not meet Szliard in a bathtub in Szliards Apartment, the Critically accident referred to in th film happened later at Los alamos to Louis Slotin and Harrry Daughlin, and groves was slightly heavier than neumann's character, and not to mention much less harsh and abusive, although he was a perfectionist, always VERY concerned about the sites security and about the public's safety and sometimes got his way without exception, and finally there were other sites in the early project that should have been mentioned more...such as Chicago ). Technically, I feel that the producers/directors created a "Perfect Feel" for the time, as most sites I've been too are simply a-lot of high-dollar, high-tech stuff in the middle of quite isolated areas - very quiet with just the sound of wind blowing and creaking steel. I've seen some peoples reviews talking about this movie as if they're reviewing a love story.....Hello, This story is about an atomic bomb !!!!! I too feel that the brief love story romance is not really needed, but I'm sure that the directors put it in there to show you what oppenheimer was also going thru emotionally in addition to all the chaos he was already facing day-to-day on the projects sites !!! I have seen this movie on VHS, Laserdisc and FINALLY DVD, and I must say that the DVD release is the SHARPEST transfer made of the movie to-date; they did a very good job on the mastering as well ( No artifacts or blockiness - and to those Fatman and LittleBoy movie buffs, yes, they still left in the 1 or 2 screwed-up voice-overs ). Unfortunately, after waiting years for the DVD release to come out, there are really no special features aside from 4:3, Widescreen 16:9, and Dolby 5:1 ( which I was hoping for, since the soundtrack is AMAZING ), There isn't even a trailer for the movie !!! :-( What was paramount thinking ????? Well, maybe they'll read this review and include some more special features ( Like interviews with Paul Neumann, John Cusack, Dwight Schultz, along with a TRAILER of the movie, and some behind-the-scenes making-of the lots ) if they ever release it in High-Definition 1080p !!! One can only hope.

All-in-all its an excellent movie, but if your renting/buying/watching it because you thought it was a romantic movie.....DON'T BOTHER !!!!

Out of five stars, I would give "Fat Man and Little Boy" three. One reviewer who said they had watched this for chemistry class commented the history was good but the acting wasn't strong. I will agree the history was fascinating, and that the acting appeared not to be strong. However, I saw the script itself as being the problem, not the actors -- Paul Newman, Dwight Schultz, John Cusack, Laura Dern -- all were excellent insofar as the script allowed them to be. My feeling is the scriptwriter tried to capture too much all at once and cram it into a two-hour movie. It tried to tell the story of how the Manhattan Project affected not only American policy but also the personal lives of those involved, but instead of adopting an intimate atmosphere in which to do this, it went for broad, broken strokes. To me, it was just too ambitious for one movie -- the Manhattan Project is not like the sinking of the Titanic, a tragedy that happened in one night; it was a long, arduous process that sapped brain power and spirit from the people who had the knowledge of how to tap atomic energy, but also the conscience to worry what would be done with it once they did.