El proyecto Manhattan

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 ****

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 !!!!

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!

... 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.