L'ombra di mille soli

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 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.

... 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.

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!

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.