I love this movie so much

Excellent but underrated film

I am only giving this movie a 1 for the great cast, though I can't imagine what any of them were thinking. This movie was horrible

It's the kind of movie you'll want to see a second time with someone who hasn't seen it yet, to remember what it was like to watch it for the first time.

If you know the history of this project then you'll probably find it a little disappointing because parts of it are fictionalised and heavily dramatised. For example. protagonist Michael Merriman is a fictional character, and the accident he suffers never happened during the project, although that accident did occur in 1946 to a guy called Louis Slotin. Also, killing off this character at that point in the movie left me feeling somewhat cheated.While I enjoyed Paul Newman's role, I think he was miscast as General Groves, and Dwight Schultz was far too good looking for Oppenheimer, who in real life was thin and wirey and of somewhat unearthly looks. However, these criticisms don't spoil what is a good movie. My only real disappointment was the poorly simulated detonation at the end. In reality, the detonation began with an immediate silent, blinding blue-white flash, with the sound and blast wave arriving at the bunkers several seconds later. However, in the film, the flash is yellow and the sound is heard straight away.If you want an insight into what the project and those involved in it were really like, then I suggest you watch the documentary like "The Day After Trinity" and listen to Richard Feynman's amazing talk "Los Alamos from Below".

Director Roland Joffe, who never came close to His acclaimed early achievements (The Killing Fields (1984) and The Mission (1986), delivers a much Maligned Interpretation of 'The Manhattan Project". The well known Collaboration of Scientists Sequestered to develop the Atomic Bomb.The Film is Basically the Conflict/Cooperation of General Groves and Robert Oppenheimer, Their Philosophies and Determination to achieve a "Wonder Weapon" to End the Second World War. It's a Wonder that it Succeeded given the Enormity of it all and Conflicts by Everyone Involved.Entering into an Unknown Territory of Unintended Consequences and Intended Destruction combined with Unspeakable Immediate and Long Term Decay of People and the Planet. This was a Difficult Film to Pull Off as Mainstream Entertainment and Intellectualizing. The Effort was not Greeted Kindly by Audiences and Critics.But it is Better than its Reputation and is Thought Provoking, if not a Grand Piece of Cinema. Paul Newman as Groves and Dwight Schultz as Oppenheimer are equally Successful as Convincing Combatants. John Cusack's Everyman, who Suffers First and Foremost, is Symbolic of the Power of Plutonium and Uranium.Man Tinkering with the Stuff of the "Gods" is an Historical Contemplation since Thinking became a Thing and will Likely be Food for Thought for Ever. The Movie uses Real Life, circa WWII, as a Vehicle to Vent that Concern and is Worth a Watch for it is a Subject that is Timeless in Regards to Our Place in the Universe.

This rendition is as about as far from the historical reality of the Manhattan Project as a docudrama can get. It's not only a bad movie, but it's almost as far from the truth as one can get. If you want to see a genuinely accurate depiction of the true story of the Manhattan project, as well as being a terrific movie in its own right, watch "Day One" instead with Brian Dennehy playing a realistic General Groves and Michael Tucker (of "L.A. Law" fame) playing an excellent portrayal of Leo Szilard, the true genius behind the bomb. Now that movie is as true to life as any historical movie I've seen. This one, however, is one best skipped.

"Fat Man and Little Boy" presents the story of the people involved with the creation of the Atomic Bomb in what was known as the Mannhattan Project and how they managed to develop such an risky device in a rushed period of time (because of the still on-going war efforts in Germany and Japan) and lots of other pressures. Those with interest on the subject will be delighted with this piece even with some inaccuracies and fictional compositions made throughout the film.The movie takes us back from 1942 to 1945, the period when the project was conceived under the command of General Leslie Groves (Paul Newman) who personally selected physician J. Robert Oppenheimer (Dwight Schultz) as head of the bomb creation team. The whole crew of militaries, physics and technicians move to Los Alamos Canyon, a desertic spot northwest of Santa Fe where Oppenheimer's challenge is to built the device over a short period of time in order to be tested and used in the war. Great deal of the movie is portraying the ethical conflicts the scientists have with the Army about using such a dangerous weapon over innocent lives versus the need of winning the war at all costs, and militaries need something that would reduce the time spent with more and more battles and reduce their losses. If it was just that presented in a motion picture it will be fine but there's the personal problems of the characters involved with the project, such as the melodramatic involvement between Oppenheimer and his mistress (Natasha Richardson), and the lovely sparkles between one of his young scientists (John Cusack) and a nurse (Laura Dern). This prevents the film a little of being more effective.While the whole scheme of presenting the project can be easily digested by audiences which makes this film more accessible than it looks, the script written by Bruce Robinson and Roland Joffé isn't much challenging or exciting to be fully appreciated, some of the dialogs aren't well written, quite uninteresting, rarely memorable. For a story like this, we needed more excitement, more tension to feel completely immersed in its complexity. Managed to succeed in presenting the clashes between science and ethics with the battles between the two main characters in charge of this big endeavor, hearts and minds that changed the world by playing of God for a small moment of their lives. However, the more discouraging aspect of "Fat Man..." was the performances. While Newman was somewhat miscast (but he's good given what he had to do), Dwight Schultz comes as an strange choice for such big role, here's an actor who's hard to get used to, his presence on screen isn't that remarkable and since this was a high budget project made by a big studio they should demand to the director Joffé an more familiar face to Oppenheimer's part. The supporting cast makes the ride more interesting and fun specially John C. McGinley, Dern and Cusack, Fred Dalton Thompson and Bonnie Bedelia. Neither much memorable or so forgettable, "Fat Man and Little Boy" ("Shadow Makers" in UK) is a good film, greatly recreates those times and it is historically fascinating. Very underrated. 8/10