User reviews

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.

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 exciting picture is a dramatization of nuclear run and follows the development of the Manhattan project in Los Alamos from first conception of the power within the atom , the 235 uranium , with the neutrons bombing into the piles of graphite which leads to nuclear reaction that produces the atomic bomb , ¨the Trinity¨ . The movie describes the power struggles and tensions between an idealist Robert Oppenheimer (Dwight Schulz) , the project's science leader and General Leslie Groves (Paul Newman) , the project's military commander . It was a race for the bomb because of the Nazis with the scientist Heisenberg were also making a nuclear bomb . Besides, there appears famous scientists who contributed to the atomic success with the first bomb as Leo Szilard , Enrico Fermi and Edward Teller .

The film is overlong , a little bit dull and slow-moving , though the semi-fictional accounts narrated are very interesting . Paul Newman as the military brain is excellent and Dwight Schulz (A team) as Oppenheimer , the head behind it , is magnificent . In real life , Newman was a liberal progressist and Schultz is a Republican conservative , poles opposites to the attractive roles they performed in this film . Furthermore , a distinguished rest cast , such as : John Cusack , Laura Dern , Bonnie Bedelia , John G. McGinley , Allan Corduner , Clark Gregg , James Eckhouse , Todd Field and Natasha Richardson , all of them are enjoyable . Director Roland Joffé cast some real-life scientific people in short background characters , as future Nobel Prize winner David Politzer, among others . It contains exceptional as well as colorful cinematography by Vilmos Zsigmond and sensitive musical score by the master Ennio Morricone in his usual style . The motion picture was professionally directed by Roland Joffe (The mission , Killing fields ) .

Other films as ¨Fat man (this way called by bombing in Hiroshima) and Little boy¨ (so named by bombing in Nagasaki) are the following ones : ¨Day one¨ , ¨Engola Day¨ , ¨Hiroshima¨ and for TV : ¨Oppenheimer¨ with Sam Waterson and one of the best resulted to be the Canadian series titled ¨Race for the bomb¨ with Maury Chaykin as General Groves and directed by Allan Eastman . Rating : Good and worthwhile seeing.

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.

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.

The plot is well organised and not disjointed like the remake. The dialogues delivered by the cast sound clear and it's good that they are not accompanied by dramatic instrumental music like Oppenheimer. The time and place settings are much clearer. There are no unnecessary scenes and everything is in line with the events that actually happened. All the actors are well involved and the story is more specific in explaining the making of the bomb and there are no boring trial scenes like the Nolan film.

And the actor who played Oppenheimer's character acted much more charismatic and epic than Cillian who just acted with his bland horror face.

There are many values and lessons to be learnt from this film compared to Nolan's Oppenheimer. Hollywood and the fans of Nolan, Cillian and the supporting cast are overrating it. And I don't think it deserves to win many Oscars!!!

7.5/10.

... 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.

Paul Newman was in the twilight of his career, when he did this film as an aging General Leslie R. Groves, the man who is assigned to supervise the creation of the atomic bomb, that was dropped on Japan, ending WWII. Along with talent like, John Cusack, Laura Dern and John C. McGinley in the supporting cast, it was the odd gamble of casting Dwight Schultz as the main star of the film, portraying scientist Robert Oppenheimer, that really makes this an interesting film to see. Seeing the lesser known actor from the A-Team and Star Trek TNG, tackling a serious moment in our history, contrasted against Newman's mega-star character is a sight to see.

Directed by British director Roland Joffe, the film's biggest highlight is the soundtrack by legendary film composer Ennio Morricone. Morricone was responsible for the great soundtracks from the Good, the Bad and the Ugly (1968) and the Untouchables (1987). The film isn't without its issues, mostly stemming from historical inaccuracies. I also did see a couple of questionable editing and pacing issues, but you should never really rely on Hollywood to tell accurate depictions of our history. Their job is to entertain and make money. By taking the need for accuracy out of the equation, it is much easier to enjoy the artist's interpretation better. I mean, this was a moment in our history, that was under major secrecy anyway, so who is to say what really happened. It also is a dark moment in our history, that Joffe manages to capture in a very grim light.

6.9 (C MyGrade) = 7 IMDB.

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.

An interesting – one might say, inevitable – depiction of the birth of the Nuclear age (I had watched the very first treatment of the subject, THE BEGINNING OR THE END [1947], some years back), with the title a reference to the nicknames given the bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki and which hastened the end of WWII. For director Joffe', it was a follow-up to two impressive movies, both similarly involved in eliciting outraged public response to man's inhumanity to his fellow man – THE KILLING FIELDS (1984) and THE MISSION (1986) – which, like the film under review, was scored by Ennio Morricone; this, however, puts the culprits rather than their victims at center-stage – while taking care to present almost every possible angle in the issue. Having said that, the film never quite moves one like it should and is awfully slow-moving to boot: at one point, the scientist ("The A-Team"'s Dwight Schulz[!], though surprisingly convincing) commissioned to work out the device tells his collaborator (John Cusack who, in a harrowing sequence, eventually becomes the first victim of the A-bomb) that they are not responsible for how their handiwork is ultimately put to use…which is utter crap if you ask me! As if to suggest that the people concerned lost something of their own along the way, we are treated to glimpses into both their domestic lives (Cusack falls for a nurse at the Los Alamos base, Laura Dern, whereas Schulz carries on relationships with two women simultaneously, wife Bonnie Bedelia and mistress Natasha Richardson – with the suicide of the latter character coming across just as futile as the recent tragic death of the actress playing her!). For the record, I acquired the film late last year around the time of its leading man's own passing, Paul Newman; he appears as the General who oversees the invention and building of the bombs and, in that respect, was not afraid to tackle a role which was obviously unsympathetic (the last shot, in which he raises his closed fist in victory to Schulz – being cheered by the crowds after the result of the bombings – but retracting in shame after recognizing the scientist's broken spirit, is telling). By the way, I have to wonder whether the film was originally intended to be longer: the cast list at the end gives reasonable prominence to the name of 1970s character actor Ed Lauter, yet he is given no more than one fleeting shot in the released version!

Fat Man & Little Boy plays like the Cliff's Notes version of an important period in history and science. The first moment we see a carefree, laughing Oppenheimer, it is obvious that the film is going to take quite a few liberties with characterization. When Paul Newman strides onto the scene, accompanied by "Patton"-like music, all credibility is immediately destroyed. My major problem with Fat Man & Little Boy is the character of Oppenheimer. Oppenheimer was a complex character, a misfit, a neurasthenic polymath. This film only scratches the surface of his personality, and the actor who plays him is horribly miscast, although he tries his best. Towards the final days of the Project, Oppenheimer had become extremely thin and cadaverous. The constant hounding by Communist hunters digging into his personal life coupled with his moral qualms about the use of the Bomb threw him into a state of nervous exhaustion bordering on paranoia. There is no hint of the inner man in this portrayal. The community of physicists at Los Alamos was a collection of brilliant and unusual men. There were many conflicts and a lot of competition going on which are pretty much ignored. It was frustrating to see all of this potentially rich material cast aside in order to simplify the film and make it accessible. In addition to ignoring the real characters involved in the Manhattan Project and misinterpreting the ones it treats, the film introduces John Cusak as the "Everyman Physicist," a fictional character created to humanize(?)the subject and engage the "average viewer," along with the obligatory love interest. This slows the movie down to a crawl and it was walking pretty slowly to begin with. This movie takes a situation rich in drama and conflict coupled with scientific and historical interest and turns it into a boring, simplistic soap opera.

Fat Man And Little Boy were the code names of the two atomic bombs that were dropped in reverse order on Nagasaki and Hiroshina. How these came to be and came to be in American hands is the story of this film.

The terms by the way are the code names of two bombs fueled with plutonium and uranium. Fat Man was the plutonium bomb and that one was dropped on Nagasaki and Little Boy was the one used on Hiroshima

The film is primarily a conflict between General Leslie R. Groves of the United States Army and physicist J. Robert Oppenheimer who led the team of scientists who developed the bomb under Groves's direction. With two men from as widely divergent backgrounds as these were, conflict was inevitable.

Paul Newman who all his life has been a disarmament activist plays General Groves. To his credit Newman does not play a man whose views he would very little in common with as any kind of caricature. Groves is a military man first and foremost with an engineering background. He wanted a combat command as trained military professionals would naturally want in this greatest of wars. But because of his background in engineering Groves got to head the Manhattan Project which was what the effort was code named. So be it, Newman is determined to make his contribution to the war effort count.

Most of us first became acquainted with Dwight Schultz from the A-Team as H.M. Murdoch the pilot whose grip on reality is tenuous at best. If one was only acquainted with the A-Team, one might think that Schultz had a great future in comic roles.

Instead Dwight Schultz is one of the best actors in the English speaking world with an astonishing range of dramatic parts since leaving that television series. J. Robert Oppenheimer in life was a complex man who recognized the dangers and benefits of atomic energy. The challenge of the problem also intrigues him. Later on Oppenheimer got into a real bind because of his left-wing political views and associates which everyone knew walking into the Manhattan Project.

Some of the lesser roles that stand out are Bonnie Bedelia as Mrs. Oppenheimer, Natasha Richardson as Oppenheimer's Communist mistress whose affair with Oppenheimer got him in such a jackpot later on, and Laura Dern as a nurse at the Los Alamos site.

But the best is John Cusack who as Michael Merriman is a composite of some real life scientists who might accurately be labeled as the first casualties of the atomic age. His scenes with Laura Dern, especially with what happens to him, take on a real poignancy.

The debate over the bombs as the use put to them is still a matter of raging debate. Fat Man And Little Boy presents the facts and lets you decide what might have happened if an alternative use of them had been taken.

The pace of the film was slow at times, but historically accurate. I questioned the need for the Merryman character for most of the film until what happened in the conclusion, which captured in a stark manner the deadly work these scientists were doing. The character of Michael Merryman is fictional, but it was based on composites of two scientists in 1946 at Los Alamos that suffered his fate. The portrayal by Paul Newman of General Groves as not the nicest person is actually nicer than the real Leslie Groves probably deserved. J. Robert Oppenheimer was a very complex person, and the mention of his name still will quickly elevate the blood pressure of an old McCarthyite It's a good history lesson about one of the most important events in U.S. history.

The director and co-writers of 'The Killing Fields' condense the 19-month Manhattan Project into a confrontation between the freethinking scientific community and the more pragmatic military mind, represented on one hand by physicist Robert Oppenheimer and on the other by General Leslie Groves, who staked his career on not only getting the atomic bomb built but doing so before the war could end and thus make the project redundant. By necessity the film has to skim over too many fascinating moral debates; nineteen months is a lot of ground to cover, especially with so much valuable screen time wasted on romantic subplots. But even dodging some vital issues the film still presents a tense, tidy historical drama, and Paul Newman's performance as General Groves may be the best portrayal of a military man since George C. Scott ran roughshod over the krauts in 'Patton'. The title, by the way, refers to the nicknames of the A-bombs eventually used on Japan and not, presumably, to the film's two protagonists.

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 account of the experiments that led up to the development of the atomic bomb in 1945 chooses to deal with the issue far more from a human perspective than from a scientific perspective. The focus is on the men who were involved with the project - especially Gen. Leslie Groves (Paul Newman), who was in charge, and the lead scientist Robert Oppenheimer (Dwight Schultz.) The more technical issues aren't ignored, but the story revolves around the way in which the project impacts on the men's personal lives. On the negative side, the movie takes on at times a bit of a soap opera feel, dealing more with the men's love interests than with the project itself. It was also unfortunate that the movie chose to create the fictional character of "Michael Merriman" (played by John Cusack.) The accident in which Merriman is poisoned by radiation and later dies really happened, but it took place in 1946, long after the war was over, and the victim was actually a Canadian physicist named Louis Slotin. Why this imaginary bit of history was conjured up wasn't really clear to me, except for the fact that it obviously dramatized the dangers of the project, and allowed for the insertion of a tear jerker moment, when a nurse who had fallen in love with him (Laura Dern) comes to him on his deathbed to make sure he knows her feelings. Emotional to be sure, but perhaps a bit too much dramatic licence was taken there.

Where the movie hit home, though, was in the depiction of the growing moral qualms felt by the scientists who were working on the project. At first working willingly when it seemed as if there was a race to get the bomb before Nazi Germany, questions began to bubble when it was discovered that the Nazis had no real interest in the bomb. Then they were defeated and Japan didn't even have the capacity to make a bomb. The moral questions were very real, and very well depicted.

Everyone involved with this did a credible job. I didn't think this was an outstanding movie, but it provided a glimpse at what was going on in Los Alamos, New Mexico in the early 40's - obviously a key period in human history.

"Fat Man and Little Boy" tells of the development of the first two atomic bombs, with "Fat Man" and "Little Boy" used as their code names. The story is personalized by focusing on General Leslie R. Groves (Paul Newman), the ultra-hard-nosed officer put in charge of the nuclear program, and the brilliant scientist J. Robert Oppenheimer (Dwight Schultz), the man he selected to supervise the brain trust that created these bombs.

Time is allowed for some detours into the private lives of Oppenheimer and Michael Merriman (John Cusack), one of the people on the team. And, although some of this material can get melodramatic, the film stays on track fairly well, with the most fascinating scenes involving the team as they constantly float ideas and struggle to implement them. Groves will have his hands full dealing with these individuals, especially Oppenheimer, who'd been spending time with a mistress (a briefly seen, but memorable Natasha Richardson) who is a card-carrying Communist. The whole process, spanning MANY months with a deadline always looming, does take its toll on the well-being of some of the people involved.

There is a *steady* supply of familiar and reliable actors in supporting roles, too many to really list here, but those in the principal roles do quite well, especially Newman. He has an incredibly commanding presence as the military man who stubbornly insists on this whole process eventually coming to fruition. There is also great drama as some of the men on the project - like Merriman - come to debate the morality of what they are doing.

Overall, this is well done entertainment that does offer some food for thought as well as a portrait of the clash between differing world views.

Seven out of 10.

It's 1942 and 9 months after Pearl Harbor. Gen. Leslie Groves (Paul Newman) expected to move out from behind the desk to go to the frontlines. Instead, he is transferred to his perceived dead-end boondoggle. Oppenheimer (Dwight Schultz) advises him to gather the scientists in an isolate place for creative stress. Together they would lead the Manhattan Project in Los Alamos, New Mexico. Michael Merriman (John Cusack) is the young wide-eyed scientist. Kathleen Robinson (Laura Dern) is the nurse who falls for him. He befriends Capt. Schoenfield (John C. McGinley) who is the doctor investigating radiation. Seth Neddermeyer comes up with the idea for implosion. Oppenheimer is cheating on his wife Kitty (Bonnie Bedelia) with communist sympathizer Jean Tatlock (Natasha Richardson).

The movie achieves something a little more difficult. It made a bunch of scientists interesting and it made the science understandable. I do hope that the story is more fact than fiction. However I won't rest my review on its accuracies. Paul Newman delivers a forceful performance. I wish Dwight Schultz is a bigger actor to counter Newman's star power. The story is compelling although the puppy love story is a bit artificial.

"I always thought that the Lord was on our side. I guess today we'll find out," said General Groves.

I thought that was a funny statement. I'm sure many religious people have uttered similar statements regardless of what task they were about to undertake--going to war, developing penicillin, blowing up churches, saving kids from a burning building, flying planes into high rises, or donating to a worthy cause. In every instance I'm sure someone said, "God is with us," as if the accomplishment of the task is proof that God is pleased with what they've done.

Developing the Atom Bomb is no different. There are those who believe it was a good thing, those who believe it was bad, and perhaps those who believe it was bad but necessary. In any case, it would be arrogant and extremely presumptuous to believe that God was pleased with it.

"Fat Man and Little Boy," if you haven't already guessed, was about the development of the Atom Bomb. The principle characters, per the movie, were General Groves (Paul Newman), Robert Oppenheimer (Dwight Schultz), Michael Merriman (John Cusack), and the other scientists and engineers working on the project.

General Groves was a war hawk and never once had a single misgiving, doubt, or apprehension about the development and usage of the two Atom Bombs dropped on Japan (named Fat Man and Little Boy). He spoke the words I quoted at the beginning of this review. All of the others working on this project seemed not to have General Groves' same conviction.

"Fat Man and Little Boy" didn't seem satisfied as a movie just sticking with the men, the task at hand, and the rocky road getting there. The movie took a couple of detours to show us Oppenheimer's extra-marital affair and Merriman's budding relationship with Nurse Robinson (Laura Dern). These sidebars had little, if any, bearing on the creation of the Atom Bomb, but they are the soft and sensual pieces most movies crave.

With and without the romantic relationships this movie was a tad too dramatic. It was as if: since they're making such an important, world altering weapon people should have important, world altering lines and deliveries of those lines. Some of the characters diverged, at times, from being human to being characters.

"Fat Man and Little Boy" is about a historical and historically grave matter, so it deserved a serious and grave approach. For the most part it got that and there can be no spoilers here, we know what the end result was.

The movie seemed a little slow at first. But it picked up speed and got right to the point. It showed exactly how the government and the scientist argued for humanity and the reasons of the "gadget". I enjoyed it. It is very close to reality as any movie about the Atomic Bombs that were to be dropped on Japan. I have recommended it to friends. I was particularly pleased with the acting ability of Dwight Schultz.

"Fat Man and Little Boy" is a film about the Manhattan Project...the WWII program to produce the first atomic bombs. It also bombed at the box office and I think much of it is because the material is a bit dry plus folks don't like to think about nuclear bombs. Imagine it's a date night taking your sweetie to see this....or a family night out where Junior and his sibs watch all about nuclear weapons! It just doesn't have the marketability of many other stories...even though historically speaking, it's a HUGE event and should be remembered.

The biggest thing that surprised me about this movie was having Paul Newman playing the general in charge of the project. This is because Newman's politics were pretty liberal, though I must day despite playing a man much unlike himself, he did a fine job. In fact EVERYTHING about the film speaks quality...and as an ex-history teacher I really appreciated this...even though, as I said above, it's not exactly a crowd pleaser! Well worth seeing.

Wanted to write a review, since I watched this movie last night for the first time since the early '90's. I was so disappointed. I've been reading a lot about the Manhattan Project, since it and things regarding atomic physics has been a bit of a hobby of mine, since childhood. I'm a huge fan of Newman, but that was wrong casting beyond belief. While it was common knowledge, General Groves was a very strict and stern person, I've never come across any information that portray him as a Patton-like "classic military hard-ass". He was quite a sensible person, who carried a great deal of respect around him, but he was also a person capable of showing this respect towards others, IMHO, this movie and Newman completely miss this, and portray him as being a bit of an arrogant a-hole. The entire story surrounding the Project is so flawed and thin, it beggars belief. Oppenheimer, or "Oppie" was, as others have said, a very complex person. This film portray him, frankly, as a bit of a clown. The entire romantic plot is just down right stupid, and does not ad a single thing to the film. It only manages to slow it down even further. It does not help, that John Cusack is rather annoying is his role as well. The lack of historic characters, like Fermi, Szilard, Einsteim, Neddermeyer, Teller etc. makes it seem pointless. The way the entire screenplay is set up, as the usual Hollywood soap drama, puts the final nail in the coffin for this disaster of a movie. If you want to watch a good flick about the Manhattan Project and people surrounding it, watch Day One. It was made and came out the same year, and is a fantastic piece of film, where every single character and the story is nailed very close to spot on. A glitch here and there, which can only be expected, but very, very good. Why Day One did not become the popular one and FM&LB did, is only a testament to what is wrong with Hollywood and critics. IMO.

We watched this movie in my chemistry class, so obviously it had educational value. I thought the film did a really good job of intertwining the subjects of the science, moral issues and personal experiences of the manhattan project, but wasn't exactly focused on strong acting. I would recommend this movie for the scientifically inclined or those interested in the moral issues behind Fat Man and Little Boy, but if the subject of nuclear bombs bores you, don't see it.

Top performances by Newman and Cusack really make this film work. It is a retelling of the Manhattan Project, with the most brilliant minds in America all engaged in developing the Atomic Bomb. A top secret operation that placed enormous emotional pressures on the scientists kept under constant surveillance during the mission, and toward the end, the moral implications of what they were about to accomplish as seekers of truth, not reapers of death. I have read other reviews of this film and disagree with some. To me, I found the science and the hundreds of variables that made this invention possible to have been slim in the scientific explanation of how these brilliant men overcame each obstacle. I would have liked the film to explain more about the actual science that went into developing the most innovative and earth-changing invention of all time. But, that minor complaint does not detract from the film presentation. I recommend this movie for anyone looking for a thought-provoking two hours rather than pure entertainment.

A waste of time and life, this movie proves what it looks like when Paul Newman isn't directed properly. Like Elizabeth Taylor and a few other very high level actors, Newman needed a particularly good hand to come up with his best work. This isn't it, and it's actually painfully embarrassing. Skip this one.