Rating: 
Summary: An emotionally moving historical novel
Review: "The world is not what we wanted it to be." So says Dr. Oppenheimer to his wife, late in the film. Oppenheimer's optimism and scientific idealism are only one small casualty of the pursuit of the atomic bomb; we see several others through the course of the film. The fears of that time -- especially of Communism -- cause Oppenheimer's own credibility to be always in doubt in the eyes of the military, and his Communist-sympathizing mistress almost inevitably becomes another casualty of these forces.
The scientist Michael Merriman (actually a composite of a few real-life characters; try looking up "Louis Slotin" in your favorite search engine) asks whether it is more instinctive in humans to save life or to destroy it. This becomes one of the central themes of the film. Merriman twice heroically saves the lives of others, but the second time receives a lethal exposure to radiation himself in the process. I have read comments in other reviews that Merriman's (fictional) romance with a nurse at the base hospital was unnecessary and too contrived, but I think that this sort of dramatic element helps provide an emotional context for the bomb's direct and indirect victims; also, Merriman's ultimately tragic romance parallels that of Oppenheimer with his "security-risk" mistress.
This film touches on many of the issues of the creation of the atomic bomb: the logistical challenges, the personal and moral and political challenges. These multiple issues are treated more or less equally, and none is really treated in depth at the expense of the others. Some viewers may regard this lack of depth as a liability, but I think the overall balance is good.
The dramatic quality (acting, writing, etc.) of the film is also generally good, with a few faults. (There is the occasional bit of weak dialogue, but honestly, for my part, I did not find the few less-than-stellar lines distracting when I saw the film the first time, and neither do they leap out at me when I watch it again now. Some people may be more irritated by that sort of thing than I.) Oppenheimer (Dwight Schultz) and General Groves (Paul Newman) are both very strong in their roles, and they naturally are the ones who would make or break the movie.
So, overall, I think that this film is a good film. I don't mean that to sound flippant. I mean that it is a good story, a good drama, one that captures the emotional tensions, fears, and moral doubts of the period. What it is definitely NOT is a historically-accurate documentary, but I don't think it was ever trying to be. Documentaries are certainly important too, but they are plentiful and easily had elsewhere. (Try the History Channel or your local library.) In some ways, Fat Man and Little Boy resembles the blockbuster movie Pearl Harbor, which also fictionalized quite a bit to show the emotional impact of the historical events on the people involved.
Fat Man and Little Boy is a film I personally own, enjoy and recommend.
Rating:
Summary: Pretty Good
Review: A very good, pretty historically accurate movie. Some events take place out of order, and there's a slight technical problem near the end where a shock wave exceeds the speed of sound by 3000%.
Rating:
Summary: An excellent overview of a crucial period in history
Review: Although there is some artistic license taken, the movie runs very closely to published works describing life at Los Alamos during WWII. Paul Newman plays an entirely believable Leslie Groves, and the rollercoaster emotions throughout the movie had me mesmerized. For a movie with no foul language, no blatant sex scenes and no graphic violence (except, of course, the explosion of the atomic bomb!) it was an excellent movie. There are two main characters that do not actually occur in history (well, one of them <does> but has a different name!), the sequence of events that this character goes through is correct but does not historically happen in the timeframe that the movie covers. See if you recognise them!
Rating: 
Summary: Worse than flawed. Vapid, dumb, awful.
Review: Anyone who has seen the British TV production of "Oppenheimer" (1978) is bound to see this dopey film as bad. Really BAD! Sam Waterston played Oppenheimer like he owned the part in the British version. The guy who plays Oppie in this version doesn't look right and he doesn't act right. Not at all convincing. And Paul Newman should have stood in bed instead of taking the part of Groves. I'd be embarrassed if I'd been an actor who'd gotten caught appearing in this stinker.
Rating: 
Summary: Entertaining enough
Review: As most viewers will already know, the film basically depicts (inaccurately, from what I've heard) the developement of the first atom bombs.
What can I say? This drama is highly uneven; Paul Newman is in fine form as the general in charge of the project, his conflicts with Dwight Shultz, who plays the leading scientist, Dr. Oppenheimer is very enjoyable to watch, you got some very (good) dramatic acting there. However, the romantic subplots (especially the one between John Cusack and Laura Dern) are boring and wooden.
The most memorable scene in the film is the finale, where we have the final count-down to the testing of the world's first atom bomb (or, in humanity's case, the final count-down towards doom); with the scientists and military officers waited with both hopes and fears, any yet not really knowing the immense power of their creation; the clock ticks away; with the memorable Nutcracker's Suite playing away in the background.
Overall an entertaining movie; Newman's excellent performance makes this worth seeing.
Rating:
Summary: Forget history and let's talk about drama...
Review: Because this film definitely has it. Or is it a treatise onmanagement and team building. Or is it a morality play. Or is itD... all of the above. Regardless of how historically accurate the film may be it is an engaging drama about what must have been the prominent issues regarding the development of the atom bomb. At times suspenseful, at times funny and at others ironic the film works. What I personally most enjoyed was the interplay between all team members who were placed between the preverbial rock and a hard place. Am I good enough, is there enough time, is it wrong to kill, can I make the sacrifices and endure the suffering. Newman and Schultz captured the essence of the conflicts between the men and internally if not necessarily the historical figures themselves.
Rating:
Summary: A TALE OF MORALITY AND THE SCIENCE THAT WON WW2!
Review: Despite some critical naysayers, this is a great film. Fine acting performances from the entire cast, and the plot and storyline are great. The film accurately portrays what went on during the Manhattan Project: a group of intelligent men (including Albert Einstein, who is mysteriously absent from the film) coming together to build an atomic bomb. The film also portrays these people as men, not just scientists. And the effects of Radiation poisoning is accurately depicted (one of the reasons the film was PG-13 rated, other than sexuality and language). For anybody who loves serious films about moral conflicts and war. Grade: A+
Rating:
Summary: Hollywood History
Review: If you're looking for a documentary full of facts, this movie is not your choice. Fat Man and Little Boy uses history as the foundation of its story, which is really to illustrate the great moral dilemma the scientists and military personnel involved in the Manhattan Project were faced with as they realized the potential (both positive and negative) of "The Gadget" they were building. The story is not so much on "how" the bomb was built, but on the repercussions of the bomb. In this, it does quite well, trying its best to be balanced. In the end, however, the producers miss the balancing act and come across fairly strongly "anti-nuke". They do present both sides throughout, despite the stand they take at the end. A well-acted movie, Newman and Schultz do a good job and the film is entertaining. History as a backdrop for a moral argument, rather than history for history's sake.
Rating:
Summary: Vapid? No. Well done!
Review: If you're looking for a documentary style performance and exact quotes, this may not be the movie for you. But if you're looking for a movie that explores the tremendous weight and mind splitting moral dilemmas that were at the heart of the Manhattan Project, I think you'll really be entertained by this movie.
Rating:
Summary: "I am become Vishnu - the destroyer of worlds."
Review: J. Robert Oppenheimer said on viewing the first atomic bomb explosion, "I am become Vishnu - the destroyer of worlds." An intriguing rendition of the trials and tribulations of creating the first atomic bomb. This is not the first or maybe the best and it surely will not be the last interpretation. However there is some fine acting and well designed story. This has held my attention more than once. Every part, in fact every line contributed to making you forget that you are watching a movie ant that this is real. This is the story of how the need for the bomb came about and the building of a camp and the collection of men needed to accomplish the job. We see technical difficulties as well as emotional.
|
