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.
Rating:
Summary: Most people MISS the point
Review: The movie is noteworthy for many different reasons. Esp
the portrayal of Leslie Groves. Do we need this bomb after
VE day? Grives thinks so but others are not so sure. And
the answer is both yes and no... after you watch this see
Windtalkers and watch the loss incurred at Saipan. The yes
comes from the desire to avoid a larger replay of that on
the Japanese mainland. The 'no" due to Szilard's accurate
understanding of the forces unleashed.
The final A bomb happened largely due to Groves
pressing the point. Why did he - the roots are there in this
film... the fact that so much money was spent meant there
were expectations and the thing had a momentum all its own,
Grove's career goals in relation to the successful bomb,
the unknown of the actual blast, the factories meant for
large scale bomb production. Agreed the lovestory is unneeded.
People that reviewed this as boring should stick with lighter
fare.... comedies perhaps. This isnt a romance... I found
that concession in the film was the only thing I didnt care for.
Rating: 
Summary: Could benefit from some major editing
Review: This is a fairly decent film when it stays focused on the two main characters, General Leslie Groves (Paul Newman) and J. Robert Oppenheimer (Dwight Schultz), but when it strays off into a fictional love story (John Cusack and Laura Dern) and a semi-fictional radiation poisoning (based on incidents that actually occured AFTER the war was over) the film falls so flat on its face that even a great performance by Newman can hardly revive it. Indeed, if Cusack's and Dern's scenes could have been completely edited out, this would have been a fine film. The love story is strained, awkward, and with some of the dumbest dialog this side of "Titanic": "Naked. Its such a beautiful word," croons the gawky Laura Dern to John Cusack, the awe-shucks junior scientist whose odd-ball narration in the form of a journal addressed to his father throws the film's narative flow off-balance. And finally, to add insult to the injury done by Dern's and Cusack's unecessary characters, there are those silly one-liners constantly repeated by minor characters that keep cropping up throughout the film: "You guys are playin' with some pretty funny stuff!" and "Some orange, hey, Oppie?" By the time the movie end's you'll wish they'd dropped the atomic bomb on Hollywood.
Rating:
Summary: Fascinating study of the human drama behind the a-bomb.
Review: This movie depicts the human drama and moral dilemma behind the creation of the first atomic bomb. Perhaps more appropriately classified as a psychological thriller, the movie depicts the motivations behind many military decisions.
Rating: 
Summary: A very good drama
Review: This movie is the best film that depicts the story behind the atom bomb. It shows that although the original reason for building the bomb changed with the defeat of Germany, once the began, it was almost impossible to stop.
Rating:
Summary: A-Team to A- Bomb
Review: To some, the film FAT MAN AND LITTLE BOY is somewhat of an oddity. It stars Dwight Schultz (just a few years after the demise of the TV series The A-Team) in a high profile role as J. Robert Oppenheimer opposite Paul Newman as General Leslie R. Groves in a retelling of the Manhatten Project. Taking certain liberties with the historical information, and taking the preachiness of the subject matter not too over the top, it is a decent and entertaining film about the political and moral nature of the making of the atomic bomb and it's eventual use to end WWII. It has a great supporting cast with John Cusack, Laura Dern, Bonnie Bedelia, Natasha Richardson,(Senator)Fred Thomspson (Die Hard II),and John McGinley (Platoon, Office Space, tv's SCRUB'S). Surprising good performance by Dwight Schultz who shook off his comical "Howling Mad Murdoch / A-Team" persona and do this straight dramatic role and play off scenes with screen legend Paul Newman.
Rating:
Summary: Fat Script and little bomb--a great story takes a wrong turn
Review: Too bad--excellent performances by Bonnie Bedelia, Laura Dern, John Cusack, and of course Paul Newman and Dwight Schultz (Barkley for you Star Trek Next Generation fans.) But what the hell was going on with this script by director Roland Joffé and Bruce Robinson? It jumps all over the place, the pacing is off and the dialog almost annoying. Which is a darn shame, as the story of Robert Oppenheimer's tortured struggle to develop a doomsday machine that could either save or destroy the world is one of the 20th century's most dramatic stories. I like Dwight Schultz's portrayal of Oppenheimer. If only the writers saw fit to provide him with a better script, this could have been one hell of a film. Instead, dare I say it?-- it is almost a bomb. Worth getting in VHS if you like history or are interested in the dawn of nuclear weapons, but don't expect the script to live up to the story. What a shame.
Rating: 
Summary: Mostly Fiction
Review: Yes, there was a Manhattan Project and people named Groves, Oppenheimer and Szilard and yes Leo Szilard did like to spend as much time in the bath tub as possible (thinking) but other than that, this film was largely fictional. I was bothered by the historical inaccuracies including: 1. Groves met Szilard at the University of Chicago along with the rest of the scientists that worked there, not in a bathroom in Szilards hotel with Szilard in a tub and Groves on a toilet. 2. The Manhattan Project was much bigger than Los Alamos and Groves dealt with two other major groups that are mostly not even depicted. 3. Groves and Oppenheimer had a very different and more cooperative relationship than is depicted in the movie. 4. Groves was not subject to temper tantrums like Newman's depiction. He was actually very quiet, but extremely sarcastic, socially awkward, pear shaped and somewhat arrogant. He was also smart as a tack, having attended both MIT and West Point, where he was fourth in his class. He created three cities that are now major cities in their states and an industry bigger than the U.S. Automobile industry in just over three years. This was no dummy. A more accurate movie is "Day One", at least as far as the plot goes, but even that fails to grasp the Manhattan Project's scope. The best film on it, which unfortunately no longer exists, was "The Beginning or the End" which was made in 1946 (Brian Donlevy played Groves). The main people on the project served as technical advisors for that one. Unfortunately, that was never put on video and probably rotted away in some warehouse.
| 
