GrimPrecise I'll tell you why so serious

Freaktana A Major Disappointment

Doomtomylo a film so unique, intoxicating and bizarre that it not only demands another viewing, but is also forgivable as a satirical comedy where the jokes eventually take the back seat.

Fleur Actress is magnificent and exudes a hypnotic screen presence in this affecting drama.

rameyzamora 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.

jvance-566-20403 There's no way to effectively present this subject of great technical, political and philosophical complexity in a 2 hour film but it's not a bad effort.If you're looking for technical or historical accuracy on the Manhattan project you'll be disappointed. But if you're interested in a portrayal of two equally formidable but very divergent personalities who by accident have been yoked together to achieve success in one of the most transcendent projects in human history, you'll get a treat.Dr Oppenheimer and Gen Groves had totally different world views. Oppenheimer was an aesthete who was fascinated by everything. He thrived in the foggy edges of uncertainty and wasn't deterred by not having clear conclusions. Groves was the ultimate pragmatist. A task-oriented, black & white manager who saw only the project in front of him and cared only about it being accomplished. The two of them had to perform a delicate pas de deux, constantly prodding and testing, pushing and pulling to get things their way. A ballet between a sorcerer and a scorpion. But it worked.Dwight Schultz and Paul Newman pull off what is probably a pretty good likeness of how these 2 men worked together. A combination of mutual contempt and admiration but both on the same mission.As far as the technical portrayals, a 'meh' is about the best I can give. But in truth, the details are only of interest to geeks. The accident involving John Cusack's character actually happened about a year later to physicist Louis Slotin, although a not dissimilar event occurred not long after the bombs were dropped that involved another scientist named Harry Daghlian.For anyone who really wants a thorough but understandable primer on the subject, then Richard Rhodes Pulitzer winning "The Making of the Atomic Bomb" is the thing. It's a real tome but it covers a lot of ground.

kyle-cruse 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 ****

ReelCheese 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.