worldofgabby 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.

Rodrigo Amaro "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

Air America Hoorah! It is refreshing to see a film where military uniforms and badges of rank are, it seems, are intended to be worn properly. In many films it seems the dresser places a Brigadier General's stars out on the sewed-down portion of the epaulet as is done with lower officer ranks. This is always incorrect. Todays Class A uniforms still offer this choice but for many services, they now have a slip-over sleeve with the rank on it that goes over the epaulet as seen on a shirt worn when the jacket is not worn, so with these, an error is not possible. In later views about twenty minutes into the film the stars were put out on the sewed-down portion of the epaulet. The dark brown dress jacket first seen at a later time also had wrong placement of the distinctive single star. It seems without constant supervision of shooting or writing out instructions, this error occurs on a General's star(s) more often than not. At about thirty-five minutes they are back, centered on the Class A dark brown top. Apparently the one who had been instructed in proper display was not always the one in charge of the uniforms. This was a sad note to see introduced into such a fine film.I am always surprised to see this because almost any military man knows this. The General's star placement is done differently for a number of reasons, one likely being that his rank, above all others, is instantly discernible even with a greater distance.Many good reviews are written about this film, I just thought the military accuracy due our serving men and women should be given the correctness the uniform deserves.It was very refreshing too, seeing Dr. Oppenheimer's driving to a location he loved and was instrumental in choosing, in that fine, perfectly restored, beautiful vintage yellow Packard convertible.I thought another comment was appropriate by this observer. Though there may not have been any physicists or other highly placed scientists of color, if one looks very carefully as I did, you will see an American of African Heritage as an attendant in an ambulance and helping load a box diagonally stenciled "OAK RIDGE."Similarly, close observation shows a person of Latin heritage and a person of native American heritage. A comment and dismissal to Michael Merriman of no romantic interest with Nurse Kathleen Robinson and Dr. Schoenfield's attention directed seemingly unexplained elsewhere which may simply be to maintain professional distinction but he is never seen in the film with a woman so it might be meant to give a hint of his lack of interest in the opposite sex.I found the incorporation of these attentiveness issues to be quite appropriate given the many considerations in this film, religion notwithstanding. I also noticed a derogatory term applying to the Japanese was noticeably nearly missing and was heard used only twice, and in the Pentagon. I applaud those connected with the film for this sensitivity. It is a very commendable and often overlooked. This is a very good film with much of the physics shown accurately depicted; heard and seen in discussions. Very minimally touched upon was the major contribution made on the plutonium bomb with "shaped charges" designed for armor-penetrating ordinance. This and other accomplishments were much a part of the many earlier trial and error work of our British and Canadian allies though their program code named "Tube Alloys." It had been going on for a much longer time actually beginning in 1939 with the French seeing the need for a moderator of the reaction, then done with "heavy water." Knowledge of this by even the Germans was one of the reasons they had occupied Norway with Europe's only "heavy water" plant in Norsk, Norway. But the British and Canadians began with exiled German scientists in 1940, with their knowledge of many specifics. It seems our own "Manhattan Project's" beginning was among the last since it was known in these other countries where here it only began after it languished with a few thousand dollars funding and almost no research since Professors Szilárd and Einstein's letter to President Roosevelt in August, 1939. Even the Japanese had theorized the possibility of making an atomic bomb many years previously in 1934. Historically interesting was Einstein's unspoken thought that the process leading to making a destructive device such as a bomb, never even occurred to him." Thankfully, German scientist's religion had effectively doomed Germany's progress toward making a bomb.I was very impressed with John Cusak's willingness to see accuracy shown; submitting to the loss of much of his hair for reality in the film. Though as a physician I was quite upset showing his intense suffering though this may have been done to make a point. I would hope that one so massively destroyed with radiation would have had most of the extreme suffering removed with the adequate use of morphine. These scenes do have a basis in reality with unnamed hero, Armenian-heritage Harry K. Daghlian, Jr. during necessary testing, accidentally causing what is called a "nuclear excursion" when he dropped near critical-mass pieces together which required him to use and expose his "ungloved" hands to separate the then critical mass nuclear components and expose his whole body to the massively fatal radiation source. In 1946 Louis Slotin also died of a similar accident and these are mentioned in this review principally to show the testing in uncharted territory and done with the crudest of methods as shown very accurately in the film, using just a screwdriver.Many perspectives and the fantastic development of its story and its telling are of the highest order not often seen in a film. It gets high marks from me.

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 ****