SparkMore
n my opinion it was a great movie with some interesting elements, even though having some plot holes and the ending probably was just too messy and crammed together, but still fun to watch and not your casual movie that is similar to all other ones.
Robert Joyner
The plot isn't so bad, but the pace of storytelling is too slow which makes people bored. Certain moments are so obvious and unnecessary for the main plot. I would've fast-forwarded those moments if it was an online streaming. The ending looks like implying a sequel, not sure if this movie will get one
Rio Hayward
All of these films share one commonality, that being a kind of emotional center that humanizes a cast of monsters.
Maziun
Roland Joffe , author of epic and beautiful "The Killing fields" and "The Mission" , tries to ask some important questions about morality and responsibility in this movie . Unfortunately , "Fat man and little boy " is just a shadow of mentioned movies . Yet it's still a movie worth watching.The movie feels like a TV movie . Joffe doesn't have a chance to impress us with beautiful views (like in his best movies) , because most of the action happens in laboratory or office. "FMALB" is a character driven story and very dialogue heavy . That's another problem . The movie can't surprise you because you already know how it's going to happen . "FMALB" wants and tries to be objective about it's heroes – Oppenhaimer and General Groves . Yet in my opinion they end as one dimensional characters : Groves is cold hearted soldier that wants the bomb to satisfy his pride . He believes that violence solves problems and that his country will be save thanks to the bomb. Oppenhaimer is a man obsessed with his work that slowly sacrifices everything to achieve his goal. There is important symbolic scene in the bathroom – Oppenhaimer washes his hands. In the end movie seems satisfied with retelling the events . It shows us the motivations of the characters , but never really is able to make a comment to their actions . The important questions seems to hang in the air , but are never asked. The movie sends pro-life and anti-war message (the scene with pigeons) , but I was expecting more drama , more unnerving questions – Is it moral to build a bomb ? Does end justify the means ? Is it good to sacrifice personal happiness for greater good ? Dwight Schultz as Oppenhaimer and Paul Newman as General Groves are good in their roles , despite that they don't have chance to show their acting abilities fully . John Cusack is nice as Michael Merrwin . I believe that in some way he symbolizes us – the humanity , the common man. He stands between Oppenhaimer and Groves . He knows what love is and has doubts about the whole project. "Our instinct – tells us to kill or to save life ? I believe that if we had choice we would choose life". Those are important words coming from Cusack's character . "Fat man and Little boy" shows us people who created history and who didn't really understood the consequences of their actions. They were too wrapped up in their own obsessions. In the end they forgot what it means to be a human and it cost life of many people. I give it 5/10.
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.
Matt
rather, a badly savaged original screenplay. i've just been reading the chapter on this film and its inception in Alistair Owen's brilliant book of interviews with Bruce Robinson ('Smoking in Bed'). the point made here is that the then wonder-boy Roland joffé royally bum raped the screenplay through his own ego. Bruce Robinson defends his case well in the book and the documentary evidence which he accumulated during his research sounds pretty incontrovertible. (i can't help feeling in this respect that lot 49's comments are made from the position of ignorance he's so very keen to vilify.) it's just one of the ongoing catalogue of misfortunes for Bruce Robinson and the viewing public that he didn't get to make this particular film and we'll never get to see it. file alongside his film on jack the ripper being passed over - a proper film as opposed to the glossy, banal travesty that was...i can't even remember what the feck it was called. i just remember it being utter shite.
w2amarketing
I've read just about every major book about the Manhattan Project. Most people know what it was, but few people understand the depth and breadth of the project. Its scope was immeasurably massive -- rivaled in US history perhaps only by the space program of the 1960's.There were -- literally -- MILLIONS of people involved from all walks of life at numerous sites (most clandestine) around the country, each involved in a specific and different aspect of the project that they couldn't talk about to the person sitting in the cubicle next to them, much less their family. The logistics are overwhelming, particularly given the considerations of wartime communication, security and transportation in the 1940's.As an example -- my colleague's father was a carpenter who worked for one of the companies that had a contract with the federal government for the Manhattan Project. His job was to supervise a crew of about 30 other carpenters, who were responsible for manufacturing forms for the pouring of concrete for the massive research installations at Hanford, Washington. That's "all" he did, six days a week for nearly two years. These carpenters needed food, housing, sanitary facilities, hospitals and materials just as much as did Oppenheimer and his crowd at the top of the pyramid. Just think about it! That being said, it's simply impossible to do the subject justice in a 2-hour movie. In defense of Joffe, however, I would say that they had an impossible task, particularly since he chose to have a diverse screenplay with multiple plots, multiple angles, and multiple characters. What, exactly, was he thinking, and how could he be so arrogant to think that this would work? That's Hollywood, I guess.FAT MAN AND LITTLE BOY has so many flaws that it would take a book to list them all. Horrible casting. Dreadful (and politically-motivated) writing. Bad science. The portrayals of Groves and Oppie are particularly inaccurate and downright galling. Notwithstanding the screenplay's all-too-obvious agenda, it is STILL incredibly bland and sloppy.These flaws have been listed elsewhere on IMDb, but I was particularly struck by the fact that the scientists had so much time on their hands -- softball, horseback riding, parties, semi-formal dinners, ballet, etc., not to mention romance, and of course circulating political petitions. According to FM&LB, if these great brains had gotten off their duffs and actually spent some time in the lab instead of seducing Laura Dern, we might have won the war before D-Day.One final gripe -- FM&LB mentions that "Fat Man" and "Little Boy" were the code names of the two atomic bombs, but it doesn't mention that these names were a semi-good-natured jab at Groves ("Fat Man", for heavy stature) and Oppenheimer ("Little Boy," for his slight stature). Another reason Paul Newman should not have been in this movie...
