But even dodging some vital issues the film still presents a tense, tidy historical drama, and Paul Newman's performance as General Groves may be the best portrayal of a military man since George C. The story is compelling although the puppy love story is a bit artificial. I do hope that the story is more fact than fiction. At first working willingly when it seemed as if there was a race to get the bomb before Nazi Germany, questions began to bubble when it was discovered that the Nazis had no real interest in the bomb. His scenes with Laura Dern, especiallywith what happens to him, take on a real poignancy.
At one point, a big, mean-looking guy storms into Newman's office and has such a striking presence, I immediately thought he should be playing the character Newman is playing. I'veseen some peoples reviews talking about this movie as if they'rereviewing a love story. The accident in which Merriman is poisoned by radiation and later dies really happened, but it took place in 1946, long after the war was over, and the victim was actually a Canadian physicist named Louis Slotin. One could quibble with various script or direction choices, but as it is the film is extremely intense and horrific at times and overall I give it four stars out of five. As the military head of the top-secret Manhattan Project, Groves intends to have the operation run by the book--and failing that, to have things his way at all costs.
Summary for the movie In real life, Robert Oppenheimer was the scientific head of the Manhattan Project, the secret wartime project in New Mexico where the first atomic bombs were designed and built. It's alargely forgotten gem that puts a human face put on one of the mostintriguing stories in human history. Exceptionaland colorful cinematography by Vilmos Zsigmond and sensitive musicalscore by the master Ennio Morricone. . Paul Newman delivers oneof his great, understated performances as the Pattonesque general incharge of delivering the ultimate big stick for the Allied Forces. Thismovie takes a situation rich in drama and conflict coupled withscientific and historical interest and turns it into a boring,simplistic soap opera.
This is a weird and compelling film. For director Joffe', it was a follow-up to two impressive movies, both similarly involved in eliciting outraged public response to man's inhumanity to his fellow man? Dwight Schultz as the leader of the scientific team struggles with his affections for his family and his relentless obsession with his big project. John Cusack and Paul Newman are excellent as always. The film's storyline narrows down to a battle of egos between Groves and atomic scientist J. There is no hintof the inner man in this portrayal. The film is in all ways a very realisticportrayal of these events, and in many ways it is almost too real suchas some scenes involving radiation poisoning.
Why this imaginary bit of history was conjured up wasn't really clear to me, except for the fact that it obviously dramatized the dangers of the project, and allowed for the insertion of a tear jerker moment, when a nurse who had fallen in love with him Laura Dern comes to him on his deathbed to make sure he knows her feelings. It's 1942 and 9 months after Pearl Harbor. . It is stillan excellent movie. 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.
It was made and came out the same year, and is a fantastic piece of film, where every single character and the story is nailed very close to spot on. Robert Oppenheimer Dwight Schultz , in his own way as contentious and childishly single-purposed as the general. Characters are constantly torn between that reality and their wartimeduty as Americans. Groves is amilitary man first and foremost with an engineering background. The focus is on the men who were involved with the project - especially Gen. Later on Oppenheimergot into a real bind because of his left-wing political views andassociates which everyone knew walking into the Manhattan Project. It illustrates humankind's almost fanatical need for progress and domination, no matter the cost.
I certainly disagree with the last user comment. It's a largely forgotten gem that puts a human face put on one of the most intriguing stories in human history. Rating : Good and worthwhile seeing. You will be moved by the end of the film. The movie achieves something a little more difficult. Michael Merriman John Cusack is the young wide-eyed scientist. By the way, I have to wonder whether the film was originally intended to be longer: the cast list at the end gives reasonable prominence to the name of 1970s character actor Ed Lauter, yet he is given no more than one fleeting shot in the released version! 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.
It's a real thinking person's movie, not only from thescientific aspect of developing a seemingly impossible weapon, but alsothe moral implications of contributing to killing on a massive scale. It only manages to slow it down even further. From his book 'Smoking In Bed' it appears the original screenwriter Bruce Robinson is another such. I've been reading a lot about the Manhattan Project, since it and things regarding atomic physics has been a bit of a hobby of mine, since childhood. Dwight Schultz as the leader of thescientific team struggles with his affections for his family and hisrelentless obsession with his big project.