If you know the history of this project then you'll probably find it a little disappointing because parts of it are fictionalised and heavily dramatised. For example. protagonist Michael Merriman is a fictional character, and the accident he suffers never happened during the project, although that accident did occur in 1946 to a guy called Louis Slotin. Also, killing off this character at that point in the movie left me feeling somewhat cheated.While I enjoyed Paul Newman's role, I think he was miscast as General Groves, and Dwight Schultz was far too good looking for Oppenheimer, who in real life was thin and wirey and of somewhat unearthly looks. However, these criticisms don't spoil what is a good movie. My only real disappointment was the poorly simulated detonation at the end. In reality, the detonation began with an immediate silent, blinding blue-white flash, with the sound and blast wave arriving at the bunkers several seconds later. However, in the film, the flash is yellow and the sound is heard straight away.If you want an insight into what the project and those involved in it were really like, then I suggest you watch the documentary like "The Day After Trinity" and listen to Richard Feynman's amazing talk "Los Alamos from Below".

This account of the experiments that led up to the development of the atomic bomb in 1945 chooses to deal with the issue far more from a human perspective than from a scientific perspective. The focus is on the men who were involved with the project - especially Gen. Leslie Groves (Paul Newman), who was in charge, and the lead scientist Robert Oppenheimer (Dwight Schultz.) The more technical issues aren't ignored, but the story revolves around the way in which the project impacts on the men's personal lives. On the negative side, the movie takes on at times a bit of a soap opera feel, dealing more with the men's love interests than with the project itself. It was also unfortunate that the movie chose to create the fictional character of "Michael Merriman" (played by John Cusack.) 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. 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. Emotional to be sure, but perhaps a bit too much dramatic licence was taken there.Where the movie hit home, though, was in the depiction of the growing moral qualms felt by the scientists who were working on the project. 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. Then they were defeated and Japan didn't even have the capacity to make a bomb. The moral questions were very real, and very well depicted.Everyone involved with this did a credible job. I didn't think this was an outstanding movie, but it provided a glimpse at what was going on in Los Alamos, New Mexico in the early 40's - obviously a key period in human history.

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.

I watched this years ago on television when I was sick (I don't know, I tend to be more complacent with my TV viewing when I'm sick; too much effort to use the remote control, I guess).From what I can recall, every aspect of the movie--casting, acting, writing, directing, etc.--was ill-advised at best. I could have forgiven the historical inaccuracies if this film had created a sense of what it was like to work on Trinity; but it didn't. There were attempts to humanize the scientists, but they were insufficient and never transcended caricature.I didn't know very much about the people involved in the Manhattan Project at the time, but the portrayals in the movie were so cartoonish that I became interested in learning about the real personalities. And I did. So I guess this horrible film has done a very small amount of good, after all.This is not an in-depth review, but FMLB neither deserves nor requires one. You might enjoy it if you're a fan of bad movies.