It's 1942 and 9 months after Pearl Harbor. Gen. Leslie Groves (Paul Newman) expected to move out from behind the desk to go to the frontlines. Instead, he is transferred to his perceived dead-end boondoggle. Oppenheimer (Dwight Schultz) advises him to gather the scientists in an isolate place for creative stress. Together they would lead the Manhattan Project in Los Alamos, New Mexico. Michael Merriman (John Cusack) is the young wide-eyed scientist. Kathleen Robinson (Laura Dern) is the nurse who falls for him. He befriends Capt. Schoenfield (John C. McGinley) who is the doctor investigating radiation. Seth Neddermeyer comes up with the idea for implosion. Oppenheimer is cheating on his wife Kitty (Bonnie Bedelia) with communist sympathizer Jean Tatlock (Natasha Richardson).

The movie achieves something a little more difficult. It made a bunch of scientists interesting and it made the science understandable. I do hope that the story is more fact than fiction. However I won't rest my review on its accuracies. Paul Newman delivers a forceful performance. I wish Dwight Schultz is a bigger actor to counter Newman's star power. The story is compelling although the puppy love story is a bit artificial.

The movie is probably most successful when it pits the ideologies of warriors against scientists, those who believe the atomic bomb will end a destructive war by saving more lives than it kills, and those who oppose creating the vehicles of death for any reason. For those like General Leslie R. Groves (Paul Newman),the matter isn't even up to question. The scourge of Hitler's Nazis and Japan's Imperial ambition need to be stopped in their tracks as soon as possible to save American and Allied lives, indeed, even the citizens of those countries that make up the Axis.

Without researching the history of the Manhattan Project, I don't know how much of the story here is accurate; Hollywood has it's way of blending elements of fact and fiction to produce a compelling story. And virtually every war related film has to have it's romantic side story, provided here by the characters of Michael Merriman (John Cusack) and Kathleen Robinson (Laura Dern). I always question why that's necessary, although in this case, Cusack's character sort of stands in as the Everyman caught in the middle between obligatory duty and the pull of conscience. He's here to remind us that sometimes the innocent bystander becomes a victim of everything he holds dear.

Somehow, at least in my opinion, the movie didn't feel as epic as I thought it would be given the historical impact of the atomic bomb. The story didn't take it beyond the first test explosion in the New Mexico desert where we see it's devastating impact. The eye witness effect on Dr. Robert Oppenheimer (Dwight Schultz) appeared almost comic in it's portrayal and took some of the gravitas out of the situation for this viewer. One can only hope that with the passage of time, the message of man's ability to destroy the entire planet will provide the conviction for calmer minds to prevail in an increasingly dangerous world.

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 ****