Product Details

• Actors: Paul Newman, Dwight Schultz, Bonnie Bedelia, John Cusack, Laura Dern
• Directors: Roland Joffé
• Writers: Roland Joffé, Bruce Robinson
• Producers: John Calley, Kimberly Cooper, Tony Garnett
• Format: Closed-captioned, Color, Dolby, DTS Surround Sound, DVD, Subtitled, Widescreen, Surround Sound, Digital Sound, NTSC
• Language: English, French
• Subtitles: English
• Region: Region 1 (U.S. and Canada only. Read more about DVD formats.)
  
• Aspect Ratio: 1.77:1
• Number of discs: 1
• Rated: PG-13 (Parental Guidance Suggested)
• Studio: Paramount
• DVD Release Date: April 27, 2004
• Run Time: 127 minutes
• Average Customer Review: 3.5 out of 5 stars  See all reviews (40 customer reviews)
• ASIN: B0001EQIJC
• Amazon Best Sellers Rank: #64,631 in Movies & TV (See Top 100 in Movies & TV)
• For more information about "Fat Man and Little Boy" visit the Internet Movie Database (IMDb)

Editorial Reviews

Amazon.com

Despite the combined star power in front of and behind the camera, Fat Man and Little Boy is a largely tepid retelling of the history of the Manhattan Project, the atomic testing project that led to the U.S. bombing of Japan during World War II (said bombs were dubbed "Fat Man" and "Little Boy"). The Nevada-based project is headed by General Leslie R. Groves (a testy Paul Newman) and scientist J. Robert Oppenheimer (Dwight Schultz of the TV series The A-Team), who later regretted his cooperation in the project. The problem with the film lies not with the acting, which includes solid performances by Bonnie Bedelia, Laura Dern, John Cusack, and future U.S. Senator Fred Dalton Thompson, but with the script by director Roland Joffé and Bruce Robinson (Withnail and I and Joffé's The Killing Fields). A subject as morally complex as the creation of a supreme weapon requires a strong and thoughtful script, but Fat Man and Little Boy never gets further than establishing that indeed, atomic power is something to reckon with. Joseph Sargent's 1989 made-for-TV film Day One, with Brian Dennehy as Groves and David Straithairn as Oppenheimer, covers the same story with twice the depth and avoids the pitfall of a romantic subplot (Oppenheimer's dalliance with a communist played by Natasha Richardson), which this film stumbles into. Cusack's doomed scientist is actually a combination of two real-life physicists, Harry Daghlian and Louis Slotkin, who died from radiation poisoning, albeit long after V-J Day. --Paul Gaita

Customer Reviews

Most Helpful Customer Reviews

28 of 30 people found the following review helpful:

1.0 out of 5 stars Very Disappointing, June 20, 2007

By 

Dan Edwards (Midwest) - See all my reviews

This review is from: Fat Man and Little Boy (DVD)

As much as I admire Paul Newman, this film is so terribly flawed that even his presence can't salvage it. The Manhattan Project is such a critical juncture in recent history that I think it's very important that the story be told realistically. This film is 90% Hollywood formula and 10% history. Only in the broadest brushstrokes does this movie give the viewer any kind of concept of that monumental undertaking. Do yourself a BIG favor; watch the far superior (and very accurate) "Day One" instead. In all respects, it is a much better account and much more interesting film. The main characters are presented as scientists, engineers, and military officers, not goofballs and nutty professors, as they are in "Fat Man and Little Boy."

38 of 44 people found the following review helpful:

2.0 out of 5 stars Mostly Fiction, April 14, 2003

By 

Tony (Moorpark, CA United States) - See all my reviews

This review is from: Fat Man & Little Boy [VHS] (VHS Tape)

Yes, there was a Manhattan Project and people named Groves, Oppenheimer and Szilard and yes Leo Szilard did like to spend as much time in the bath tub as possible (thinking) but other than that, this film was largely fictional. I was bothered by the historical inaccuracies including: 1. Groves met Szilard at the University of Chicago along with the rest of the scientists that worked there, not in a bathroom in Szilards hotel with Szilard in a tub and Groves on a toilet. 2. The Manhattan Project was much bigger than Los Alamos and Groves dealt with two other major groups that are mostly not even depicted. 3. Groves and Oppenheimer had a very different and more cooperative relationship than is depicted in the movie. 4. Groves was not subject to temper tantrums like Newman's depiction. He was actually very quiet, but extremely sarcastic, socially awkward, pear shaped and somewhat arrogant. He was also smart as a tack, having attended both MIT and West Point, where he was fourth in his class. He created three cities that are now major cities in their states and an industry bigger than the U.S. Automobile industry in just over three years. This was no dummy.

A more accurate movie is "Day One", at least as far as the plot goes, but even that fails to grasp the Manhattan Project's scope. The best film on it, which unfortunately no longer exists, was "The Beginning or the End" which was made in 1946 (Brian Donlevy played Groves). The main people on the project served as technical advisors for that one. Unfortunately, that was never put on video and probably rotted away in some warehouse.

13 of 16 people found the following review helpful:

2.0 out of 5 stars Disapponting, April 15, 2007

By 

Dr Tathata (Omphalos, USA) - See all my reviews

This review is from: Fat Man and Little Boy (DVD)

This is such an important story, with layer upon layer upon layer of aspects of the modern realities ushered in by the Manhattan Project. C.P Snow in his famous essay regarding The Two Cultures raises implications about the way that the humanities department trains young minds relative to the science and engineering department. If the military approached a group of leading poets and declared that poetry possessed a potential they wanted to transform into a super weapon--how would the poets have responded? Posing a similar question to physicists, they all raced to the blackboard to be the first to solve the equation for the authorities.

So many issues, creativity, authority, diplomacy,secrecy, espionage, urgency...all provide the natural elements to a serious, gripping story. But this screenplay chooses to throw in silly romantic subplots, and alter the facts in the service of their silly Hollywood formula.Ughh. Especially annoying is the distortion of the circumstances surrounding the lab accident that befell Louis Slotkin, the Canadian, now morphed into a hybrid romantic figure in this puerile reworking of history. Maybe someday, someone will do the subject justice in a dramatic structure, until then the excellent documentary, 'The Day After Trinity' will have to suffice.

The screenplay illustrates the powerlessness of acting talent in the face of poor writing. Unfortunately, and maybe this is an inevitable remark, the film ends with a whimper, not a bang.