The Manhattan Project (1986) User Reviews (66)

Not bad, but...

[Sledgeh101 · 7/10 · 16 October 2006]

I remember watching this movie in the 80s, and thinking it was a good film. There was, however, one major problem that I had with the film - the fact that the main protagonist seems to be a dummy when it comes to anything other than science. Forgetting about the fact that Paul, one of the main characters, essentially exposed a bunch of people to high- grade plutonium (no mention about any medical crisis for all the people around Paul after the happy ending), the kicker comes when he's finally confronted in a hotel in New York by John Lithgow and a bevy of military men who would like nothing more than to lock him away for a long time. Paul's nonchalance comes out in the exchange, "They can't do anything to me." "Why not?" "Because I'm underage."

HUH? You're smart enough to build a freaking nuclear bomb by yourself, including smart enough to know where to get some explosive material needed to blow the bomb up. You're also smart enough to have fooled a high-security system with a bunch of frisbees and a helpful girlfriend in order to get the plutonium (and smart enough to temporarily cover your tracks by inserting shampoo into the jar so it's not immediately noticed as missing). But what in the world makes you think that they'll let you go because "I'm underage?"

I suppose the script writer needed to show a little naiveté - after all, if Paul knew the full gravity of what he was doing, he might not have done something as reckless as he did. Instead, he might just have gone ahead with an expose without needing to win first prize at a science contest.

If you like clich'e you'll love this movie

[nibble-1 · 5/10 · 15 February 2006]

A boy genius builds an atomic bomb with plutonium he steals from his mother's would-be boyfriend. A barely plausible premise but what the heck it's a movie. I can only imagine the producers and actors all anticipating the acclaim that they hope to achieve with this ripoff of 'War Games'. 'War Games' featuring Matthew Broderick and Ally Sheedy was clever, hip, interesting, funny at times and believable: everything that this movie is not. The first scare is John Lithgow as a love interest with Jill Eikenberry. He is not likely to set feminine hearts aflutter and Jill looks great except that her hair looks like it lost a battle with a wombat. As to the cliché's (forgive me if I leave out a few dozen, as there are so many): 1) The kid opens everything with a handy nail file from his nail clipper that he always happens to have in his pocket. He even opens pin-tumbler locks which I assure you are not amenable to nail files. 2) He breaks into the lab to steal the plutonium, swaps it with a bottle of shampoo, then packs everything back into his gym bag, EXCEPT the plutonium which he tapes to the back of a remote control car. You see if he just put the plutonium in his gym bag with all the other stuff (including the huge remote controller for the car) there would be no reason to fire up the enormous Argon-Ion LASER BEAM which he uses to cut a hole in the building to smuggle out the plutonium. And of course the cutsey part where the dodering old fool of a security guard would have no reason to stumble around in dark with flashlight looking for god knows whatever while the kid zooms the car around. Duh! 3) Lithgow brings the kid a puzzle where you are supposed to get four balls in each corner, the kid sets it down and spins it. Eureka problems solved! Only you can see that coming a mile away. And the grand prize cliché is at the end, when they all must clip the six detonator wires SIMULTANIOUSLY! GASP! to prevent the impending nuclear explosion. Except that they only have (I bet you know already) FIVE wire cutters! But guess what? The kid whips out his handy-dandy nail clipper to save the day! TA-DA! Whoooo Maybe I'm being harsh and taking advantage of twenty years of hindsight, after all lasers now fit on key chains instead of taking up entire rooms, but seriously the technical direction in this movie is awful. Despite all that it is entertaining and if you have the opportunity watch it. And while you watch take a good look at all the actors that you will never see again after contributing to this bomb.

Entertaining enough....BUT....

[[e-mail] · 6/10 · 12 December 2007]

This film is entertaining enough, in fact it is quite exciting. However, in a real-life scenario, the end result would not and could not have had such a clichéd "Hollywood ending", so in that respect it sort of resembles a "fractured fairytale". The storyline is credible enough with a bit of imagination stretching, the acting is tolerable, only the irony is laid on a bit too thick. I found the attitude of the principal character to be much too cynical, unrealistic and extremely condescending, even for the likes of some precocious, science-savvy prodigy. Getting back to the entertainment value, the plot progresses expectedly only it thickens toward the direction of the surrealistic, though the basic concept is actually pretty frightening. However, the movie is watchable with its impressive cast; a young Cynthia Nixon, John Lithgow, Chris Collet et al. I have mixed feelings about this film, I did enjoy watching it, but when I began to rationalize it began to appear quite nonsensical. So, if you intend on watching it, simply keep your powers of logic and common sense subdued and it will remain an enjoyable experience.

Those darn warmongering govies....

[Mentat327 · 20 September 2003]

So let me get this straight. This teenager wants to expose this secret government laboratory... by building an atomic bomb with material he steals from the facility and taking it to a science fair. And he wants to expose this facility because... they didn't tell anyone they were a secret plutonium facility and thereby make themselves a target for espionage and theft?

So, as I said, his solution to the "warmongering" military authorities building atomic bombs is to build one himself. (And they're warmongering because they want to build atomic bombs because hostile countries with a doctrine of overthrowing countries to spread their political beliefs would do the same to the US if they could because they also have atomic bombs, right?) Then when the government officials learn that this kid has stolen weapons grade material and has built a bomb with it, they have to gall to take over his mom's house while she cries "What gives you the right?!"

Then, and get this, then, when he learns the government has found out he has stolen weapons grade material and built a bomb with it, and he threatens to set it off for no other logical reason anyone can think of other than not wanting to get thrown in jail for something HE did, everyone acts surprised when the government acts ready to kill him to stop him and everyone thinks that's just a terrible thing. No, wait, they want to kill him not just to stop him, but also to keep the facility a secret.... after a whole bunch of people already know what's going on.

And when the bomb almost goes off because this genius kid was too stupid to know what he was doing, he gets to walk away as a local hero because he built a bomb with weapons grade material that he stole from the facility and almost wiped out his friends, family, everyone in the town and surrounding areas including the mean government officials who were ready to kill him because he threatened to set off an atomic bomb with material he stole from the facility.

Riiiiigggghhhhhhtttt.........

Good, but takes plausibility to the extreme

[bgaiv · 7/10 · 27 July 2020]

The genius kid steals plutonium and builds a Bomb. Ok. Probably not realistic, but most movies have a willing suspension of disbelief.

The bigger problem is the kid stealing the plutonium. From one visit to this facility, he knows how to defeat the guard's security, how to operate all these devices, what color the goop he is stealing so nobody will notice, how to operate the first laser he's seen to cutting through a wall with it.

It's just too much. There's genius, but genius doesn't mean knowledge of everything. Even The Doctor on Doctor Who wouldn't come across this brazen.

Also hurting it is the script demands you hold the kid as a hero. His mother freaked out about how dare these Feds TRY TO FIND THIS KID THAT STOLE PLUTONIUM AND BUILT A NUCLEAR BOMB AND TOOK IT TO NEW YORK CITY.

Also, the guy and girl take a bus from New York to their home city, and the Feds don't anticipate this? And worse, the girl drives Paul close enough to the facility to drop off Paul, and they don't intercept then/her before she calls half of Ithaca?

Lol, writing this, I think I like it better than it deserves, probably because my age when it came out.

The acting is very good, and the chemistry really works. "I'm sorry for being a perfect ass" "nobody is perfect" is great. The dialog is mostly a winner.

But the movie just veers way too far between a weird sort of half serious teen comedy and a VERY serious drama. The Wargames parallels are quite obvious, but Broderick's smart but screw up kid is light years from what this kid does, regardless of the apparent stakes.



Oh, on a different note, I bought the freaking DVD, and I just don't think endless "you shouldn't download movies illegally" messages are terribly useful on discs... you know, only seen by people that bought the freaking DVD... just saying'.

Entertaining but with some faults

[cblountt · 7/10 · 20 April 2017]

Not quite understanding the bad reviews here. Going in it's easy to see immediately that this movie was going to be flippant and a bit of a fairy tale. How can anyone take it seriously? Instead, just sit back and enjoy the ride.

This movie is basically a series of unlikely events strung together. Can they happen, sure but probably in another dimension. But still, I found this film a guilty pleasure. It's best to just put your mind on hold for a bit and just have fun.

On a side note, I really miss the 80's version of John Lithgow. He is such a great actor and back then he was at his prime.

No subtlety to be found here, but it's not bad

[Mr-Fusion · 6/10 · 9 March 2016]

"The Manhattan Project" is a fairly entertaining movie, so long as you keep it out from under a microscope. Still, those holes are inescapable. Like how did Paul get the resources to fashion a nuclear lab? More than that, how would a high-schooler know how to handle radioactive materials? Can' really sweep that under the "he's a bright kid" rug; we're talking about resources (or maybe it's completely plausible; hell, I'm not a whiz kid). And didn't any Medatomics personnel notice that four-week-old hole in the wall? Putting that all aside, I kinda like this movie. Mostly because I'm a Lithgow fan, and the big bomb defusal scene packs some suspense. But also for superficial reasons, like Cynthia Nixon's house. And the locations, there's some pretty scenery here.

6/10

WarGames without the charm

[SnoopyStyle · 6/10 · 7 August 2014]

Scientist John Mathewson (John Lithgow) has improve the purity of plutonium. The military sends him to Ithaca to perfect the process. He likes his real estate agent Elizabeth Stephens (Jill Eikenberry) and tries to befriend her son Paul (Christopher Collet) by showing him around the lab. Paul is a smart inventive teenager who decides to steal some plutonium and make a nuclear bomb for his science fair project. Jenny Anderman (Cynthia Nixon) is the girl and the friend.

This has a bit of WarGames but the lead kid doesn't have the charm of Matthew Broderick. Of course who has the charm of Ferris Bueller. The lead is a teen brat stereotype without the funny sensibility. It spends too much time with montages and slow action. It also makes the mistake of concentrating a bit too much time on the adults. John Lithgow is such a great star that this mistake is understandable. As in many of these 80s caper movies, there is a lot of unreal unbelievability but one must accept such things. The movie struggles mostly with the pompous teen. He is a spoiled teen without any of the comedy. However it is fun to imagine a teen building a nuclear bomb, and defusing the bomb in the end is kinda exciting.

Wow, this one is amazingly bad

[bvallely · 1/10 · 16 January 2007]

We are asked to respect a high school kid(Paul Stephens who builds a nuclear bomb, and admire how he lightheartedly carts said device in a science fair, endangering the lives of literally tens of thousands people. If this "comedy" had been a wacky, Marx Brothers/Airport type farce, that wouldn't have bothered me in the slightest. But is "comedy" (which doesn't contain a single laugh)insists that we admire the arrogant little creep. I kept wishing that Jack Bauer would come in and shove a knife in Paul's kneecap.

Marshal Brickman never directed a feature film after this, and I can't wonder why.

some similarities to war games.

[ksf-2 · 6/10 · 24 December 2021]

Interesting coincidence.... director marshall brickman directed manhattan project, AND co-wrote the film manhattan with woody allen. Kind of a funny pairing.. manhattan project stars john lithgow as mathewson, working at the local engineering plant, on some government project. Local student paul (chris collet) has figured out that the company up the street is up to something nefarious, and starts checking it out. And wants to put a stop to it. Co-stars twenty year old cynthia nixon and john mahoney. You kind of have to buy into some shady science and technology, but the basic story is pretty sound. What's the government really up to? And can a high school kid bust in and mess it up? This came a couple years AFTER war games, but it's a very similar plot. Not bad. It's okay, i guess. Brickman WON the oscar for writing annie hall with allen. And was nominated for allen's film Manhattan.

Not even funny...

[illegal_alien51 · 1/10 · 7 December 2006]

I don't even wanna talk about it, I just wanna cut it down and leave it for dead. Or with other words, don't watch it unless you wanna make fun of it later! It's a half lame movie for little kids who haven't had a physics class yet and who's parents are willing to explain that something like that is never possible in real life. Here are some examples why (to get you started)

• The material being so highly concentrated I would imagine when he opens the hatch to get the jar out he'd immediately lose consciousness and die within minutes. No yellow rubber gloves are gonna protect him from the radiation.

• It looks like he's going for an implosion design with his bomb (like the Nagasaki bomb). That's really "smart". Especially since the gun design (Hiroshima bomb) is far easier to build, but maybe he is aware that the implosion design will have a far greater efficiency so he can incinerate far more people with it, if that's what he wants? (That's where another thought occurs: Why is he complaining about the morality of the lab when he builds a bomb of his own?)

• Then there is more unprotected working with the material. Even if the material was only slightly radioactive for some reason, his nice fluffy hair would have fallen out halfway through building his device. At the least we would have seen lots of vomiting!

To sum it up, tired of writing this as I am, it's just all horrible anyway! I can't understand why a movie with that name couldn't have been a bit more interesting, realistic and possibly talk about the real Manhattan Project instead!

The reason he used the RC car to steal the Plutonium

[g_imdb-43 · 8/10 · 4 April 2020]

Other reviewers have suggested they added the hole-in-the-wall laser and RC car only to add lasers & complications to the plot. But the reason is obvious to me: I'm sure there was a radiation detector at the front door, and he'd sound the biggest alarm in the place if he tried to carry it out the front.

That said, the kid is remarkably lucky to have his plan(s) work perfectly on the first try, without much access to make the plans.

This is a fun movie, just humorous enough and very smart, and if you always wished you were a nuclear physicist as a kid, you will enjoy it!

at least the ending was suspenseful

[Vike-3 · 7/10 · 12 March 2001]

Another entry in the extraordinarily-intelligent yet naive teenager nearly starts a nuclear war/disaster flicks of the early through mid-1980s.

It's hard to believe that two people would be guarding a nuclear facility and would be outsmarted by someone they are twice or thrice as old as. It's even more unbelievable that the twenty-something playing teenager would be able to steal highly unstable plutonium and not disease himself or others while it was in his possession. Unbelievabler still is the notion that a bunch of introverts at the science fair would save him and the bomb from the government, "in the name of science" (the plot may have been more interesting if they stole the bomb and used to promote their own agenda.)

However, those who choose to watch this movie will be well rewarded with great acting(seldom seen in many of the actors later works) and suspense in the last half-hour or so when the unplanned consequences come to a head.

A bomb all right

[masterjk2 · 2/10 · 18 July 2008]

I was subjected to this utter nonsense at a friend's house. I won't go into why. At first I thought it "wasn't bad." But as the "plot" continued, I thought someone must have spiked the punch and I was high on LSD. This is one of the silliest movies ever made. There are so many stupid ideas one has to wonder if it was designed to make fun of movies as a whole. The "brilliant" kid wants to build a bomb to expose the lab for making plutonium? Hey, pick up the phone and make a call. He thinks that he can't get into any trouble because "I'm only a kid." Who told him that? For a bright boy, he doesn't seem like it. He breaks into the lab and steals plutonium... that ought to be worth 20 to life right there. He's Edward Teller in disguise and builds an A bomb with his Mattel Do it yourself kit. Yeah... sure. Best of all, he handles the plutonium with his mom's dish washing rubber gloves?!!! He'd be dead in no time. He takes his bomb to the big fair to show off? To show off what? That he's a complete nincompoop? Even the other nerds know better than that. If I hadn't been waiting for another friend in order to leave, I would have exited this complete nonsense as soon as he started playing cutesy with the plutonium strapped to the back of his toy car. This was really, really bad. 1 star for Lithgow desperately seeking a plot. 1 Star for Nixon trying ever so hard not to break out in uproarious laughter while Collet tries to explain why he wants to make a bomb.

Well-made, if less than thrilling, doomsday picture

[lor_ · 6 March 2023]

My review was written in May 1986 after a screening at the Cannes Film Festival Market.

Marshall Brickman's "The Manhattan Project" is a warm, comedy-laced doomsday story which packs plenty of entertainment for summer audiences, but falls short of its potential as a thriller.

Topical premise has 16-year-old student Paul Stevens (Christopher Collet) tumbling to the fact that the new scientist in town, Dr. Mathewson (John Lithgow) is working with plutonium in what fronts as a pharmaceutical research installation. While Mathewson is romancing Stevens' mom (Jill Eikenberry) -the husband having split years ago -the genius kid is plotting with his helpful girlfriend Jenny (Cynthia Nixon) to steal a canister of plutonium and build an atomic bomb. Their goal: to expose the danger of the secret nuclear plant placed in their community in the strongest possible terms.

Using clever one-liners and many humorous situations (particularly when Lithgow is clumsily coming on to Eikenberry early in the film), Brickman manages successfully to sugarcoat the story's serious message concerning the ongoing folly of arms buildup and reliance upon nuclear deterrence for security. What keeps the film from being a thriller is his matter-of-fact direction, extremely sluggish in many scenes early on. Only a very interesting "Rififi ''-style silent (background sound only) reel in which the hero steals the plutonium from the well-secured lab is strong enough to keep interest from wandering. Fortunately, later situations regain the story's momentum and lead to a rousing climax.

Collet is very appealing as the brilliant hero, almost convincing in situations that require him to be more resourceful than is truly possible. Lithgow adds quirky personality and charm to what might have become a standard "bad guy sees the light" assignment. As their respective sounding boards, Nixon and Eikenberry both contribute to the film's emphasis upon human values over mere hardware in a genre which has increasingly been upstaged by its special effects work.

Those special effects here are entirely realistic rather than showy, another feather in the cap of wiz Bran Ferren, who also appears in an opening reel cameo as a lab assistant. Philip Rosenberg's production design and Billy Williams' camerawork are exemplary.

Feature was financed by Thorn EMI Screen Entertainment, but print caught already had the Cannon logo at introduction, reflecting Cannon's recent buyout of what was once TESE.

Demented

[rajitecture · 7/10 · 4 September 2023]

The story is written in the light that the kid(s) is to be celebrated. In any other movie this would be a dark movie with a nationwide manhunt. It's not a good story and should be frowned upon. We can't celebrate this. These kids are ridiculous. There's like zero sense. At some point one of the "smart" kids would have said, "hey, this could be really dangerous" and try and stop this whole thing. And what's up with the girlfriend supporting theft and being an accomplice. Super annoying. All that said, yeah, the movie was so outlandish that it was able to keep my attention. Still hate the movie and don't plan to watch it a second time.

Pretty good "cold war" thinker.

[DrMess · 7/10 · 27 August 2001]

This movie has some real quotables in it that boosted the ratings for me. Christopher Collet's character is a little too perfect, and at points you wonder what his intentions (and the plot) really are, but at least this keeps the movie somewhat unpredictable.

I had no idea that VO5 looked so much like liquid plutonium!

[cgvsluis · 6/10 · 28 September 2023]

The Manhattan project is essentially a teenage science fiction film that joins the likes of the other teen films from the 80's, dominated by John Hughes with films like Weird Science.

A high school student Paul Stephens, played by Christopher Collet, meets a scientist named John Mathewson (John Lithgow) who has moved to town and is working on a mysterious project at a medical facility. In an effort to garner a date with Paul's mom, Elizabeth, John invites the bright student Paul to come see the lasers at his place of work.

This field trip sets up a series of cascading events that lead to Paul, with the help of his girlfriend Jenny (who incidentally is played by Cynthia Nixon of Sex and the City fame), building an atomic bomb from plutonium he steals from the "medical" facility. His plan is to expose the pseudo-medical facility and the radiation exposure to the environment and potentially for weapon creation at the national science fair...which he is hoping to win.

I loved that the five leaf clovers were used as evidence to the plutonium's damage to the environment. Christopher Collet does an excellent job holding down the lead in this film...but the real scene stealer in John Lithgow as you might expect. His character begins as this bachelor scientist, who is just excited about science and his invention...to being supportive of a bright mind, to the devastating realization of the ramifications of his invention. It was great...and all done in corduroys!

I didn't see this film in the 80's and I am a huge John Hughes fan...so if you can only pick one teen film to watch from the 80's I would pick one of those (my preference leaning to Sixteen Candles...but I like them all), but if you have the time and like science or are a big environmentalist, or a big John Lithgow fan this might be the film for you.

I will say my bigger recommendation for John Lithgow is a teen driven film would be Footloose...so if you only see one, watch Footloose.

Terrible quote: " A man can still have a snack between meals"-roadside assistance operator.

"That was interesting".

[Hey_Sweden · 6/10 · 31 January 2024]

Christopher Collet plays Paul Stephens, a high school whiz kid with an aptitude for science who learns that a nuclear weapons facility has set up shop in his neck of the woods. Conspiring with his potential girlfriend (an adorable Cynthia Nixon), he manages to break into the facility and make off with some plutonium. This he uses to construct his very own atom bomb. He does this partly as a form of protest, but partly out of his own damn ego: he wants to show off.

Co-writer Marshall Brickman, who'd collaborated with Woody Allen on some of Allens' early pictures, turns serious with this topical thriller (shades of "WarGames") that does generate genuine tension. People have attacked it over the years due to dubious morality: are we really supposed to be rooting for this reckless kid? In the end, he's forced to work alongside the dopey adults whom he's trying to expose, as everybody tries to undo the damage he's done. Overall, the story is awfully hard to swallow much of the time, but eventually we get a suspenseful payoff. (The kid doesn't know as much as he thinks he does.)

In any event, the film *is* very slick, nicely scored (by Philippe Sarde), and excellently acted by a cast also including John Lithgow, Jill Eikenberry, John Mahoney, Robert Sean Leonard, Richard Jenkins, Sully Boyar, Timothy Carhart, Fred Melamed, Jimmie Ray Weeks, and Dan Butler.

It's an entertaining story in general, and some aspects (such as the details of constructing the bomb) are suitably engrossing. The feel-good ending, however, was too utterly ridiculous to believe.

Six out of 10.

Idiotic example of 1980's "smart kids" movie...

[innocuous · 2/10 · 9 February 2006]

I beg to disagree with some of the reviewers who believe that this film is some sort of deep commentary on the Cold War mentality of the 60's and 70's, coupled with sharp insight into the madness of the nuclear arms race.

This is a simple-minded "WarGames" wannabe, with totally unsympathetic characters (including the stereotypical idiot adults who can barely tie their shoelaces) engaging in wildly improbable/impossible activities.

This is an excellent example of why snot-nosed, self-righteous kids are not allowed to vote.

Minor Spoiler: "Hey, my self-gratification and desire to win the science fair surely trumps any concern for public safety or property rights. Plus, I get to feel like some sort of public-policy activist while I'm doing it!"

Yet, all of this might be forgivable, if the movie was any good. But it's not. Save your time and money.

Can't suspend that much disbelief

[fineanimal · 3/10 · 18 August 2002]

If the beauty of film is that it encourages us to briefly suspend our disbelief and enjoy experiencing a different world, The Manhattan Project simply demands too much suspension of disbelief to make this possible.

Almost every plot point in The Manhattan Project is an absolute impossibility in real life, even though the dramatic power of this film ostensibly derives from the notion that something remotely like this could really happen. From nuclear radiation triggering detectors without hurting people, to a single rent-a-cop defending an entire nuclear weapons lab, to one teenager doing in a month what took Oppenheimer and company years, to the U.S. military letting national security breaches walk away into the sunset, there is just no way to focus on the story when faced with so many intellectual insults.

On the bright side, the science in the movie is presented well and seems fairly accurate, so it does seem like the filmmakers at least tried to make something special out of an insufficient screenplay. The Manhattan Project is not a terrible movie, but it does suffer from too many inexcusable lapses to be called good. Just like the most realistic character in the movie, this film is a bomb.

Completely ridiculous, but entertaining and even touching

[whatch-17931 · 8/10 · 8 November 2020]

It's pretty good, well paced, with competent to even great acting.

But the script is so ridiculous. Despite high production values, the plot is like that of a kid's cartoon.

This film, uh, bombed badly, and I think I know why. A film with lead characters that are scientists/engineers/wunderkind is likely to appeal to that type of audience. And that's the exact audience that's not going to buy the implausibilities all over this film.

The worst to me is when he breaks into the lab. He visited the lab once and yet on a whim he is able to completely defeat the lab's security in a VERY elaborate operation.

However, it's still pretty charming. It doesn't take itself too seriously, it takes itself so EARNESTLY. It's kind of like Point Break in that respect- it takes a completely ridiculous high concept and treats it so respectfully, it comes out charming. It also manages to feel quite a lot like Wargames, as if it were set in the same universe, but without feeling at all like a ripoff. Basically, it feels like a well made sequel that manages to recapture most of the magic of the original., something very rare with actual sequels.

I was around back in the day, and I do recall this being advertised kind of as a comedy. I'm pretty sure the "does anyone have a Phillips screwdriver" gag being in a trailer. Apparently it was one of those pictures that the studio either didn't understand how to market, or decided to market it as something it wasn't.

There are some solid gags that fit in organically, like the screwdriver, uh, bit, but the, but it's certainly not remotely a comedy.

As a reviewer noted, Paul is a genius, yet is frequently stupid about things and not in consistent ways. This is annoying but I suspect that was done because if he were truly aware of these things, he would be quite evil. He's already pretty much a sociopath.

Can nuclear weapons be funny?

[n_r_koch · 5/10 · 7 February 2009]

Anti-Gravity Belts and Shrinking Rays are okay...unless you are making grandiose references to Oppenheimer and portentious speeches about real nuclear weapons on real planets where they can be made only with two really toxic materials. But even if plutonium could really be stored in sports bottles in a transparent case in a room with where a guy plays with lasers, one can't help but wonder: Why did the boy genius walk out of the lab but then drive the plutonium out of it in a remote-controlled car after cutting a hole in the building with the laser? Didn't anyone notice the hole he left in the building, the fence, and in the line of trees beyond the fence? Would all the world's super-pure plutonium be guarded by an old coot who appears to be legally blind and a thick besides? Why does Cynthia Nixon ask all their friends to drive to where a nuclear bomb is? Why does Paul need a written statement about the pure plutonium lab if he has the pure plutonium himself? Why does Paul's Mom forget to shampoo? Oh, that one actually does get answered.

There are too many howlers to believe in this thing. It came from the same guy who wrote SLEEPER, in which the nonsense science was part of the comedy. WAR GAMES is more plausible but it ends with the same silly speeches. Of course if you ever do rid the world of nuclear weapons you merely make the first new weapon all the more valuable. Oh, well. Maybe a comedy about plutonium is a job no writer can manage.

Hubris

[rmax304823 · 14 March 2002]

There are some things man was never meant to know. Or at least high school kids. The story is interesting in its concept: smart kid builds nuclear device and is barely saved from blowing everyone to smithereens. (Vide: "War Games".) Its execution however makes one squirm with discomfort rather than suspense. First, the acting isn't bad. John Lithgow is especially effective in his scenes with Jill Eikenberry -- a genuinely nice guy just trying to get along. The rest of the performances are adequate. But the character played by Christopher Collett is truly abrasive.

His scientific intellect is honed to a razor edge, as we find out near the beginning when he arranges a small explosion in the lab drawer of a fellow student who is his rival in science class. Hilarious. His smugness is almost unbearable. And science is about all he's good at. He realizes that Lithgow is "hitting on my mom" (innocently enough) and resents him for it. He doesn't seem to know what an Oedipus complex is. He hasn't heard of Woodward and Bernstein. He asks, "Who's Anne Frank?", and isn't being rhetorical.

Worst of all, he doesn't really care about his non-scientific ignorance. He's only a few steps removed from the maniac in "Pi." The plot is simply unbelievable. He may be extremely clever but unless he has some sort of PSI power as well, he could not disarm the alarm system in two shakes of a lamb's tail -- let alone unfailingly operate the complex robotic systems in the laboratory. And without so much as a previous glance at it, he knows that the inner wall of the lab can be cut with a pen knife, and he knows just where to cut it too. He may be superhuman as well.

Radioactive plutonium is still radioactive, even without having reached critical mass, isn't it? And although rubber gloves may stop larger particles like protons, they don't provide much protection against gamma rays, do they? I may be wrong, but at least I'm willing to admit my ignorance, which is more than this egocentric showoff is able to do.

The first time I saw this movie it was fascinating, especially the first half, not the last part, which deteriorates into a familiar pattern. But I saw it again recently and found it more irritating than anything else, because of Collett's character and because the plot was so full of holes. At least I HOPE it was full of holes. If it were so easy to throw together a nuclear weapon occupying a space the size of a trombone case, and to do so in only a few weeks, I'd hate to think of what might happen if some religious fundamentalist antimodernization Ludditic cryptolunatic saw the movie and it gave him ideas.

The ending is a heart-warming development in which Lithgow, decides the fight the military and declares, "No more secrets", and throw open the gates to the college kids cheering outside. Right.

Pretentious Preachy Unwatchable

[jskao · 1/10 · 22 May 2003]

Terrible waste of celluloid and John Lithgow's talent. Whinny arrogant self centered punk builds bomb to prove his own genius without considering monumental stupidity of act, then arms the bomb to get himself out of the jam he's put himself in, holding 10's of thousands of lives hostage, including his "loved" ones. Eventually, the situation is happily resovled, where he shows no remorse, and smuggly grins and quips at his own cleverness till the end credits.

Christopher Collet's character is totally unlikable, see him in First Born... same annoying attitude. Also about a kid who is incestuously fixated on his mother's relationship with her boyfriend.