... especially after having viewed a far more recent and successful film covering much of the same material - Oppenheimer (2023). The difference being, of course, that Oppenheimer was actually about Robert Oppenheimer's life, thus the extra hour after the atomic bomb is developed, and this film is about the development of the bomb. Plus, this seems much more "Hollywood-ized" than Oppenheimer.
There are two male leads - Paul Newman as General Leslie Groves, the general who wants to see combat action, but because of his engineering background winds up in charge of the Manhattan Project. Then there is Dwight Schultz, the nerd from the 80s show "The A-Team", as Robert Oppenheimer, a theoretical physicist who by his own admission was never good at lab work, asked to lead the team of scientists actually working on the bomb.
Since you have a lead of great gravitas in Paul Newman as Groves, they simply had to give him more to do than go about seeming bombastic, so he does more than just getting Oppenheimer in line so that he can keep the scientists in line. Instead Newman's Groves seems to be trying to convince Oppenheimer to actually think the way that Groves does, an almost seduction of his frame of mind. I'm not sure this works as Schultz's Oppenheimer is just not up to the task of holding his own against Newman's General Groves. Plus, I doubt the actual Groves had the time or the inclination for such stuff.
John C. McGinley plays...well...John C. McGinley, as he did in every role I've seen him in, as a doctor at Los Alamos, and good use is made of him with great one liners and that swagger and cheek that only McGinley could bring to a role. John Cusack plays thoughtful physicsist Michael Merriman whose diary entries narrate part of the film and whose romance with a Los Alamos nurse takes up a good part of the middle.
I'd recommend this one. It's quiet and thoughtful, probably better than its reputation.
There are two male leads - Paul Newman as General Leslie Groves, the general who wants to see combat action, but because of his engineering background winds up in charge of the Manhattan Project. Then there is Dwight Schultz, the nerd from the 80s show "The A-Team", as Robert Oppenheimer, a theoretical physicist who by his own admission was never good at lab work, asked to lead the team of scientists actually working on the bomb.
Since you have a lead of great gravitas in Paul Newman as Groves, they simply had to give him more to do than go about seeming bombastic, so he does more than just getting Oppenheimer in line so that he can keep the scientists in line. Instead Newman's Groves seems to be trying to convince Oppenheimer to actually think the way that Groves does, an almost seduction of his frame of mind. I'm not sure this works as Schultz's Oppenheimer is just not up to the task of holding his own against Newman's General Groves. Plus, I doubt the actual Groves had the time or the inclination for such stuff.
John C. McGinley plays...well...John C. McGinley, as he did in every role I've seen him in, as a doctor at Los Alamos, and good use is made of him with great one liners and that swagger and cheek that only McGinley could bring to a role. John Cusack plays thoughtful physicsist Michael Merriman whose diary entries narrate part of the film and whose romance with a Los Alamos nurse takes up a good part of the middle.
I'd recommend this one. It's quiet and thoughtful, probably better than its reputation.