The Manhattan Project (1986)

For all the hype it got I was expecting a lot more!

Better Late Then Never

best movie i've ever seen.

This is a coming of age storyline that you've seen in one form or another for decades. It takes a truly unique voice to make yet another one worth watching.

Had the Internet existed when this movie was made, I'd have expected the writers hastily read over a Wikipedia article on how to build a nuke, never bothered to actually make note of the details (since they couldn't understand them anyway) and didn't bother to research the effects of the intense radiation pure plutonium would be giving off, nor its incredible toxicity to biological life. They also didn't bother looking up government policy or even trying to craft a plausible ending. Not only were the characters being lost in the Idiot Ballpit, I think the movie's creators managed to infect themselves with their creation's idiocy. Nothing at all in the movie is remotely believable, as quite a few other reviewers have noted as well.I'd find "The Goonies" more believable than this nonsense, because at least that movie doesn't have the gall to pretend it's scientifically-based.

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.

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.

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.