The Manhattan Project - Movie Reviews - Rotten Tomatoes

The Manhattan Project Reviews

Page 1 of 6
September 16, 2017
Inappropriately named, makes you think it's about the actual Manhattan Project. At least the film was ok, nothing I'd go recommending to others though.
July 16, 2017
The writer and director wanted to have the audience rallying in support of a self centered kid who wanted to tell the system to stuff it. It was so far fetched of a plot. In general a lame script. It was really laughable when you see an off balanced kid and a nuclear scientist who sided with the kid, disarm the bomb then flee the building to a huge supporting crowd, who thought the kid was justified in his criminal behavior to expose the nuclear facility. WTF?
April 20, 2017
Really good movie just have to have a sense of humor
½ March 31, 2017
I remember seeing this back in the 80's when we first got cable television. It was great. Christopher Collet plays a whiz kid teen who makes a nuclear bomb and then tries to blow up his town with it. Its really slow up until the last half hour, but an entertaining and silly little movie.
½ July 11, 2015
Mixed feelings on this one. It's a bit too long and completely implausible. However, it did have some entertaining moments. The last half of the movie flows much better than the first half. Nothing overly special though.
August 23, 2014
This is one of a couple dozen movies from what I consider to be a magic time for movies. Chris is actually DAZZLING in FIRST BORN but almost as entertaining in this brilliantly simple story about a teen genius who manages to build a nuclear bomb. Like any great heist movie half the joy is watching him acquire the components. There's a charm to this and other movies of it's circa that's sorely missing these days. Technology killed it. The philosophical questions (like it's equally-entertaining predecessor WAR GAMES are more than a bit overworked but less pressurized in this flock. I missed you Chris when you vanished. Thanks for the great movies!
May 21, 2014
Saw this when I was young but didn't remember it. Now I know why. Very, very 80's, something that usually exacts me, yet with a theme that is ripe for remake or retelling or rebooting or whatever you want to call it. Problem here is, the kid in the movie is very smart and he lets everyone know that. He is an asshole. So he is hard to root for. Lithgow is as always, a joy to watch but this movie pretty much sucked. Oh and check out the love interest in this. Didn't even know Cynthia Nixon was a child actress.
½ April 28, 2014
Upset that a secret govt facility operates in Ithaca, obnoxious whizkid builds an atomic bomb in his basement. Makes you wonder why Iran can't seem to join the nuclear club. His motives are largely self-serving and after endangering the lives of everyone, I was hoping a sniper would take out the smug young terrorist. Army officials efforts seem limited to asking him nicely to give back the bomb.
November 20, 2013
Wonderfully encapsulates the 80's nuclear obsession. So much of our entertainment (movies, books, music) dealt with pre- and post-apocalyptic themes. The Manhattan Project did in a great way, that along with others like War Games may be a bit dated, but is just as watchable today as it was then..
½ October 23, 2013
Not the best acting. A little slow on the action. Had its cute spots.
Super Reviewer
August 31, 2013
It's a tad childish, but it just about redeems itself by the end.
April 24, 2013
I really liked this movie when I was a kid. I don't know if it would hold up so much today.
January 22, 2013
During the 1980's, there was a glut of super-intelligent kids in movies getting into hot water for one reason or another, but few of them were as smart or well written as "The Manhattan Project". Writer/director Marshall Brickman was a frequent collaborator of Woody Allen, and he turns what could have been a fairly standard movie into a tense, enormously entertaining thriller.

The downside is that it's highly improbable, and your feelings about the film's star is constantly shifting. Christopher Collet is an appealing young actor, and in this film he instantly brings to mind a young Matthew Broderick in the similarly themed "War Games", and you immediately like him. But, as his character becomes more and more irresponsible towards the end, it's hard to maintain that enjoyably mischievous quality that draws you to him in the beginning. When he seriously puts millions of lives in jeopardy near the end with a pretty vague explanation of why he's doing it, he becomes less of a hero.

But Brickman is a skilled director as well as a screenwriter, and the finale is delightfully tense despite your growing misgivings over Collet's character. The scene in which he steals the plutonium is clever and artfully filmed, but it cannot escape from under a cloud of questionable realism. Neither does the ending, in which the teen is simply let go without even a slap on the wrist.

And yet it's quite a testament to how well made "The Manhattan Project" is because I enjoyed it so much. It's entertaining, but rest assured that no one at home will attempt this.
December 7, 2012
Would like to see at some stage.
October 28, 2012
Nuclear weapons and high school students yipee! This is just like ten other 80's movies about a kid getting involved with a governmental thingy. Except I like the other movies more.

2008 Movies: 43
½ October 27, 2012
High school science wiz kid steals plutonium from a lab and builds an atomic bomb for a science fair. Makes you wonder why Iran is having trouble making one. At first I didn't mind the wiz, then I grew to dislike him. By the end I hated him.
½ August 20, 2012
What starts out is a potential great movie nothing too spectacular but mindless fun about a boy ( Christopher Collet) who's got the hots for his high school science classmate (Cynthia Nixon). Then it takes a sudden turn to serious Nuclear issues as John Lithgrow a scientist wheels himself into town and falls for Collet's mother. As 2 major science geeks hit heads Collets brainy solution to steal plutoniaum from the lab and build a bomb, becomes stupid and risking lives of others.
May 27, 2012
Sometimes, Showing Your Work Makes Things Worse

There are more than a few physicist jokes in this movie. Everyone in the lab has a Phillips screwdriver just on their person. At one point, there is a reference to what Kenneth Bainbridge said to J. Robert Oppenheimer at the Trinity test--and when a certain timer stops, it says "7:16:45," a reference to July 16, 1945. I leave it to your imagination to figure out what happened then. There's even an acknowledgement that some of the screwiest practical jokes are physicist/engineer/what-have-you practical jokes. And if you doubt that, look up some of the jokes Cal Tech has played, and that Cal Tech and MIT play on each other. These are not normal people. But that's actually kind of a problem, because it makes it obvious that they could have gotten a lot of things right but didn't. In fact, my biggest problem is never even mentioned, and it's a pretty serious problem that we'll be discussing in a bit.

Paul Stephens (Christopher Collet) is your average '80s movie Popular High School Science Geek. His mother, Elizabeth (Jill Eikenberry), finds a house for a genial nuclear physicist named John Mathewson (John Lithgow), and he asks her out. She says no, so he goes for tactic two--ingratiating himself to the kid. He offers to take Paul to his lab to show him a "sexy" laser--lasers were a lot more rare, and therefore interesting, in 1986--and Paul works out that the lab is doing some sort of complicated nuclear work. Because he knows what plutonium looks like, you see. Anyway, with the help of his new girlfriend, Jenny Anderman (Cynthia Nixon), he steals the plutonium solution from the lab, replacing it with some of Jenny's VO5 so no one will notice. And then, as the ultimate attention-getter, he builds a nuclear bomb out of it and enters it in a science fair in Manhattan. All the while, Mathewson is wooing Paul's mother, not noticing the whole bomb-building.

Or, you know, that Paul is suffering from radiation poisoning. Because he ought to be and isn't. I mean, his whole argument is that they shouldn't be building nuclear devices in a population center, and I really can't argue that point. Which is why you shouldn't bring a nuclear device to a science fair which I happen to know for a fact is across the street from Madison Square Garden. (I stayed at that self-same hotel in 1991, but the worst any of my group did was throw things out a seventh-floor window.) Eventually, we discover some of the dangers of the particle radiation his plutonium is emitting, but no one seems concerned that all of this has been happening in one of the biggest population centers in the world. He may not be an intentional terrorist, but I have no doubt that there will be a whole string of deaths in his wake, and it won't be "a few extra cases of cancer." I saw how John Cusack died in [i]Fat Man and Little Boy[/i], thank you very much.

I also have to tell you that I don't think Paul's problems are over just because the situation has been, shall we say, defused. What he did was illegal, and there's a good reason for that. Even leaving aside the [i]plutonium theft[/i], you don't want just any old kid building a nuclear bomb in his garage. And this kid comes across as whiny and petulant enough so that I was rooting for him to get busted all the way along. At the very least, I wanted Jenny to come to her senses and dump him. I also admit that the kid didn't come across to me as bright enough to do the necessary work. Yes, the hard stuff has been developed long ago, but still. It takes a bit more than just having that stuff around the house, and indeed, Mathewson is eventually shown as being kind of impressed at the work Paul did. However, based on how he acted in the movie, it would take something a lot less impressive to get me to be surprised that he could pull it off on his own. Somewhere along the lines of the science project he claimed he was doing, which was also dumb.

As always, this is a sign that the movie as a whole was boring to me. There's this incredibly lengthy sequence showing Paul's breaking into the lab to steal the plutonium gel, and the whole thing basically relied on having a single dumb security guard who was bad at his job. I mean, he let the girl in because it was raining and she had a flat tire and was this crying blonde teenager, and that's an easy way to get fired. Call a tow truck or something, sure, but let her in and leave your post? No. No, that's an excellent way to get fired. It also felt as though half the stuff Paul was doing was in and of itself an excellent way to get caught if he had assumed, as he ought, that a major installation would have more than some retirement-aged guy behind a desk looking at monitors. Yes, the system was electronic, but still. So I spent the whole movie grousing about things like that instead of thinking about the implications of the story as I was expected to. I hate when that happens.
May 11, 2012
an Adventure film for nerds!
April 13, 2012
80s + John Lithgow = epic! loved it!!
Page 1 of 6