CrawlerChunky In truth, there is barely enough story here to make a film.

SanEat A film with more than the usual spoiler issues. Talking about it in any detail feels akin to handing you a gift-wrapped present and saying, "I hope you like it -- It's a thriller about a diabolical secret experiment."

Kaydan Christian A terrific literary drama and character piece that shows how the process of creating art can be seen differently by those doing it and those looking at it from the outside.

Juana what a terribly boring film. I'm sorry but this is absolutely not deserving of best picture and will be forgotten quickly. Entertaining and engaging cinema? No. Nothing performances with flat faces and mistaking silence for subtlety.

cliometrician This is a very good film on the Manhattan Project, the building of the atomic bomb. It is especially a faithful adaptation of the book, DAY ONE, by Peter Wyden. Other reviews here have done a good job of description--I will add that it is far superior to the Paul Newman film on the same topic: FAT MAN AND LITTLE BOY.In addition, this film is a good teaching tool. I used to show clips from the movie to my U.S. History classes, particularly the latter portion of the film where multiple viewpoints are given of the reasons for and against the dropping of the bomb, whether or not it was necessary, and what would be the moral consequences if such a weapon was used. These viewpoints, from the military and civilian leaders in Washington and at Los Alamos, are not conjured up from the mind of some scriptwriter--they are historically accurate.

Steve Skafte "Day One" feels like a portrait of the longest pre-meditated murder in the history of mankind. There are the killers, the unwitting accomplices, and the witnesses. It's all so well-documented, so perfectly arranged. This is the coldest kind of tale imaginable. Given the opportunity to put a distance of emotion and miles between the countless innocent dead and some perceived military victory, a country at large was deceived into believing that some great good or justice was being served.In spite of how you or I might see the results of the design, construction and eventual detonation of the first nuclear devices, this film doesn't take sides. Brian Dennehy and David Strathairn (two of my favorite actors) create incredibly believable characters. Michael Tucker, who looks very much like Leo Szilard, is excellent as well. I enjoyed Joseph Sargent's directorial work, a sort of off-hand realist quality he brings to nearly all his films. It serves the story well. "Day One" is a good film, just not the most engaging or tightly woven one. Your interest should depend directly on your familiarity with the subject matter.

Air America I found this quite a disappointment after seeing other films. Many thoughts are introduced but not explained. A very thin story line which seems to have wandering parts. It appears to have been very darkly (lighting) shot, especially among the army uniforms to try to conceal that correct military jackets and other apparel was not sought out. The central character of any film in the atomic development is Dr. Oppenheimer and he seems to be reduced to a pipe smoking poor choice of a character instead of the commanding presence he was and of the many contributions he took part in, in the scientific equations. I thought the choice of portrayals of principals such as David Ogden Stires as President Roosevelt was a great diminution of FDR's extremely important role. Many parts central to the story are only minimally touched upon. The building the sites at Hanford and Oak Ridge is not even explained. Plutonium is said to be existing in thin air instead of as a transuranic element produced by of bombardment by a radioactive source such as a form of uranium with neutrons. In all, I found this to be very poorly done, though perhaps understandable because it was meant for and likely had little television exposure. Buy another film available if you want to see ample storytelling with any degree of accuracy.

theowinthrop General Leslie Groves is one of those military figures of true importance whom we rarely remember. Like his American Civil War counterpart, Maj. General Herman Haupt, his achievements made final victory possible but were taken for granted by most people. Haupt was the engineering (particularly railroad construction) genius who kept the armies of the Union constantly in motion, constantly supplied, constantly able to bounce back. He just never commanded a brigade, regiment, corps, or army in a major battle, so only Civil War buffs recall him. Groves did two things of overwhelming lasting worth that a grateful nation has to forever keep in mind. First, he was the man who was in charge of the construction of the Pentagon as our military center. Secondly, on the overwhelming success of that achievement, FDR put him in charge of the "Manhattan Project", regarding the construction of an atomic bomb. And he was so good both projects came without a hitch.So far Groves has only been portrayed twice in any movies of consequences. The first is this sadly forgotten television movie, where Brian Dennehy portrays him as an intelligent if no nonsense type. The other is the commercial film, FAT MAN AND LITTLE BOY, wherein Paul Newman portrayed Groves. I have to admit that Newman's portrayal is not one of his best - he seems to have taken the term "gung ho" too much to heart. Dennehy's Groves knows who he is, and how smart he is (Groves was able to calculate complex formulas in his head because he took the same engineering courses for two five year stints one after the other to master the subject)so nothing really surprises him. Newman never shows this - he keeps acting like he's about to be handed the best flexible flyer in the world to play with. It is not Newman's worse performance but it is far from his best. But Dennehy seems to have Groves down pat.What makes this film even more superior to FAT MAN AND LITTLE BOY is the discussion of the train of events that led to Groves' selection and his running the project with J. Robert Oppenheimer (David Strathairn). The idea of an atomic weapon had not been on the minds of physicists and theorists throughout the work of Einstein, Bohr, Heidleberg, Thompson, and the others involved up to the 1930s. It was the threat of Nazism that spurred the need for the U.S. and Britain to have the bomb because of the possibility of Germany getting there first. Today we know that Hitler's dislike of physics was intense because of the number of Jewish figures who were involved in the science. But we are also aware that he did not totally refuse to consider getting a potential super weapon despite his hatred of those who were creating the fundamentals needed to turn theory into fact. We are still trying to figure out how close the Nazis came to a final a-bomb. There is some chance that Heisenberg (put in charge in Germany of the project) may have misled Hitler about results. We just don't know, but I don't think we would have cared for the Nazis getting the bomb first. At the same time, led by Leo Szilard of Hungary (Michael Tucker), various Jewish physicists urged Einstein to send a fateful letter to President Roosevelt. FDR was spurred by that into putting the project together under Oppenheimer (in charge of translating the physics theories into practical fact), and Groves (in overall charge of getting the material, manpower, and security in place). As the film progresses, we watch such moments as the creation of the first chain reaction in Chicago by a group headed by Enrico Fermi. As the process of the bomb speeds along, we are aware of forces tearing at it. One is the fall of Nazi Germany (which many of the physicists would have felt no qualms about vaporizing with the bomb). Once we are only facing Japan the physicists led again by Szilard (urge the project be scrapped). They did not realize the heavy potential casualties in the invasion of Japan, nor that the project was (after the Pentagon project) the biggest financial military project in our history and could not be simply dropped. Even when the bomb was proved to work in the desert, there was a further problem: What target to choose in Japan. Barnard Hughes plays Secretary of War Henry Stimson, an old style gentleman. It turns out the military had wanted to choose Kyoto as the target over Hiroshima. Stimson insisted on the newer Japanese city. It seems there were ancient structures connected to Japanese culture that Stimson did not wish to see destroyed in Kyoto. Hiroshima was another story.So the film ends with Hiroshima (and subsequently Nagasaki) doomed. The process from start to end is accurately and correctly told for a change in a television "docudrama". Ironic postscript: in 2005, on the 60th anniversary of the Hiroshima bombing the current Mayor of Kyoto was interviewed. While he was certainly appalled at the huge loss of life in his fellow Japanese city, somehow he was able to take it all more philosophically than most would think, while noting the preserved antiquities of his town.