User reviews

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.

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.

"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

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.

There are way too many over-analytical reviews ripping this movie to shreds! Folks, this is neither a documentary nor a nuclear physicist's guide to building a real atomic bomb- the whole idea is to entertain and maybe leave you wondering and thinking...what if? It's a story!

Looks like people actually do watch movies with pen and paper, rack up every possible reality defect, and review each one of them here. Doesn't sound entertaining to me. What they are lacking is an imagination. The movie does draw you in fully and take your mind for a good ride. That's what we pay for! Relax and enjoy, suspend your serious reality for an hour or two! It's a decent movie!

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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!

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.

THE MANHATTAN PROJECT is a seriously underrated film. It's categorized and advertised as a "comedy," but in fact it's more accurately categorized as a dramatic thriller with light elements. The problem is that anyone expecting to see a comedy will be disappointed because the film is not as funny as a "comedy" needs to be. That, I believe, is why it was not as popular at the box office as it deserved to be. However, the film is an extremely smart dramatic thriller, and anyone screening it with that expectation -- and knowing its main characters are extremely bright high school kids -- will not be disappointed. THE MANHATTAN PROJECT is not a perfect film, but it is an excellent one.

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.

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.