ReaderKenka Let's be realistic.

Dirtylogy It's funny, it's tense, it features two great performances from two actors and the director expertly creates a web of odd tension where you actually don't know what is happening for the majority of the run time.

Sarita Rafferty There are moments that feel comical, some horrific, and some downright inspiring but the tonal shifts hardly matter as the end results come to a film that's perfect for this time.

Monique One of those movie experiences that is so good it makes you realize you've been grading everything else on a curve.

gavin6942 Paul Stephens (Christopher Collet)'s high school science project has gotten a little out of hand. He just built an atomic bomb. Now he's got 11 hours to make sure it doesn't work.The plot was likely influenced by the case of John Aristotle Phillips, a Princeton University undergraduate, who came to prominence in 1977 as the "A-Bomb Kid" for designing a nuclear weapon in a term paper using publicly available books and articles.Roger Ebert gave the film four out of four stars and called it "a clever, funny and very skillful thriller ... that stays as close as possible to the everyday lives of convincing people, so that the movie's frightening aspects are convincing". He particularly took note of how "sophisticated" the film was about the relationship between Paul Stephens and John Matthewson, while praising Brickman's ability to "combines everyday personality conflicts with a funny, oddball style of seeing things, and wrap up the whole package into a tense and effective thriller. It's not often that one movie contains so many different kinds of pleasures." Although I am surprised that Ebert heaped such praise on this film, which seems to have been largely forgotten, I am glad that he did. The Cold War and nuclear war were common themes in the 1980s, whether the direct plot or only alluded to. And some films became huge (WarGames) and others have been forgotten. I suspect this one is largely forgotten because it lacks big name actors (with all due respect to John Lithgow). If it hasn't already been done, someone ought to get a special edition in the works...

robert-temple-1 This is the third of the four feature films directed by Marshall Brickman. It is ironic that the title is THE MANHATTAN PROJECT, because Brickman wrote Woody Allen's films MANHATTAN (1979, see my review) and MANHATTAN MURDER MYSTERY. Now, that's what I call throwing a name around! In this film, in order to escape Central Park perhaps, the location is shifted to Ithaca, New York, the location of Cornell University. They have lots of scientists there, but sshhhhh, I am telling you that only on a need to know basis and you must keep it to yourself. There are lots of FBI men around and they have guns. Brickman's first film was SIMON (1980, see my review), which was not entirely successful, and his second was LOVESICK (1983, see my review), which was an excellent romantic comedy. This film moves into new territory, and by that I do not just mean Brickman has temporarily migrated upstate. The film stars the 18 year-old Christopher Collet as a science prodigy who decides to build a small atomic bomb in order to try to win first prize at the National Science Fair. John Lithgow is excellent as the nuclear scientist who romantically befriends Collet's divorced mother (Jill Eikenberry with her bright blue eyes, and by the way you may have noticed that for at least three decades now all women in American movies are divorced) and from whom Collet steals the necessary plutonium. He has a very jolly girlfriend played by the 20 year-old Cynthia Nixon (no relation apparently to Tricky Dick), who helps him sneak out of the top secret lab. The film is very amusing and Brickman, who co-wrote the film, has added several very punchy comedic lines of dialogue, as one would expect from a Woody Allen author. Brickman does an excellent job of directing, and this film really is a good one. Naturally, the atomic bomb's unprimed detonation mechanism is accidentally set on timer by 'a spontaneous neutron emission'. Those neutrons really never could control themselves. Can the bomb be defused before it destroys 'New York, Pennsylvania, and Canada' as a worried Lieutenant Colonel puts it while his men brandish their sniper rifles and machine guns? It is all good fun and also rather hair-raising. Also, there's a message in there somewhere.

edwagreen Absurd film. This is exactly what you get when Hollywood tries to go scientific-in this case nuclear physics.A young lad, a prankster with a brain, together with his girlfriend steal plutonium from the lab. His mother has become friendly with scientist John Lithgow.With the nuclear material, our young lad has made a small bomb. The FBI and other federal agents are after our young hero. They point rifles to his chest.The best part of this ridiculous film was how the dynamic duo were able to pull off their caper.Then of course, we must have the deactivating of the bomb, and how that's done before the deadline and mom and the girlfriend rushing up to our hero at film's end. Let's go beyond this and pursue how this recalcitrant should have been tried for stealing this material and placing the northeast in such jeopardy.The film is a miserable one. It made me think of my miserable chemistry teacher and how she tortured me. The film tortured me as well.

Sledgeh101 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.