Matcollis This Movie Can Only Be Described With One Word.

Spoonixel Amateur movie with Big budget

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.

Stephanie There is, somehow, an interesting story here, as well as some good acting. There are also some good scenes

LeonLouisRicci Brian Dennehy's Commanding Performance as Brig. Gen Leslie Groves drives this TV-Docudrama about "The Manhattan Project", the Scientific/Militaristic Collaboration to Design and Build the First Atomic Bomb.But Producing the "Super Weapon" opens up a "Pandora's Box" of Conflicting Philosophies and Strategic Questions that Human Beings were Forced to Answer, and Answer Quickly.History is Played Out quite Accurately, or as Accurate as something like a TV-Movie is Capable. It's an Astonishingly Detailed Account of the much Talked About Event."The Manhattan Project, Los Alamos, Oak Ridge, Trinity, Fat Man & Little Boy, Oppenheimer, Hiroshima, Nagasaki, Fall Out", and other Terms enters and remains in the Lexicon of Nervous Language to this Day. This is a good Dramatization. David Strathairn is Excellent as Robert J. Oppenheimer, "Oppie", to His Friends and Colleagues. He is more of a Complex Person than Groves and it wasn't as Easy to Flesh Out, but is given His Due and enough Screen Time to be a Fair Account of the Man.Overall, the Movie is a Must Watch for Historians and for Anyone Interested in War Room and Laboratory Intrigue where America's "Hawks and Doves" Mated and the "Love Child" and its Offspring are Still Alive and the Biography is Not Yet Complete.

bandw I am usually suspicious of docudramas, but from the books I have read and the documentaries I have seen on the topic of the making of the atomic bomb, I would say that this movie does not veer too far from the truth. There is very little of "certain events have been changed for dramatic effect." In reading histories you often get bogged down in details and do not have clear visual images of the people or environments, and documentaries usually try to piece together fragments of interviews and archival footage. I found that this movie was able to supply a coherent narrative while presenting the major players and events. No fancy cinematic effects, just straightforward story telling. It's a major undertaking to tell this story and this is a quality production.I thought the choice of actors was quite good. Brian Dennehy makes a good general Groves and Michael Tucker is almost a dead ringer for Leo Szilard. Of course there is only one Oppenheimer, but I thought David Strathairn does a good impersonation. They kind of went overboard on Einstein's hair, that wig must have weighed several pounds.It probably helps to have a little background on the topic before seeing this, since there are a lot of players. The whole effort had a cast of thousands, and this movie has a cast of several dozen. One thing I thought could have been better was an easier identification of the initial appearances of various people, maybe even subtitles. For example, Patrick Breen is listed as playing Richard Feynman, but I missed catching his appearance even though I was looking for him.I thought the movie was particularly good in presenting the back-room discussions about the decision to drop the bombs. That will be debated for all time I am sure, but you come away from this thinking that it was a mistake. In that you would be in agreement with Generals Eisenhower and Marshall as well as Truman's Chief of Staff Admiral Leahy. Were over 200,000 people sacrificed in order to make a statement to the Russians or to prevent their taking a part of Japan? How many U.S. lives were saved by the bombings? Once there was the bomb, was it inevitable that it be used? Could not a demonstration have been scheduled? And so on.For a complete history the book, "The Making of the Atomic Bomb," by Richard Rhodes is good. I found the 1981 documentary, "The Day After Trinity," to be excellent. It has archival footage, but most importantly it has interviews with many of the major players. I think this movie makes a sincere attempt to tell the story, within the limitations of a normal movie run-time, of one of the defining events in the history of mankind.

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.