Samuel-Shovel I have no idea who greenlit this movie. It is completely absurd. The plot makes 0 sense, the science is a farce, the acting is atrocious! Why did they decide to steal this uranium? Why is this atomic bomb factory guarded by one security guard who makes Paul Blart look like a Navy Seal? Why does he let random cars through the gate? Why did the missing uranium go unnoticed for so long? Why did he decide to make an atomic bomb? For a science fair project, sure, that's valid. Why did the government send 5 spooks to go retrieve this bomb instead of an entire platoon? Why did those other nerds aide and abed in this crime for these 2 kids they met for about 30 seconds? Why isn't Paul's body riddled with cancer due to his unsafe exposure to nuclear materials? In the final scene, why is there 8 people with guns instead of 200? Why does everyone get to walk away heroes at the end instead of being put in GitMo? There's dozens of more plot holes but I'm not even going to waste any more time. I gave the movie 2 extra stars for having John Lithgow and Richard Jenkins. Not a recommend...

lappyblue I was surprised that some did not enjoy this 'classic' 80's film-- I for one have to disagree. First thing that annoyed me is that Christopher Collet is the 'star' of this film, yet IMB gives John Lithgow top billing-- Really? This is unacceptable. This is a film about a young man (Paul) who is brilliant but comes from a broken family with an absentee father and feels protective of the person who cares for him-- his mother! John Lithgow comes into the story line secondary to Paul. The most enduring character is the lead character Christopher Collet-- who, out of lack of any other worthy extra curricular activity, decides (after meeting the man who wants to date his mother) to build a '1st Place' nuclear bomb (science project) with plutonium absconded from a lab where mom's new boyfriend works (a boyfriend Paul doesn't particularly respect) -- shades of 'The Graduate'. Any political correctness about the 'war- mongering lab' comes from Paul's girlfriend (Elizabeth) who is much more so an activist than Paul. The film is a great example of 1980's film genre-- shades of 'War Games', 'Ferris Bueller', etc. The film conveys to me a story about a sharp young man who is struggling to find himself after his brilliant (architect-father) and mother have separated. Without continuing to ruin the film for those that haven't seen it: I say watch it-- it's excellent! If you missed out on the 1980's, well, I am so sorry for you! I saw it when it came out in 1986 and have always loved it, especially now, when I desire an '80's' mood. Enjoy this film for what it is and immerse yourself in the public consciousness of a bygone era!

disdressed12 i gotta say,i loved this movie.it's very well crafted.the atmosphere of the film is fantastic.i loved the way the film is lit.the characters are well constructed and believable,as well as being sympathetic.the acting is first rate.the music score couldn't have been better.the suspense is built to just the right point and isn't over done.the movie is almost two hours long but it moves comparatively quick for a movie of that length.i'm actually surprised there wasn't a sequel or that there hasn't been a remake.i think a remake(especially set in in present times)has the potential to be an interesting movie if done right with the right director/producer/cast.anyway,for me,The Manhattan Project is a 9/10

n_r_koch Anti-Gravity Belts and Shrinking Rays are okay...unless you are making grandiose references to Oppenheimer and portentious speeches about real nuclear weapons on real planets where they can be made only with two really toxic materials. But even if plutonium could really be stored in sports bottles in a transparent case in a room with where a guy plays with lasers, one can't help but wonder: Why did the boy genius walk out of the lab but then drive the plutonium out of it in a remote-controlled car after cutting a hole in the building with the laser? Didn't anyone notice the hole he left in the building, the fence, and in the line of trees beyond the fence? Would all the world's super-pure plutonium be guarded by an old coot who appears to be legally blind and a thick besides? Why does Cynthia Nixon ask all their friends to drive to where a nuclear bomb is? Why does Paul need a written statement about the pure plutonium lab if he has the pure plutonium himself? Why does Paul's Mom forget to shampoo? Oh, that one actually does get answered.There are too many howlers to believe in this thing. It came from the same guy who wrote SLEEPER, in which the nonsense science was part of the comedy. WAR GAMES is more plausible but it ends with the same silly speeches. Of course if you ever do rid the world of nuclear weapons you merely make the first new weapon all the more valuable. Oh, well. Maybe a comedy about plutonium is a job no writer can manage.