Interesteg What makes it different from others?

ManiakJiggy This is How Movies Should Be Made

Twilightfa Watch something else. There are very few redeeming qualities to this film.

Darin One of the film's great tricks is that, for a time, you think it will go down a rabbit hole of unrealistic glorification.

SnoopyStyle It's 1943, 766 days before Hiroshima. Charlie Isaacs with his wife Abby and young son arrive at the secret Los Alamos research base tasked with creating the atomic bomb, the Manhattan Project. Reed Akley is the chief designer under Robert Oppenheimer. He hopes that Charlie has the answer to his problem. Dr. Frank Winter leads a small group on an alternative design. The group includes Helen Prins, Paul Crosley, Glen Babbit, Jim Meeks, Fritz Fedowitz, and Sid Liao. Family life is a struggle in the armed camp. Frank's botanist wife Dr. Liza Winter slowly uncovers the secret while daughter Callie is tired of the camp. Through it all, there is the threat of the Nazi program and spies within the camp.This is a fictionalization of the real Manhattan project. I like the first season with the personal ambitions, scientific intrigue, and rivalry. There are situations that seems wrong but it's still very compelling. The second season starts going down a rocky path. It starts with Frank's Kafkaesque imprisonment. It's surreal with an obvious reveal. It also separates Frank from the rest of the show. Without Frank, the rest of the show sputters. By the time he returns, the show has stalled and struggles to recover. The espionage is intriguing but time and time again, the characters do unlikely actions. The show becomes more and more unreal. The final ending stalks the show. I almost wish for the show to create an alternate world history. It is also limited with a definitive expiry date. Two seasons are enough.

martinwjordan Buried deep in my Amazon Prime TV I found Manhattan and if it weren't for my morbid fascination with the Cold War I would have passed right over it. Expecting it to be moderately interesting just because of my interest I was blown away to discover that this is a deeply rich and engaging story of the whole Manhattan project taken from a most surprising angle - the effect of the project on the scientists themselves, their families and the army that surrounded them. This is a clever, well written and incredibly engaging take on what could be a very dry topic. I utterly commend the writers of this show for a fantastic and utterly original show and I command you to watch it. If you have Prime, the first series is free. If you don't... find a way to watch it!

GlorieuxJ I have always been very interested with the history of the Manhattan project and I really appreciate how this series brings to life the atmosphere of the Los Alamos laboratory in its early day with all of its grittiness and enthusiasm, but also with its obsessive secrecy. However, I also really object to the depiction of Robert Oppenheimer as an incredibly distant and God-like figure, totally disconnected with day-to-day operations. This depiction is very much at odds with those presented in the 1980 TV series "Oppenheimer" and the 1989 TV movie "Day One" or even in Richard Rhodes' 1980 best-selling book "The Making of the Atomic Bomb", all of which present Oppenheimer as a talented and inspired leader.

sdrinella I started out as a big fan of this show, partly for the science, whether or not it was accurate relative to history. And I was prepared to put up with the soap opera, "Dallas" qualities. But, I've become increasingly dissatisfied with the prurient and, mostly, implausible story lines. The writers seem to have dedicated themselves to fabricating multiple subplots that they think will dazzle in complexity........flashbacks, dream sequences........not to speak of eavesdropping and other tired devices. (I'm waiting for amnesia.) To me it's turned into a mess, and I've begun to have this visual image 4 or 5 Fonzies lined up on water skis. Sadly, I've decided to tune out.