Season #: 2, 1
User Score
7.8

Generally favorable reviews- based on 99 Ratings

User score distribution:
  1. Positive: 81 out of 99
  2. Negative: 11 out of 99
Watch Now

Where To Watch

Stream On
Stream On
Buy on
Stream On
Stream On
Stream On
Stream On
Expand

Review this tv show

  1. Your Score
    0 out of 10
    Rate this:
    • 10
    • 9
    • 8
    • 7
    • 6
    • 5
    • 4
    • 3
    • 2
    • 1
    • 0
    • 0
  1. Submit
  2. Check Spelling

User Reviews

  1. Dec 3, 2015
    2
    Quite possibly the most disappointing (new) television series I've watched in the last 10 years.
    The show revolves around the 'lives' of a group of scientists (plus their wives/girlfriends) in what is a completely fictional narrative, using the backdrop of Los Alamos and the drive of each 'group' to exist in a world hidden from the rest of the country.
    There are some good points, the
    Quite possibly the most disappointing (new) television series I've watched in the last 10 years.
    The show revolves around the 'lives' of a group of scientists (plus their wives/girlfriends) in what is a completely fictional narrative, using the backdrop of Los Alamos and the drive of each 'group' to exist in a world hidden from the rest of the country.
    There are some good points, the acting is top drawer, as is the score and photography... But the producers have fallen into the 'modern' trap of trying to offer up 21st Century values on a show set in 1943. I understand that rampant sexism, constant smoking, blatant racist slurs, and the fact that most people at Los Alamos seemed to spend pretty much all their off time having sex... Don't make for what is, ostensibly, a TV show which follows modern guidelines on acceptability.
    No one swears, there's not a 'lived in' sense to any of it...
    But, it's also incredibly dull.
    The Manhattan Project was one of America's greatest achievements of the Twentieth Century, having that as the driving foreground to a weekly television show would have been fantastic.
    But... As the series progresses, the narrative switches from the scientific/moralistic dilemmas of the 'men', to the banal, incessant sniping of the 'women'. OK, the last episode of the first series does (because it has to) switch back to the more 'important' plot elements of the creation of the atom bomb...
    Yet, I suspect I won't be looking to tune into the second series, which is currently airing as I write this review.
    Definitely a show to avoid!
    Expand
  2. Apr 23, 2016
    0
    I began watching this series with the hope that it would be technically and/or scientifically interesting to see how the world's first atomic bomb was developed. Instead I watched with each passing episode how it was slowly devolving into what is basically an over-the-top Spanish soap opera with very little science involved. And now, by the thirteenth episode, it's pretty much jumped theI began watching this series with the hope that it would be technically and/or scientifically interesting to see how the world's first atomic bomb was developed. Instead I watched with each passing episode how it was slowly devolving into what is basically an over-the-top Spanish soap opera with very little science involved. And now, by the thirteenth episode, it's pretty much jumped the shark.

    Where to begin? Hard to say, there are so many places this farce just got everything wrong.

    The biggest part they got wrong was the faux hostility that the gun vs. implosion teams have for one another. Yes, there was competition, but like Feynman says "nature cannot be fooled". So, they admitted to themselves that rather than put all their energies into one idea that in the end might have an insurmountable problem attached to it (which the gun method did), they should explore other ideas just in case the other idea doesn't work out. They certainly weren't going to lie or steal resources from the other to do that. Nor were they going threaten to kill members of the opposing team. No, they openly agreed to try multiple approaches. Oppenheimer wasn't hell-bent on the gun method working, he was open to whatever might work because nobody really knew back then what would actually work and what wouldn't without exploring those ideas first. Roosevelt and Truman didn't give a damn which method was being used so long as it worked.

    Which brings me to the portrayal of Oppenheimer. Who in the world decided to play him as a brooding, anti-social, stuck up, unpersonable, autistic-type person? He didn't single-handedly build the bomb through his gargantuan intellect, he brought together the greatest minds of the time to do it for him. He was bright but was also good at bringing hugely talented people together. In order to bring people like that together you have to be a person that gets along fairly well with other scientists. The Oppenheimer in this film, however, treats his fellow scientists like they're common peasants, like they should feel lucky to even be able to talk to him. What a bunch of nonsense. You don't achieve the levels of professionalism that he did in his field by being that way. You're not going to get good ideas out of people by ridiculing them.

    The writers treated the idea of compartmentalization as though violating it amounted to a death sentence for those who violated it, when in reality nobody really gave a flip because you can't get science done that way and they knew it. It was impossible to develop the bomb in the time they had if scientists were not freely allowed to discuss their work with other scientists. Oppenheimer got that dead right and even explained to Groves why it wouldn't work. It's why they brought them all to Los Alamos and put them all within the same fence in the first place, so they could at least control them a little bit that way. This movie got it dead wrong. The scientists rebelled at being compartmentalized and the brass knew they'd be up a creek if they started trying to silence them because all the scientists were in agreement.

    By now the series has grown men with PhDs in physics, men at the tops of their field basically lying to one another at every opportunity with the intention that if they keep lying, their ideas will eventually work. People like that don't get invited en masse to projects like this. People like that put out press releases for cold fusion and get called out on it when other scientists notice it has holes in it. If there was a problem with the gun method, there wouldn't be just one or two people that knew it wouldn't work. EVERYONE would have known because they were all freely talking to one another about it. The people who built the bomb didn't covet the idea to the extent that it would destroy their careers to follow it any further and certainly didn't kill themselves over being chosen to investigate a method that turned out to not work.

    And, of course, since this is an American film, there are various subplots of this person sleeping with that person which is what you get when you know you have nothing else to say. There is so much fluff in this film that seems designed simply to fill space because nothing interesting is actually going on. The subplots of infidelity, of conspiracy, of treason, of homosexuality, ad nauseam.

    Go watch Oppenheimer (1980). I couldn't find anywhere I could stream it online so I just bought the DVDs from Amazon. Much more interesting series without all the soap opera drama that plagues Manhattan. Oppenheimer goes into exquisite details explaining things at some points and the geek in me just loves it.
    Expand
  3. Oct 15, 2014
    1
    Do not watch this series if you are even passingly familiar with the actual Manhattan Project. This series has great actors. The story line and character development is good but the history is written as if the writers used "Atom Bombs For Dummies". The story line has the following factual basis: there was a World War II, there is a state called New Mexico where an atomic bomb wasDo not watch this series if you are even passingly familiar with the actual Manhattan Project. This series has great actors. The story line and character development is good but the history is written as if the writers used "Atom Bombs For Dummies". The story line has the following factual basis: there was a World War II, there is a state called New Mexico where an atomic bomb was developed. All else defaults to Mr. Wizard meets 'As The World Turns'. Expand
  4. Oct 14, 2014
    2
    This series uses a historical event to portray a contrived soap opera of psychologically scared and emotionally weak individuals to give the impression of what life was like there. It has little bearing on the reality/ history of that industry nor of the people involved. The real problem is that todays generation will believe that's what actually happened or how people behaved. It isThis series uses a historical event to portray a contrived soap opera of psychologically scared and emotionally weak individuals to give the impression of what life was like there. It has little bearing on the reality/ history of that industry nor of the people involved. The real problem is that todays generation will believe that's what actually happened or how people behaved. It is utterly contrived. As others have said I would never recommend this show to anybody because it has no basis in reality. The CHARACTERS in this program are paper thin and only a tool for the writers to tag an implausible plot line to. Expand
  5. Jan 14, 2017
    3
    Un sujet passionnant malheureusement mal traité (et maltraité) par une succession de partis pris et de choix hasardeux et par un manque de réalisme flagrant de temps à autre (une croix gamée sur le casque d'un soldat allemand de la... Première Guerre Mondiale ! ou bien ce physicien de couleur dans la centrale nucléaire !... à une époque où les universités étaient encore interdites auxUn sujet passionnant malheureusement mal traité (et maltraité) par une succession de partis pris et de choix hasardeux et par un manque de réalisme flagrant de temps à autre (une croix gamée sur le casque d'un soldat allemand de la... Première Guerre Mondiale ! ou bien ce physicien de couleur dans la centrale nucléaire !... à une époque où les universités étaient encore interdites aux Noirs).

    Du coup, on s'interroge sur la légitimité et la véracité du fil des évènements romancés ici... Romancés, trop romancés à mon humble avis, voire satiriques à leur insu ? pourtant la série se veut très docte et sérieuse. On ne voit Oppenheimer que très rarement et il est présenté comme un sale con, imbus de sa personne. En revanche, le "héros" et l'inventeur de la bombe serait ce Frank Winter, superchieur de son état et sorte de prince McGyver de l'atome.

    La série a pourtant quelques qualités comme son ambiance sécuritaire obsessionnelle et sa paranoïa de l'espionnage et se donne du mal pour donner un visage humain à tous ces scientifiques exceptionnels. Mais outre son sentimentalisme exagéré et peu crédible, elle dérape dans les grandes largeurs en déroulant la vie sexuelle débridée de nos super génies. Apparemment, à Los Alamos, on ne pensait qu'à se vider les burnes entre deux équations et une bouteille de gnôle.

    Donc, je sais pas, mais j'ai l'impression qu'on se fout de notre gueule dans Manhattan : si c'est "ça" l'histoire de la Bombe, moi j'ai marché sur la lune avec Haddock et Tournesol.
    Expand
  6. Aug 3, 2014
    3
    Sorry, I can't recommend this show except to chicks because it has much more in common with a show like "Army Wives". There are so many problems with this show, the latter being just one: it starts in 1943 so the setting is one in which your father or grandfather grew up, and it's not at all colorful; in fact, they might as well filmed this in black-and-white because the muted grays andSorry, I can't recommend this show except to chicks because it has much more in common with a show like "Army Wives". There are so many problems with this show, the latter being just one: it starts in 1943 so the setting is one in which your father or grandfather grew up, and it's not at all colorful; in fact, they might as well filmed this in black-and-white because the muted grays and browns are just as bad. Next, the story starts after the project has begun, so there's no exposition of the Manhattan Project at all; in fact, the characters aren't even really named. That means this show is going to lean heavily on flashbacks which just adds to confusion, especially at the outset. It's also leaning heavily on family relationships which is more distracting and FF bait. I was hoping the show would focus more on the science, the policy and ethical debates but instead we're getting splashes of Army Wives and Mad Men's misogyny. Deleted and removed from DVR's timer. Expand
  7. Dec 23, 2014
    0
    A big disappointment!! - I'm embarrassed to say that I watched this at all. When will Hollywood understand that great TV and Movies DO NOT HAVE to big filled with every pervert director, writer, and producer's weird sexual fantasies?
    I wish someone would make this for TV without all the innuendos and sexual content.
    DO NOT watch this - you'll just encourage them. - Too bad - this would
    A big disappointment!! - I'm embarrassed to say that I watched this at all. When will Hollywood understand that great TV and Movies DO NOT HAVE to big filled with every pervert director, writer, and producer's weird sexual fantasies?
    I wish someone would make this for TV without all the innuendos and sexual content.
    DO NOT watch this - you'll just encourage them. - Too bad - this would have been a fantastic series.
    Expand
  8. Aug 10, 2014
    3
    another liberal hack job at rewriting American history it portrays the scientists as a bunch of hand-wringing liberal wimps and the woman as modern 21st century woman the scientist's were proud to be working on this project to bring and end to a horrible war the only thing that resembles reality is the location and the project otherwise it should only be viewed as a fictional drama
  9. Sep 15, 2014
    0
    I was really looking forward to this show. I thought it was going to be about the Manhattan project and how the scientific community worked together to create the first atomic weapons. WRONG! It's a soap opera about their wives and their feelings. There are lesbians and alcoholics and prostitutes, but almost nothing of the Manhattan project. The project is just the background for all ofI was really looking forward to this show. I thought it was going to be about the Manhattan project and how the scientific community worked together to create the first atomic weapons. WRONG! It's a soap opera about their wives and their feelings. There are lesbians and alcoholics and prostitutes, but almost nothing of the Manhattan project. The project is just the background for all of the weak and boring characters they invented for this soap opera. If you name a show Manhattan then it should be about that, not about lesbians and cheaters. Expand
Metascore
78

Generally favorable reviews - based on 23 Critic Reviews

Critic score distribution:
  1. Positive: 20 out of 23
  2. Negative: 0 out of 23
  1. Reviewed by: Jeff Korbelik
    Aug 11, 2014
    100
    This is the best new show of the summer.
  2. Reviewed by: Ed Bark
    Jul 29, 2014
    91
    John Benjamin Hickey’s point man performance leads the way, with his character’s demons and dilemmas already etched like fissures in his face. Carrying the weight of the world can be heavy lifting. Manhattan so far shows every sign of being able to shoulder the load.
  3. Reviewed by: Gail Pennington
    Jul 27, 2014
    100
    Manhattan is in other class entirely, the kind of series that is so good, it lifts a network into a whole new tier. What “Mad Men” did for AMC, Manhattan could do for WGN.