User reviews

Manhattan is perhaps one of the most underrated shows currently on television. The fact that it comes from WGN creates a stigma towards that many viewers are unable to surpass. But trust me once you dwell into the first couple of episodes, you will not regret it.

The writers on this show have done an incredible job in incorporating historical events into a show that is mostly based around fictional characters (although Oppenheimer makes several appearances, and Neils Bohr and Einstein also make brief appearances) and events. This creates a encapsulating drama that accompanies the main storyline about the creation of the atomic bomb. If you are looking for a historically accurate show more about the physics and mathematics behind the atomic bomb this is definitely not the show for you. At its heart it is a fully fledged drama. In particular I would like to commend the writers on drawing out the psychological trauma and difficulties placed on the scientists and individuals responsible for creating the bomb. This creates a more emotional connection to the characters and thus creates a synthetic sympathetic connection to these fictitious characters. Although generic at some stages the story lines are generally full of surprises which you would not expect and forces you to view the next episode, as any good televisions show should. Manhattan is one of those shows that are better watched several episodes in a row as the episodes tend to jump between the main character in focus.

Overall this is a criminally underrated show by the television community and should be given more credit for what has become a gripping show.

Terrific drama, riveting history, intense inter-relationships, great performances. Why is this show so unrecognized?

Why haven't many of these actors I love here gone on to greater things? (Rachel Brosnahan is the one exception.) I wish the writers director & cast would make something again.

I came into the pilot episode of Manhattan expecting the usual deal of bad production budgets, lackluster acting, and an overall cheap feel. Instead, I got a beautifully shot, smartly written, excellently acted, and a very "high quality" feel to everything.

Dare I say it, but I get slight Breaking Bad vibes from the cinematography and just the overall feel of everything. For example, the use of the music at the end of the pilot episode and the opening segment of the second episode that seemed random and unrelated to the main plot at hand. That isn't to say it feels ripped off, because it's not. It actually feels fresh and exciting to watch. Compared to most other shows this summer (example, The Last Ship) this is superior in every way conceivable, unless of course you're looking for the good guys blowing up the bad guys.

The second episode was just as impressive as the first. In fact, I actually watched it twice due to there being nothing else on TV. I never do that with anything.

I sincerely hope WGN picks this up for another season. The fact that there are still under 500 votes on IMDb as of the second episode leave me a little worried about how the ratings fare.

I guess the only thing the show could be doing better is having a better title sequence (think LOST, 24, Breaking Bad, etc. Just something simple but satisfying)!

I went in with low expectations. After all, how great could a show on the WGN network, with a presumably tiny budget, be worth a flip?

I'm SO glad I tried the show. From the pilot on (I'm on Episode 5 now), the show quality has been stellar. The acting is superb; the casting choices are brilliant. This show ranks with the best shows from HBO, Showtime, AMC, or FX.

I'm totally speculating, but I "imagine" some of the Breaking Bad crew in New Mexico is working on this production. They make good use of the New Mexico landscapes when appropriate, giving the show a nice organic feel.

Sure, the show is fiction, but the major elements that the show is based on are true. This is a great way to get some perspective on the war, the Manhattan project, and the lives of those who were involved with the project.

In summary, give it a chance ... highly recommended!

Viewed the first season over the past week on Hulu. Started out a bit boring, then a few sub plots were introduced that seemed pointless at first. But wow!! By the last 2-3 episodes I couldn't stop watching. The character development is very slow, and we are shown the worst of everyone first, it seems. As the show progresses, we see almost everyone has some redeeming humanity (and secrets, always secrets). The backdrop of all this is the cinematic paradise of the American Southwest circa 1940, and a war story that we all know how it ends. I feel like I was invited on a blind date, only to find by the end that I have made all kinds of new friends. I hope to hear WGN is going ahead with season 2.

Amazing writing, riveting history and great acting. Not sure why this didn't make the list of top dramas when it first came out. If you are a history buff you won't be disappointed. Give it a try!

Ill be short: people loving history, you will be disappointed.

People loving relationship drama,people complaining about life drama,and any other imaginable kind of poor written drama, this will be you cup of tea.

Production,acting wise it all looks great, but this a very sorry poor attempt of an excuse for having one of the most intriguing time periods in history, reduced to pointless family issues of mostly even fictional people.

Was stupid enough to watch it till episode 9 before realizing how much i was wasting my time.

Love what I see in this first episode of Manhattan. Actors are great, seemingly off the beaten path yet somehow so familiar. Well cast with performances that are believable. I want to feel immersed in this world like I'm just witnessing what's happening, (you know, like with Lost), and they pull it off in Manhattan. It's hard to create a period piece that doesn't feel "costumey" or cliché, but this show succeeds in the details. It looks and feels authentic. And what a treat they actually know how to apply a cool soundtrack that captures the time period and the moment, instead of detracting or seeming corny. And they understand when a character or scene should just be silent, leaving room for mystery and questions. So boring when everyone just seems to be delivering their lines..nice and neat cookie cutter style...not so here. Let us feel the confusion, the doubt, the fear, the mess. Also love the way the camera moves through a room like you're walking with it, don't know what it's called but it's awesome when done well. This t.v. show...feels like a movie, in a good way. And I don't need big names either, just give me "real"....but seriously..Olivia Williams...does it get much better? All of the cast for that matter gel perfectly in creating this world and the storyline for me is new and provocative. I can't wait to see it and the characters unfold.

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!

The Manhattan project was real but the characters and minor subplots are mostly fictional because they focus more on tensions and dynamics of living in a prison-type environment. If you can get over that, it is actually pretty good. If you were hoping to see a room of people just doing math on slide rulers all day, then you will be disappointed as science and math are the backdrop for the show. Those people looking for stories of the real scientists should probably read the books written on them.

The first episode was dry, but the third one was interesting. Hopefully, will keep getting better with each episode.

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.

This is a great idea for a mini-series. It started out strong concentrating on the Frank Winter character and a few others, J.B Hickey and Olivia Williams are terrific actors and draw the viewer into their story. The Charlie Isaacs character appears to be based on Richard Feynman, who related a number of Los Alamos incidents in his book"Surely You're Joking..." each of which would have made great episodes. Instead there has been little description of the very real drama that occurred there, and i agree with previous reviewers that this show has been a disappointment. I did very much like the episode about the trip to Oak Ridge, but it could have been so much better if they had stuck to the Feynman story.

{review based on the Pilot + scenes from the 2nd episode}

This a semi-fictional depiction of what happened in Los Alamos, New Mexico during World War II. As you probably know the Manhattan Project was a research and development project for the first Atomic Bomb, thus the name of the show Manh(A)ttan with the middle A stylized as separated.

The series follows the lives of the families living in a strict, military controlled, village in the middle of the desert. In that place paranoia rules. Because of the big secret (the development of the "gadget" as they call it) everyone is considered a possible leak or a suspect for espionage. Their correspondence to the outside world is controlled, the army makes random checks to them and their belongings, they even have to take polygraph tests if they seem more suspicious than others.

The production has nothing to envy from a feature film. Attention to detail. Countless extras and above all a remarkable cinematography. The way they make you feel the "space", the atmosphere of this place is extraordinary.

I hope it will continue in the same fashion and not consume itself in many subplots and little dramas that will make it tiresome. (If it does, it wouldn't be the first time a great pilot is followed by mediocre episodes). But for now...

***Highly recommended.

{{{UPDATE after having seen 9 episodes}}}

Unfortunately my fears have been realized. The show is full of pointless subplots and is now boring and far from entertaining.

Oppenheimer's screen time is measured in ...seconds in the 10 hours I wasted to watch this.

The race for the atomic bomb and WW2 is almost absent.

It's all about the lives and the little dramas of the wives, the mistresses and the ..$2 prostitutes who live in the camp. Who gets high with what, who is screwing whom etc.

Maybe they should change the title to MANHATTAN HOUSEWIVES.

***Overall: Avoid it. I'm changing my rating from 8 to a (very generous) 4.

I've read "109 East Palace," a very good book about life in Los Alamos during the Manhattan Project, and so far it seems that the producers of "Manhattan" have done their homework. Except that Oppenheimer was referred to as "Oppie" by many who were familiar with him.

This is obviously a fictionalized account of the development of the bomb; I doubt you'll see a "real" person portrayed except Oppenheimer -- and maybe Dorothy his trusted assistant. Seventy years later, the whole affair is still too politically charged to do a "real" docudrama. It might come out that the real troublemaker at Los Alamos, the guy who guided atomic weapons development from the '50s on -- after Oppenheimer had been gotten rid of -- was a raving jerk and backstabber. Can't have that.

But the show captures the urgency and the chaos rather well, and the details -- the human "computers," for example, were good and fun. The characters were attention-grabbing enough. I enjoyed it. We'll see if they can carry it through for 12 episodes -- or if 12 episodes of non-stop urgency and intensity are too much.

Update: November 2014. I like this show even better than I did at the start. You who say it became tedious: yes, for awhile it threatened to lose itself in subplots. But the last three episodes roared toward a conclusion that, if the show had not been renewed, would have been the capstone of an entirely complete and satisfying work of fiction.

In many ways, this season has been Frank's journey to answer this question: what things can a good man do, or not do, in the name of good?

Now people from Los Alamos give it poor historical reviews, but it is mostly because they don't get why they don't use real people (easy answer? It makes for better TV). I moved there in 91 and left last year. I still read the news from online as I used to live there a few blocks from bathtub row, and across the street from a retired scientist that worked on it, some of the only buildings from that time left (historical buildings now) early grade school you learn all about this stuff. Anyway that's the view your going to get.

While being fictional characters they are basically treated in the same way real families are. Lie detectors, one PO Box (1663 in a tow 45 minutes away.) Lots and lots of secrets. The dumb name of the bomb (gadget, the prototype and proof of concept)other historical things people are missing is there were two groups one created fat man the other made little boy.

Any historical event turned into TV or movies will not be exact historical accounts, especially when there are national secrets that will never be released. (want your neighbor to build these bombs in his wood shed?)

If you visit the town compare the show to the info at the Bradbury science museum (though there isn't anything else really there.) They don't have much online. But in person it's everything I'm guessing the show will have and interesting things from things since the Manhattan Project.

I just watched the first episode over on infinity on demand and loved it.

This series looks like it is going to be really good. The "Oppenheimer is a stoner" reviewer must be high himself to write that besides Oppenheimer "Everybody else is engaged in a horrible soap opera of sex, nudity, marital strife, alcoholism etc.." as if that is a bad thing in a drama. Duh! It is a drama after all. If you want historical fact read a book burn-out.

What the series premiere does is introduce us to a dynamic cast and quickly develops interesting characters and plot. It is shot well, acted well, and paced fantastically. Should be a hit for WGN...whatever network that is.

It's a crowded field of dramas out there to vie for your attention and though this show is not groundbreaking for it genre (best described as "serialized historicalish drama"), it has somehow become must-see viewing for me because it's just a highly watchable show.

Set in Los Alamos at the dawn of the Manhattan Project, the show makes use of its setting quite well in creating juicy historically accurate drama. At the same time, it subtly highlights societal problems (naivette about war that can only be known in hindsight, racial/gender/religious disparities) without coming off as overly preachy or letting this ironic distance of history become the main talking point of the show (hello Mad Men).

The show maintains a fairly tight grip on its moderately-sized ensemble and boasts a number of interesting characters including a lady scientist who knows how to navigate a boys club while using her sexuality as an ace up her sleeve, a classic Jewish bride who defied her parents by marrying a nuclear scientist and harbors something that falls somewhere between homo-social longings and repressed lesbianism, Daniel Stern as an Obi-Wan Kenobi type whose career was halted long ago.

Much of the show's tension comes from the fact that the U.S. scientists aren't just fighting the Nazis, they're also fighting each other as the researchers are split up into rival factions. Thus, it's a show about people overcoming their hang-ups and working together more than it is about some big bad. There's also an interesting through-line of tension between the lower-class soldiers (who view a Los Alamos as a second-rate posting) and the educated scientists who resent each other to some extent. The dichotomy between the brains and the brawn of the military as a metaphor for the have-nots and haves is a particularly relevant angle towards audiences today.

Lastly, one of the show's strengths is that it makes a complex subject, nuclear physics, dramatic and accessible. There's not an overflow of technobabble (symptomatic of Star Trek). I don't know much about physics (let alone nuclear physics) and I can follow every nuclear reactor breakdown and plutonium shortage crisis.

When I heard there was a television show being filmed in my hometown of Santa Fe I wads like "what? Really? What show?" they told me they were going to put it on the WGN I was like "what channel is that?". Now given the fact that it aired in any obscure network with not the largest of budgets this did relatively well.

There was a surprising amount of talent backing this up. Sam Shaw of 'Masters o0f Sex' fame was the show runner. John Benjamin Hickey did an outstanding job as the lead and the rest of the cast actually have some acting chops. The low quality of the production gets in the way at times but all in all its fairly solid. Yes, the historical accuracy is well not really there and it tends to focus more on the interpersonal melodrama of the people living in this secluded town. So if you're looking for something informative and factual this is not really it (yet another reason why it should have aired in the History Channel) you'll probably have better luck with Christopher Nolan's Oppenheimer but for what it is, it was pretty solid.

I love everything about this show. They have such a fantastic crew of actors. The cinematography is exquisite. And the mood of the show accurately depicts the environment these families lived in. As someone who's read loads on the Manhattan Project and specifically on Oppenheimer, I feel the best of this story is yet to come. I find the depiction of Oppenheimer so deep. I just wish to see him more. Such an engaging story demands more of a presence of the one non fictional character represented. And Hickey is amazing. I could watch him and Olivia Williams forever. I can't wait to see them take this into next season and where it goes. Well done, WGN!

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 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.