The movie turns out to be a little better than the average. Starting from a romantic formula often seen in the cinema, it ends in the most predictable (and somewhat bland) way.

Excellent characters with emotional depth. My wife, daughter and granddaughter all enjoyed it...and me, too! Very good movie! You won't be disappointed.

If you're interested in the topic at hand, you should just watch it and judge yourself because the reviews have gone very biased by people that didn't even watch it and just hate (or love) the creator. I liked it, it was well written, narrated, and directed and it was about a topic that interests me.

The storyline feels a little thin and moth-eaten in parts but this sequel is plenty of fun.

In a word: annoying!For the first 45 minutes or so I kept asking myself, "Why? What does he get out of this?" A stupid science experiment and a "story" for the girl he likes. Thing is - neither of those things happen! The girl, sensibly, ends up saying "Uh, this is a bad idea." And he never even gets to do the science experiment thing, or whatever that was. Stupid movie. Another case of some douche being annoying in a typical 80s kind of way.John Lithgow is in it, he was OK. A young, cute, heterosexual Cynthia Nixon is in it. The dad from Frasier is in it, I don't even know his name or care what it is. A movie for an afternoon nap. Hopefully you fall asleep quickly so you don't have to see too much of it.4/10

One day, when I was a 12 years old boy, I was at the sea in the summer and in the afternoon right after the dinner in the most hot hours of the day I watched this movie in TV. I always liked stuffs of science, physics and chemistry. The Manhattan Project was so great that I always wished to watch it again. I was amused by this film, I found it great and really awesome. From time to time this movie was coming up in my mind. However, I was never able to watch it again when I was a teenager. I remembered the story, the atomic bomb, the kid building it; and with the help of a web search engine I was able to get the title of the movie. So today - in the year 2012, 13 years later - I managed to obtain and to watch this movie again and in its original language as well. This movie has made me make a jump in the past, and this is what I liked the most. The movie itself is no more up-to-date for today's people. It's indeed a movie for teenagers of the '80-'90, like I was in the past. The film shows the most absurd things possible (making a nuke at home? stealing plutonium from a lab in a clear plastic bottle?) and so is the story absolutely unrealistic. But if I were a teenage in the '90 again, i'd like it a lot again. This movie really made my fantasy fly as a kid. Great memories, great film. Let alone what is "for real" possible in real life. From the eyes of a child, this movie results in a good mix of science fiction and thriller.

Here's a textbook example of all the post-'ET' rip-offs pitting bright teenagers against bad grown-ups, in this case packaged like an updated manual of mid-1980s commercial movie-making clichés. It's all here: the playful young smart-aleck prodigy (with attractive single mother and sexually active girlfriend); the wicked agents of federal bureaucracy; the solitary, sympathetic adult (as usual, a scientist); lots of distracting high-tech hardware; and a topical message. In more talented hands all these familiar ingredients might at least have been assembled with some style, but the comedy (?) plot (about the whiz-kid and his home built nuclear device) includes more lapses in logic, more contrived cleverness, and more implausible plot twists than even a teenage fantasy of this sort can support. Rule of thumb: never trust a movie that assumes its audience is less intelligent than the characters on screen.

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.