I was told by a friend and fellow 24 fan, that there was a fantastic movie made on the same subject as this years series storyline. I rented the movie and was completely blown away. I have to say, some of the comments above are harsh. As a television movie, this is hands above 95% of what's made. No one has mentioned that Chechik seemed inspired by Paul Greengrass' work on Bloody Sunday, rather than 24. Interestingly enough, I would say the writers of 24 actually saw this movie and went so far as to use its premise and if you can believe it, even cast the same actor as the lead terrorist, Arnold Vosloo. That said, the movie is pretty relentless. Chechik places you inside moments without editorializing. Although I might question some of the motivation of the terrorists, once I got the big twist, I found myself being less interested in the why and more interested in the how. Which I suppose is the reason FX made the movie. More importantly, the ending leaves you breathless in its callousness and in the position the US government takes regarding their actions. Actions characterized as being for the "good of the country." It's amazing to me how bad for the country that posit is. Really well done.
17 Reviews
Decent film, irritating camera work
James_T_Kirk8 June 2004
This film was not all that bad as the story went but the camera work is what makes it difficult to watch. I just don't like that so-called "realistic" camera work that is being done nowadays; you know the type- jumping off center, panning around, etc. What got me particularly irritated about this film though was the new thing that they threw into the mix by shooting a few frames in black and white in each scene. I believe that the film would have been much better if the camera work was shot in the much more conventional way because as it was I couldn't concentrate on it and found myself analyzing the camera work instead. Maybe if more people express dissatisfaction with camera work like this the filmmakers will finally get the hint.
"24" in 2
ween-39 June 2004
it's patently obvious that the writers (who have some "x-files" episodes under their belt) are big fans of "24", even going so far as to get leslie hope (jack bauer's k.i.a. wife in "24"-season 1) on board here...the plot twists and general feel are that of a "24" episode that's been compressed into a 2-hour time slot, and that ain't a bad thing since all the unnecessary sub-plots inherent in a regular season of "24" are virtually eliminated by time constraints..a taut job of direction by chechik who's done solid work before on "diabolique" (and a severely crappy hatchet job on "the avengers") ...opening credits somewhat reminiscent of the end of "fail safe"...nicely underplayed performances by the principals (particularly bruce greenwood) who could easily have been tempted to go way over the top here, and some legitimately funny lines to break up the tension
if you enjoy "24", this puppy is right in your wheelhouse...
if you enjoy "24", this puppy is right in your wheelhouse...
Terrible
arorashadow_20037 July 2004
This was the worst TV movie I had ever seen. The visuals were so dang choppy it made me dizzy. I hated the constant zoom in and zoom out, and the frequent Black and White to Color switch. I also thought that The story didn't make any sense what so ever, and it was another clichéd Action Movie, with a hero a bad guy, and a few hostages. I could make a better movie than that with my own camera, why? I can hold it steady, something the director couldn't do. Over all truly the worst I have ever seen, you thought Disney was bad? I didn't even bother to watch the whole thing because I'm sure I could guess the outcome, and the visual were the worst I have ever seen.
More accurate than some, but still inaccurate
pvt186316 June 2004
Warning: Spoilers
While not as bad as some movies (like the horrible "Atomic Twister"), "Meltdown" still relies upon common misconceptions and inaccuracies about the nuclear power industry to advance its plot. I am currently studying Nuclear Engineering in the pursuit of a Masters Degree, and it was easy to point out flaws that would be obvious to anyone involved with the industry.
Riding the false fear that a Chernobyl style meltdown could happen in an American plant, the movie states that any meltdown (even partial, according to one of the guest commentators in the movie) would mean disaster for the area. In fact, a partial meltdown in an American plant, while destroying the core, would not pose any risk to the surrounding area. Three Mile Island experienced a partial meltdown and no radioactive material was released into the environment at all, thanks to the natural stability of the fuel and core design used in this country paired with substantial containment.
The security steps shown in the movie were perhaps the part of the movie furthest from the truth. At any important strategic location -- be it power plant, chemical plant, military base, anything -- you will never see personnel responding to an alarm by milling around talking as if it were an unannounced drill. This is especially true at a nuclear plant, where, upon the sounding of the alarm, the reactors would be SCRAMed immediately, shutting them off. SCRAMing can be done with the push of a button in the control room (you do not need to put the core in "shutdown mode" like depicted in the movie), and the chemistry of nuclear fission prevents a core from being brought back up to power within about 9 hours of a SCRAM. So if this scenario played out in real life, the assailants would not be able to cause a significant meltdown. In theory, they could still cause a partial one due to residual heat if they exposed the core immediately, but that would be almost impossible given the numerous backup systems present in a plant -- there are many more than the single backup pumps they speak of in the movie.
As for the spent fuel pools, it may be possible to turn the pools into a dirty bomb by blowing them up, but this is far more difficult than simply parking a truck full of explosives near the pools. The fuel is under (approximately) 18 feet of highly purified water. The water cannot become radioactive (no radioactive steam like they speak of in the movie). Particles dissolved in water can, but the water itself cannot; thus the reason for very thorough purification. So the only way to turn a fuel pool into a dirty bomb is to get the fuel out of the water. This is no easy task as water is very heavy, and the pools are below ground with very thick concrete walls. The explosives would have to be in the pool below the fuel (which is securely fastened). And there would have to be a heck of a lot of explosives, as water is *very* hard to move through an explosion. Even if this were to occur, spent fuel is not extremely radioactive, and the explosion would not cause nearly as high a death toll as mentioned in the movie, especially given the small amount of radioactive material that would be spread.
From a basic movie standpoint, I grew somewhat tired of the style used. The constant fading in and out, use of gritty black and white, and fast tracking and panning looked amateurish. The characters were one-dimensional, especially those in the US government. I have some problems with the twist thrown in the movie, but will not discuss it as it would be a major spoiler.
Overall, 3/10
Riding the false fear that a Chernobyl style meltdown could happen in an American plant, the movie states that any meltdown (even partial, according to one of the guest commentators in the movie) would mean disaster for the area. In fact, a partial meltdown in an American plant, while destroying the core, would not pose any risk to the surrounding area. Three Mile Island experienced a partial meltdown and no radioactive material was released into the environment at all, thanks to the natural stability of the fuel and core design used in this country paired with substantial containment.
The security steps shown in the movie were perhaps the part of the movie furthest from the truth. At any important strategic location -- be it power plant, chemical plant, military base, anything -- you will never see personnel responding to an alarm by milling around talking as if it were an unannounced drill. This is especially true at a nuclear plant, where, upon the sounding of the alarm, the reactors would be SCRAMed immediately, shutting them off. SCRAMing can be done with the push of a button in the control room (you do not need to put the core in "shutdown mode" like depicted in the movie), and the chemistry of nuclear fission prevents a core from being brought back up to power within about 9 hours of a SCRAM. So if this scenario played out in real life, the assailants would not be able to cause a significant meltdown. In theory, they could still cause a partial one due to residual heat if they exposed the core immediately, but that would be almost impossible given the numerous backup systems present in a plant -- there are many more than the single backup pumps they speak of in the movie.
As for the spent fuel pools, it may be possible to turn the pools into a dirty bomb by blowing them up, but this is far more difficult than simply parking a truck full of explosives near the pools. The fuel is under (approximately) 18 feet of highly purified water. The water cannot become radioactive (no radioactive steam like they speak of in the movie). Particles dissolved in water can, but the water itself cannot; thus the reason for very thorough purification. So the only way to turn a fuel pool into a dirty bomb is to get the fuel out of the water. This is no easy task as water is very heavy, and the pools are below ground with very thick concrete walls. The explosives would have to be in the pool below the fuel (which is securely fastened). And there would have to be a heck of a lot of explosives, as water is *very* hard to move through an explosion. Even if this were to occur, spent fuel is not extremely radioactive, and the explosion would not cause nearly as high a death toll as mentioned in the movie, especially given the small amount of radioactive material that would be spread.
From a basic movie standpoint, I grew somewhat tired of the style used. The constant fading in and out, use of gritty black and white, and fast tracking and panning looked amateurish. The characters were one-dimensional, especially those in the US government. I have some problems with the twist thrown in the movie, but will not discuss it as it would be a major spoiler.
Overall, 3/10
Nostalgic
tlctutor200014 April 2019
Solid direction, acting, and editing make for a strong TV script
Mister_Anderson7 June 2004
*some information on the film but no spoilers*
I have to admit, I'm not a big fan of TV movies. Namely, because often the story lines are ridiculous and the characters (and dialogue) are clichéd. I gave up on watching TV movies from start to finish years ago simply because it wasn't worth the time spent. Occasionally, though, I would sneak a peek at a segment (i.e. I saw a piece from "10.5") which would cause me to shudder and change the station.
That being said, it was an unusual occurrence when I sat down specifically to watch "Meltdown." I had seen the previews and it looked like an interesting topic (but that can be deceptive). The primary reason for me watching it was that it was on FX. ("The Shield" has reborn my interest in TV series.)
In any event, I still was not anticipating too much from "Meltdown." I expected the requisite lame plot-points, acting, and effects common on most TV movies. Needless to say, I am happy to report that "Meltdown" was a pleasant surprise.
Probably the strongest factor in the movie's favor is its smart directing and editing. The editing is quick enough to keep the pace moving. The movie never lags. Once a scene is established, it fades to black and the next scene begins. Sometimes these scenes are very short, giving us the gist of what's going on, and then moving on. In this effective way, the director alerts the audience to the main events in the plot without laboring over the needless details. (For example, in an early scene, an officer drags an injured person from one area to another. Instead of wasting time showing the entire length of the drag, we see her begin the drag, then the scene fades and reappears with them in a new area.) This technique is consistently used to good effect.
In short, the plot concerns a group of terrorists who take over the San Juan nuclear power plant. The FBI, national guard, and police arrive and fear a potential meltdown, which would devastate the area and kill hundreds of thousands.
The characters are written well, and there's no cheesy romance or sideplots.
Bruce Greenwood plays the main character, a senior agent in the FBI. Thankfully, he doesn't spout off any lame one-liners or pull any Bruce Willis action stunts.
The entire scenario of a potential nuclear meltdown is played realistically and in today's climate. The setting is the modern world: 9/11 has happened, there's a Department of Homeland Security, etc. There are no insane heroics. It's almost as if watching a documentary. There are even constant national news broadcasts.
I'm happy to report that while some may be able to predict the general outcome of the movie, many plot-points leading up to the end throw twists into the system. For instance, about 3/4 of the way through the movie an unexpected event occurs which actually made me spurt "OH ****." aloud; I don't think I've ever done that before to something on TV.
This film does not follow any established formula for action movies. Indeed, it's not even an action film. If you're expecting special effects, look elsewhere. "Meltdown" is a case study as to how the government could realistically respond in a moment of crisis. It has some flaws that go along with a modest budget, but thankfully this is minimal (since it doesn't blow its money on effects). "Meltdown" keeps you interested and thinking throughout, which is as much as you can ask from a TV movie.
8/10
I have to admit, I'm not a big fan of TV movies. Namely, because often the story lines are ridiculous and the characters (and dialogue) are clichéd. I gave up on watching TV movies from start to finish years ago simply because it wasn't worth the time spent. Occasionally, though, I would sneak a peek at a segment (i.e. I saw a piece from "10.5") which would cause me to shudder and change the station.
That being said, it was an unusual occurrence when I sat down specifically to watch "Meltdown." I had seen the previews and it looked like an interesting topic (but that can be deceptive). The primary reason for me watching it was that it was on FX. ("The Shield" has reborn my interest in TV series.)
In any event, I still was not anticipating too much from "Meltdown." I expected the requisite lame plot-points, acting, and effects common on most TV movies. Needless to say, I am happy to report that "Meltdown" was a pleasant surprise.
Probably the strongest factor in the movie's favor is its smart directing and editing. The editing is quick enough to keep the pace moving. The movie never lags. Once a scene is established, it fades to black and the next scene begins. Sometimes these scenes are very short, giving us the gist of what's going on, and then moving on. In this effective way, the director alerts the audience to the main events in the plot without laboring over the needless details. (For example, in an early scene, an officer drags an injured person from one area to another. Instead of wasting time showing the entire length of the drag, we see her begin the drag, then the scene fades and reappears with them in a new area.) This technique is consistently used to good effect.
In short, the plot concerns a group of terrorists who take over the San Juan nuclear power plant. The FBI, national guard, and police arrive and fear a potential meltdown, which would devastate the area and kill hundreds of thousands.
The characters are written well, and there's no cheesy romance or sideplots.
Bruce Greenwood plays the main character, a senior agent in the FBI. Thankfully, he doesn't spout off any lame one-liners or pull any Bruce Willis action stunts.
The entire scenario of a potential nuclear meltdown is played realistically and in today's climate. The setting is the modern world: 9/11 has happened, there's a Department of Homeland Security, etc. There are no insane heroics. It's almost as if watching a documentary. There are even constant national news broadcasts.
I'm happy to report that while some may be able to predict the general outcome of the movie, many plot-points leading up to the end throw twists into the system. For instance, about 3/4 of the way through the movie an unexpected event occurs which actually made me spurt "OH ****." aloud; I don't think I've ever done that before to something on TV.
This film does not follow any established formula for action movies. Indeed, it's not even an action film. If you're expecting special effects, look elsewhere. "Meltdown" is a case study as to how the government could realistically respond in a moment of crisis. It has some flaws that go along with a modest budget, but thankfully this is minimal (since it doesn't blow its money on effects). "Meltdown" keeps you interested and thinking throughout, which is as much as you can ask from a TV movie.
8/10
amateurish and banal Die Hard ripoff (SPOILERS)
philip-10620 August 2004
Warning: Spoilers
Director Jeremiah Checheck who brought us big budget debacles like "The Avengers" and the remake of "Diabolique" has directed this ripoff of the Die Hard concept, done on - what looks like - a Blair Witch budget.
A California nuclear reactor is overtaken by Arab terrorists. But - are you ready? - the terrorists aren't Arab; they're really disgruntled American soldiers masquerading as Arabs! We find out that they don't really intend to blow up the reactor just make a statement. We're not sure what the statement is but never mind. So there's really no threat. But then one of the terrorists decides to go it alone and actually blow up the plant because he's kind of crazy. So maybe there is a threat after all. But the army goes in and all the bad guys are killed. So there was no threat. Oh, and a good guy is killed too. Let that be a lesson to everybody.
If all of this sounds muddled and kinda of a waste of time then you got the idea of what watching Meltdown is all about.
The script never bothers to introduce the characters or to even give any personal details that might flesh them out or emotionally involve the audience. So we're left with one dimensional characters: the-expert-that-nobody-will-listen-to; the-trigger-happy-sergeant; the-slimy-politicians; the-dweeby-Engineers. The story skips from one cliché incident to the next in a formula composite of practically every action movie you've ever seen. But at nearly every turn, just when we think something may be at stake the script flinches and we find out there's actually nothing to worry about.
Like Die Hard, there's an police officer who's on the inside, unbenownst to the bad guys. The big twist is that the cop here is....A WOMAN! Oh and she's injured too. But not that bad, just enough to make her wince a couple times. Oh and instead of the walkie talkie that Bruce Willis had this cop has a magic cell phone that works everywhere...even underground! When he's not yelling at everybody else Bruce Greenwood - his jaw made out of granite - tries to soothe her over the walkie talkie. He even makes a joke once but we're afraid his face might crack. After all, this is serious business.
But mostly it's scene after scene of people arguing: the Military expert is arguing to wait it out (his reasoning doesn't seem particularly sound but he's supposed to be the smart guy in this movie so okaaaay); the people at the White House argue with him; the army sergeant argues with him too; the nice Pakistani Nuclear Engineer argues with the main terrorist. The dialogue is absolutely B Movie all the way and lines like, "stop the broadcast! STOP THE BROADCAST!!!" may have you in rolling off your sofa as you wonder if the characters are actually referring to this silliness.
Maybe to compensate for the lack of production quality the camera-work is kept jittery in that faux documentary 21 Grams style that's supposed to lend immediacy and energy to the scenes but the way it's indiscriminately and amateurishly applied here it's downright annoying; even pretentious. Further attempts to ratchet up the tempo are made with the inclusion of nonsensical black and white footage that's randomly intercut with the main action. But this, too, is pretentious and annoying in that Blair Witch kinda way. In short, the stylistic attempts look very amateurish.
The music lives up to the visuals - it's synthy and cheap sounding. Sort of like a porn movie but with less melody and lots more heart beat sounds. The graphic treatment is howlingly bad too: cheesy graphics in huge red font scream out to us "9:28 pm" as though the timeclock actually makes some kind of difference.
Meltdown may work as a marketing concept but it's clear that the script was a second thought. FX - part of Fox - put this cheesy production together and dropped several million dollars on it. Now THAT'S what I call a meltdown!
A California nuclear reactor is overtaken by Arab terrorists. But - are you ready? - the terrorists aren't Arab; they're really disgruntled American soldiers masquerading as Arabs! We find out that they don't really intend to blow up the reactor just make a statement. We're not sure what the statement is but never mind. So there's really no threat. But then one of the terrorists decides to go it alone and actually blow up the plant because he's kind of crazy. So maybe there is a threat after all. But the army goes in and all the bad guys are killed. So there was no threat. Oh, and a good guy is killed too. Let that be a lesson to everybody.
If all of this sounds muddled and kinda of a waste of time then you got the idea of what watching Meltdown is all about.
The script never bothers to introduce the characters or to even give any personal details that might flesh them out or emotionally involve the audience. So we're left with one dimensional characters: the-expert-that-nobody-will-listen-to; the-trigger-happy-sergeant; the-slimy-politicians; the-dweeby-Engineers. The story skips from one cliché incident to the next in a formula composite of practically every action movie you've ever seen. But at nearly every turn, just when we think something may be at stake the script flinches and we find out there's actually nothing to worry about.
Like Die Hard, there's an police officer who's on the inside, unbenownst to the bad guys. The big twist is that the cop here is....A WOMAN! Oh and she's injured too. But not that bad, just enough to make her wince a couple times. Oh and instead of the walkie talkie that Bruce Willis had this cop has a magic cell phone that works everywhere...even underground! When he's not yelling at everybody else Bruce Greenwood - his jaw made out of granite - tries to soothe her over the walkie talkie. He even makes a joke once but we're afraid his face might crack. After all, this is serious business.
But mostly it's scene after scene of people arguing: the Military expert is arguing to wait it out (his reasoning doesn't seem particularly sound but he's supposed to be the smart guy in this movie so okaaaay); the people at the White House argue with him; the army sergeant argues with him too; the nice Pakistani Nuclear Engineer argues with the main terrorist. The dialogue is absolutely B Movie all the way and lines like, "stop the broadcast! STOP THE BROADCAST!!!" may have you in rolling off your sofa as you wonder if the characters are actually referring to this silliness.
Maybe to compensate for the lack of production quality the camera-work is kept jittery in that faux documentary 21 Grams style that's supposed to lend immediacy and energy to the scenes but the way it's indiscriminately and amateurishly applied here it's downright annoying; even pretentious. Further attempts to ratchet up the tempo are made with the inclusion of nonsensical black and white footage that's randomly intercut with the main action. But this, too, is pretentious and annoying in that Blair Witch kinda way. In short, the stylistic attempts look very amateurish.
The music lives up to the visuals - it's synthy and cheap sounding. Sort of like a porn movie but with less melody and lots more heart beat sounds. The graphic treatment is howlingly bad too: cheesy graphics in huge red font scream out to us "9:28 pm" as though the timeclock actually makes some kind of difference.
Meltdown may work as a marketing concept but it's clear that the script was a second thought. FX - part of Fox - put this cheesy production together and dropped several million dollars on it. Now THAT'S what I call a meltdown!
A Surprising turn of events (SPOILER)
sweetlusciousangel7 June 2004
Warning: Spoilers
I was anticipating the premiere of Meltdown after I saw billboards for its release two weeks prior and I must say that it did not disappoint. In the beginning it appeared to be a typical terrorist flick depicting Arab speaking people or fundamentalist Muslims as those invoking the terror-as if others do not commit heinous acts in the name of religion.
However, the movie took an interesting turn when it was revealed that terrorists that had taken over and were currently occupying the San Juan Nuclear Power Facility were not in fact Muslims or even Arabs for that matter. They were very much American, highly decorated American commandos to be exact. What follows is a series of events proving that those enshrined with our security are often the first sent off to be slaughtered.
It was also interesting that every point of the movie which could be related in real life (news anchors, the name of the power plant) were intentionally fictionalized, whereas in other situations actual news anchors from various stations are used. Too close to home? Too real? Perhaps, only time will tell.
However, the movie took an interesting turn when it was revealed that terrorists that had taken over and were currently occupying the San Juan Nuclear Power Facility were not in fact Muslims or even Arabs for that matter. They were very much American, highly decorated American commandos to be exact. What follows is a series of events proving that those enshrined with our security are often the first sent off to be slaughtered.
It was also interesting that every point of the movie which could be related in real life (news anchors, the name of the power plant) were intentionally fictionalized, whereas in other situations actual news anchors from various stations are used. Too close to home? Too real? Perhaps, only time will tell.
Crappy made-for-TV MELTDOWN
tehsuck7 June 2004
Warning: Spoilers
If you thought NBC's 10.5 was stupid, you'll be happy to hear that FX reached into the bowels of made-for-TV hell and squished it's fingers into this pseudo post-9/11 poop. Not only was the plot stupid, it was a complete ripoff of 24 and a bad ripoff at that. The filming style was the now overused "docu-action" look, complete with cuts to grainy B&W "rawcore" footage. I'm not quite sure what that means, but it sure sounds like something the DP said to the director before filming. I don't know what they were going for here but it reminded me of the guy at the office who thinks Powerpoint presentations with "fly-ins" and "animations" are "cool."
The story is that 6 "terrorists" take over a nuclear power plant in southern CA. That's right, nuclear power plants, where hundreds of people work, where there's security precautions up the ying-yang. For the sake of reality, they put 2 off-duty CHiPpies in the mix. Because, they'd be able to stop 6 people, right? Six. I mean, even Bruce Willis had to deal with more terrorists over at that stupid Nakatomi building.
Leslie Hope (TV's Teri Bauer) plays a CHP officer who has problems talking on the phone after she's shot in her bullet-proof vest. Her voice sounds like a Sally Struther's TV ad, whiny and monotonous. Her character is only a plot device, and after she performs her one small duty, she is promptly disposed of. Yes, Teri Bauer is died!
Bruce Greenwood stars as FBI S.A.C. Tom Shea, who continually points out how he punches foreign diplomats in the face. His boss is out, so nobody over at the Dept. of Homeland Security believes his prognosis of the situation. He's the sensible one out of a group of paranoid public officials afraid of taking blame for any type of catastrophe. He's calm, he's strong, he's BORING.
There is absolutely nothing redeeming or entertaining about Meltdown - OK, well maybe Teri Bauer getting died was pretty unnecessary and funny - other than that, nothing redeeming.
The story is that 6 "terrorists" take over a nuclear power plant in southern CA. That's right, nuclear power plants, where hundreds of people work, where there's security precautions up the ying-yang. For the sake of reality, they put 2 off-duty CHiPpies in the mix. Because, they'd be able to stop 6 people, right? Six. I mean, even Bruce Willis had to deal with more terrorists over at that stupid Nakatomi building.
Leslie Hope (TV's Teri Bauer) plays a CHP officer who has problems talking on the phone after she's shot in her bullet-proof vest. Her voice sounds like a Sally Struther's TV ad, whiny and monotonous. Her character is only a plot device, and after she performs her one small duty, she is promptly disposed of. Yes, Teri Bauer is died!
Bruce Greenwood stars as FBI S.A.C. Tom Shea, who continually points out how he punches foreign diplomats in the face. His boss is out, so nobody over at the Dept. of Homeland Security believes his prognosis of the situation. He's the sensible one out of a group of paranoid public officials afraid of taking blame for any type of catastrophe. He's calm, he's strong, he's BORING.
There is absolutely nothing redeeming or entertaining about Meltdown - OK, well maybe Teri Bauer getting died was pretty unnecessary and funny - other than that, nothing redeeming.
Terrorist and Nuclear reactor is a bad mix
ebiros226 August 2011
Terrorist takes over a nuclear power plant in Southern California, and state department tries to control the situation.
Fencing match between the US government, and the terrorists ensues when terrorists take over a nuclear power plant. Not much happens except that both sides are edgy, and news cast reports the developing situations. Surprising true motive of the terrorist becomes clear, but situation is different from the intended motive. It's up to the terrorist and the federal agent to rectify the situation.
Good drama, with slow burn type plot that was popular in the early 2000's. I'm not a fan of slow burn, so this didn't become my favorite. If you're looking for strait action, look for other movies. If you're looking for a good situation drama, this one might be for you.
Fencing match between the US government, and the terrorists ensues when terrorists take over a nuclear power plant. Not much happens except that both sides are edgy, and news cast reports the developing situations. Surprising true motive of the terrorist becomes clear, but situation is different from the intended motive. It's up to the terrorist and the federal agent to rectify the situation.
Good drama, with slow burn type plot that was popular in the early 2000's. I'm not a fan of slow burn, so this didn't become my favorite. If you're looking for strait action, look for other movies. If you're looking for a good situation drama, this one might be for you.
A real sleeper
davelocke21 June 2004
Greenwood is a good actor with excellent screen presence, and this role gives him a chance to shine. Although the movie has some crudities and unlikely minor plot devices it also has numerous strengths, best of which is displaying the government being capable of saying and doing most anything not just in a crisis but as a way of life. A 2004 movie based on what's happened since 9/11, the numerous government responses and actions and general thinking-out-loud deliberations are all too believable. This is not just background to a story of terrorists taking over a nuclear power plant, but actually becomes the story. Recommended, but this is definitely not a feel-good action movie. It takes you places you really don't want to go, but it leaves you with a lot to think about.
Government Incompetence
fooser7710 June 2004
I try to watch as little TV as possible. One of my very few favorite series is "24". I agree the comparisons to "24" are quite apt here. I watched this because cable 'made for TV' movies are proving to be some of the best product available today. Far better than spending $7+ USD to go see the latest feature films.
I did not realize until researching afterwards that the lead terrorist character was the same playing Imhotep in "The Mummy". He is clearly an under-rated actor. The rest of the acting was not extraordinary, however sufficient. I thought I recognized the female 'chip' also played Teri Bauer in "24". The Muslim engineer portrayed illustrates just how much "American" muslims have in fact been Christianized. He did not recognize that the lead terrorist was quoting directly from the Quran.
What is significant about this feature is that it illustrates quite clearly just how f***** up the leadership of our federal govt. really is. It portrays to what lengths ("extreme prejudice") our incompetent leadership will go to cover up, disguise, and deceive the masses. You come to understand why some 'patriots' would resort to extreme measures to wake up a nation and especially it's leadership to the malaise we are currently under spell. Lucretius has stated (paraphrase) that "extremes on either side are bad". However, Goldwater also stated "Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice; moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue."
I did not realize until researching afterwards that the lead terrorist character was the same playing Imhotep in "The Mummy". He is clearly an under-rated actor. The rest of the acting was not extraordinary, however sufficient. I thought I recognized the female 'chip' also played Teri Bauer in "24". The Muslim engineer portrayed illustrates just how much "American" muslims have in fact been Christianized. He did not recognize that the lead terrorist was quoting directly from the Quran.
What is significant about this feature is that it illustrates quite clearly just how f***** up the leadership of our federal govt. really is. It portrays to what lengths ("extreme prejudice") our incompetent leadership will go to cover up, disguise, and deceive the masses. You come to understand why some 'patriots' would resort to extreme measures to wake up a nation and especially it's leadership to the malaise we are currently under spell. Lucretius has stated (paraphrase) that "extremes on either side are bad". However, Goldwater also stated "Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice; moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue."
Exciting thriller with only the essentials
vchimpanzee18 July 2016
This is not just your ordinary action/thriller. We are kept guessing constantly about what might happen. We mainly see what is essential, and details of the lives of those affected are pretty much left out. There are no background stories unless we need to hear them. Editing is rapid fire and if we have seen all we need to see, the action quickly switches to something else. For example, Mika is the reporter on the scene. In her first report, we spend more time watching her put on makeup than seeing what she actually has to say. We pretty much know, so that's not essential.
Camera work is quite unusual. Different angles in the same scene might be black and white while others are color. At first I thought the black and white was security footage, but most of the time the cameras are moving--mostly shaking. It may be somewhat unsettling but it's effective. And of course I mentioned the editing.
There is lots of good acting here. Bruce Greenwood is Tom Shea, the man in charge, who's not supposed to be but his superior is elsewhere and it will take time for him to get back. Shea was not happy with the results of the U.S.S. Cole attack and got himself demoted. But he knows what he's doing. Arnold Vosloo is the terrorist in charge. I'm going to guess that Manoj Sood is in charge of the control room, the man who desperately tries to keep the terrorists from doing anything harmful.
And the standout performer is Leslie Hope, the cop who is nervous and in pain after being shot while wearing a vest (this saves your life but doesn't prevent pain). She tries really hard and finds some valuable information.
Robert Kovacik, the dedicated news anchor, must cope with whatever comes his way. Live television has its problems, but he deals with them. He's so professional I figured he might be real, and the credits say he plays himself. Dagmar Midcap as the reporter on the scene lacks personality and doesn't seem much like a real journalist, but that's just because of the current state of journalism, where cute babes seem to matter more than hard news. She's attractive and gets the information across.
Two experts are listed in the credits as themselves. Dr. Jim Walsh seems quite nervous, which doesn't inspire confidence, but I guess there is realism there. David Rapoport comes across as calmer and more professional.
One thing bothered me about the news coverage. At times the entire screen is filled, with the anchor in the middle, graphics, and a crawl at the bottom, as if we are seeing what people actually see on TV. When people are being interviewed, a lot of that information goes away. That's not a big deal, I guess, because we're not actually watching the newscast, but it would have been more effective to show the TV screen exactly as others might have seen it.
It's a worthy effort with some important lessons about what this country's most vulnerable sites ought to be doing.
Camera work is quite unusual. Different angles in the same scene might be black and white while others are color. At first I thought the black and white was security footage, but most of the time the cameras are moving--mostly shaking. It may be somewhat unsettling but it's effective. And of course I mentioned the editing.
There is lots of good acting here. Bruce Greenwood is Tom Shea, the man in charge, who's not supposed to be but his superior is elsewhere and it will take time for him to get back. Shea was not happy with the results of the U.S.S. Cole attack and got himself demoted. But he knows what he's doing. Arnold Vosloo is the terrorist in charge. I'm going to guess that Manoj Sood is in charge of the control room, the man who desperately tries to keep the terrorists from doing anything harmful.
And the standout performer is Leslie Hope, the cop who is nervous and in pain after being shot while wearing a vest (this saves your life but doesn't prevent pain). She tries really hard and finds some valuable information.
Robert Kovacik, the dedicated news anchor, must cope with whatever comes his way. Live television has its problems, but he deals with them. He's so professional I figured he might be real, and the credits say he plays himself. Dagmar Midcap as the reporter on the scene lacks personality and doesn't seem much like a real journalist, but that's just because of the current state of journalism, where cute babes seem to matter more than hard news. She's attractive and gets the information across.
Two experts are listed in the credits as themselves. Dr. Jim Walsh seems quite nervous, which doesn't inspire confidence, but I guess there is realism there. David Rapoport comes across as calmer and more professional.
One thing bothered me about the news coverage. At times the entire screen is filled, with the anchor in the middle, graphics, and a crawl at the bottom, as if we are seeing what people actually see on TV. When people are being interviewed, a lot of that information goes away. That's not a big deal, I guess, because we're not actually watching the newscast, but it would have been more effective to show the TV screen exactly as others might have seen it.
It's a worthy effort with some important lessons about what this country's most vulnerable sites ought to be doing.
Amazing movie, great story.
edenn-1862416 April 2020
Great hook, a nuclear power plant melting down
spock0656 June 2004
The editing in this movie was rather unusual. They kept fading in and fading out. The hand held camera work didn't really work for me, too much made me dizzy. And the choice to go black and white at times was uncalled for, at first I thought it was for the "terrorists" to gather information but then out of nowhere it would just go because. The main terrorist has been in The Mummy and Darkman now he's playing another bad guy. The character of Shea is rather over the top I'm not sure if someone like that would really be in the FBI, and he's the senator in Rules of Engagement. Also the actions of the anti terrorist team were rather harsh, you'd think they'd be a little more controlled.
Over all it was enjoyable watching.
Over all it was enjoyable watching.
Must see again!!
MSMONKEYBONE338 June 2004
The subject matter of this film is something I try to stay clear of. Like most of us I know it's out there but for my own state of mind, I would rather skip down the yellow brick road. So why did I see it. To be truthful because of Arnold Vosloo who I think is a greatly overlooked talent.
But the movie, even though I did not want to think about such things did make me think. The way the movie was make with it's "Breaking New" fourm just added to the effect. And made it look real. After it was over. I could not help but ask myself some long avoided questions. Just how much does the media add to the panic for the sake of good ratings. How "many" time's has our government white washed what they tell us. Just how many of our service men have been used and discarded. And how many people are there like me who just let it ride because we don't want to deal with it.
Thanks to this movie, I'm going to start dealing with it. I'm going to be more aware of what is going on. I may skip down a yellow brick road. But you can be sure I'll be ready for the brick wall at the end of it.
But the movie, even though I did not want to think about such things did make me think. The way the movie was make with it's "Breaking New" fourm just added to the effect. And made it look real. After it was over. I could not help but ask myself some long avoided questions. Just how much does the media add to the panic for the sake of good ratings. How "many" time's has our government white washed what they tell us. Just how many of our service men have been used and discarded. And how many people are there like me who just let it ride because we don't want to deal with it.
Thanks to this movie, I'm going to start dealing with it. I'm going to be more aware of what is going on. I may skip down a yellow brick road. But you can be sure I'll be ready for the brick wall at the end of it.
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
