IMDb user comments for
Meltdown (2004) (TV) More at IMDbPro »

Filter:

Best Chronological Prolific Authors Loved It Hated It Hide Spoilers:

Page 1 of 2:

[1] [2]

Index

13 comments in total

---

7 out of 7 people found the following comment useful :-
A real sleeper, 21 June 2004

Author: Dave Locke from Pownal, Vermont

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.

---

7 out of 7 people found the following comment useful :-
Solid direction, acting, and editing make for a strong TV script, 7 June 2004

Author: Mister_Anderson from King of Prussia, PA

*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

---

3 out of 3 people found the following comment useful :-
Compelling and Relevant, 8 March 2005
Author: bertieclem from Santa Monica, CA

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.

---

5 out of 7 people found the following comment useful :-
Government Incompetence, 10 June 2004

Author: fooser77 from Austin, TX

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."

---

2 out of 2 people found the following comment useful :-
A Surprising turn of events (SPOILER), 7 June 2004
Author: sweetlusciousangel from Los Angeles, CA

*** This comment may contain 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.

---

4 out of 6 people found the following comment useful :-
"24" in 2, 9 June 2004

Author: ween-3

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...

---

3 out of 6 people found the following comment useful :-
Great hook, a nuclear power plant melting down, 6 June 2004
Author: spock065 from San Diego

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.

---

0 out of 1 people found the following comment useful :-
Must see again!!, 8 June 2004
Author: MSMONKEYBONE33 from Texas, USA

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.

---

0 out of 1 people found the following comment useful :-
Decent film, irritating camera work, 8 June 2004

Author: James_T_Kirk from Glendale Heights, IL

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.

---

1 out of 4 people found the following comment useful :-
More accurate than some, but still inaccurate, 16 June 2004

Author: pvt1863 from State College, PA

*** This comment may contain 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

---

---

Page 1 of 2:

[1] [2]

Add another comment

---

Related Links

Ratings	Awards	External reviews
Official site	Plot keywords	Main details
Your user comments	Your vote history