Follow up on the Nuclear Threat. January 10, 2006 8:25 PM   Subscribe

Follow up on the Nuclear Threat. [mi]
posted by clgregor to MetaFilter-Related at 8:25 PM (13 comments total)

After I posted this link, I ordered myself a free copy of the DVD, which took a long time to arrive. I finally watched it last night, and have to say it is okay. The story is interesting and it is adequate as an action movie, including:

* A hard to follow plotline with scenes in Russia, DC, Belarus, South Africa, France, Mexico, Canada, and somewhere in the Middle East
* A fair amount of contrived lines, “We conducted a study in 2002 that said we are at high risk.” “Why didn’t we contain all these nukes sooner?!” “We’re going to have to go to Defcon 2!” and a lot more I can’t remember.
* A stupid ending.
* A “bonus” interview conducted by Tom Brokaw with Senators Pete V. Domenici and Sam Nunn (former) that really seemed like one of those Kevin Trudeau set-ups.
posted by clgregor at 8:27 PM on January 10, 2006


I ordered a copy of Last Best Chance around the time of your original post. A friend of mine had been talking about "American Hiroshima", so I googled it, and came across LBC. I thought it was OK also, but I expected more.

One thing I can't figure out is why people think nuclear terrorism is new. I remember hearing about it as early as the late '70s.
posted by Fat Guy at 9:17 PM on January 10, 2006


I got mine about two weeks ago, and it wasn't terrible, but it was mainly just okay. Definite propaganda feel, but for something that absolutely needs more attention.

I watched about half of the interview "special feature", and kind of got bored.

The plot of the movie seemed plausible, but the execution was all about hand-held cameras and a hefty dose of the "Nineties Green" tinting. It was supposed to scare the shit out of me, and it didn't. Maybe I already know too much.

I kind of forgot I'd seen it until a couple of days later, which is my general way of telling if a movie was good or not.

Still, it was free, and it's important that people know about it, since we're currently focusing on a faceless "organization" of an abstract concept that we're at war with, which currently doesn't seem to address stolen nuclear material. If I didn't read, I'd probably be part of the ignorant people the film is directed at.
posted by interrobang at 9:35 PM on January 10, 2006


Definitely a propaganda feel. That's a good way to put it. The lines were delivered with a canned veracity. "It will definitely make a bang in New York."

This threat is real, and is an important, but I don't know if it is the best way to get the word out or not. Maybe we're just too analytical an audience.

And a bald president? In this day in age? Come on.
posted by clgregor at 10:10 PM on January 10, 2006


Hey, it's a fashion choice.


You can help get the word out a little bit by donating your DVD to your local library. Maybe host a discussion group or get the library to make a display.
posted by ?! at 10:42 PM on January 10, 2006


Wasn't this basicall a remake of a BBC production? I saw that; it was pretty good.
posted by lodurr at 5:48 AM on January 11, 2006

clgregor: And a bald president? In this day in age? Come on.
Interestingly enough, the guy picked to play that bald president is one of the few bald politicians in America who could get elected.
posted by lodurr at 5:58 AM on January 11, 2006


Those bald bastards.
posted by Pollomacho at 7:19 AM on January 11, 2006


I didn't know being bald was that bad. How naive I am. I saw it too, the points above are correct. The best point the movie made (somewhat inadvertantly) is that building and delivering a nuke requires an amazing amount of cooperation between terrorist cells and nations.
posted by geoff. at 7:41 AM on January 11, 2006


'lax, geoff, we're just joking about the cue balls. As my dad used to say, you can either think or grow hair. (... he'd then look pointedly at one of his bald brothers while he ran his fingers through his own thick head of hair...)
posted by lodurr at 9:30 AM on January 11, 2006


Indeed. I mean no harm to those with less hair. My comment really was that it would be difficult for someone bald to get elected president these days because so much of the campaigning is appearances. Maybe I'm completely wrong.
posted by clgregor at 6:26 PM on January 11, 2006


Snark aside, I think you were probably right. Alas. Try to imagine someone getting elected president who had a large and visible deformity. Or who was in a wheelchair.
posted by lodurr at 4:49 AM on January 12, 2006


I wonder though if someone tried to buck the convention - the assumption that American's wouldn't elect someone with a disability or other handicap might just be that. An assumption. Maybe we could actually get a politician who would focus more on doing what needs to be done (blah blah idealism.....)
posted by pithy comment at 11:56 AM on January 12, 2006


« Older When did AxMe become Craigslist?   |   CSS is mildly messed up Newer »

You are not logged in, either login or create an account to post comments