What happens when the US President on the campaign trail is caught in a Colorado snow storm and holes up in a diner with his entourage only to learn from a t.v. broadcast that Iraq has again invaded Kuwait? "Deterrent" attempts to answer that question as it, with a handful of actors in one room, sets the stage for WWIII. Short of some implausible moments, a few oversights, and an obvious absence of the expected profusion of sweat such a situation would precipitate, this well scripted and well acted film gathers momentum quickly and manages to hold interest with the abundance of technical and moral issues it conjures up.
87 Reviews
Not a great movie, but surprising in February of 2003
driker228 February 2003
This 1999 film features an appointed Vice President who assumes Presidential power upon the death of the President -- ergo, a completely unelected President. Interesting concept but more importantly, the basic plot has this President forced to face a major crisis in Iraq when all of his diplomatic and military power is concentrated on a crisis in Korea. Somebody must be reading this script in Washington right now -- but they switched the locations.
At any rate, all of the ranting negative reviews and the flowery positive reviews I have seen here on IMDB about this film seem to me to miss the point. What happens in the film is of limited note compared to very strange feeling of "deja now" watching this film in February, 2003 while watching its big brother on CNN live. See this film! It's interesting, a bit disturbing, and sightly prescient (only partially I hope).
At any rate, all of the ranting negative reviews and the flowery positive reviews I have seen here on IMDB about this film seem to me to miss the point. What happens in the film is of limited note compared to very strange feeling of "deja now" watching this film in February, 2003 while watching its big brother on CNN live. See this film! It's interesting, a bit disturbing, and sightly prescient (only partially I hope).
A true B movie...
Charles-315 July 2002
Many of the comments here seem to want to review this movie as if it was a real major motion picture. In reality, this was very much a B movie and should be judged in the same class as movies with giant bunny rabbits and bug-eyed aliens. Not only is the story implausible, but they are adding this film to the definition of the word.
Like many B movies, this film has a few well-known actors who dropped in for the weekend to read it off of cue cards, were paid in cash, and somehow forget to list this film on their resume. Kevin Pollak and Timothy Hutton definitely had alimony payments coming due that weekend. Like all great B movies, the budget was miniscule. The movie takes place entirely in a diner, not because it was a good idea, but because they couldn't even afford decent stock footage. Beyond the few actors with names, the remaining cast was selected by who was in the commissary that day. What's really fun is how the set is obviously raided from scenery storerooms. What's with that British phone booth? And, B movies love to toss around the nukes, with no real thought to strategy, consequences, fallout, war powers act, or anything else at all. Last, but not least, we have the "surprise" ending, which even those who knew the surprise didn't seem to see coming.
There are clearly some fun things about this film. The Iraqi chemical and biological threat that gets sorta forgotten later in the film. The use of two different ocean nuclear detonations to make one supposed city detonation. The news network with more intelligence gathering capabilities than the US government (including their own spy satellite network), and yet having only one anchor and really crummy graphics. The pictures of F-117 fighters referred to as B2 bombers. The compressed time (just how fast were those missiles and bombers flying?), combined with "pacing by snail". The "don't mind us" attitude about random citizens sitting in on a war strategy meeting, occasionally butting in. Let's put the ultra top secret combination for the "football" on speakerphone so everyone can hear!
But, everyone has watched a lot of B movies and found them entertaining (or at least not too boring). I found this film entertaining and made it all of the way through it. It's worth a viewing just for fun (especially if you are not paying for it). After all, you know you saw "Night of the Lepus"!
Like many B movies, this film has a few well-known actors who dropped in for the weekend to read it off of cue cards, were paid in cash, and somehow forget to list this film on their resume. Kevin Pollak and Timothy Hutton definitely had alimony payments coming due that weekend. Like all great B movies, the budget was miniscule. The movie takes place entirely in a diner, not because it was a good idea, but because they couldn't even afford decent stock footage. Beyond the few actors with names, the remaining cast was selected by who was in the commissary that day. What's really fun is how the set is obviously raided from scenery storerooms. What's with that British phone booth? And, B movies love to toss around the nukes, with no real thought to strategy, consequences, fallout, war powers act, or anything else at all. Last, but not least, we have the "surprise" ending, which even those who knew the surprise didn't seem to see coming.
There are clearly some fun things about this film. The Iraqi chemical and biological threat that gets sorta forgotten later in the film. The use of two different ocean nuclear detonations to make one supposed city detonation. The news network with more intelligence gathering capabilities than the US government (including their own spy satellite network), and yet having only one anchor and really crummy graphics. The pictures of F-117 fighters referred to as B2 bombers. The compressed time (just how fast were those missiles and bombers flying?), combined with "pacing by snail". The "don't mind us" attitude about random citizens sitting in on a war strategy meeting, occasionally butting in. Let's put the ultra top secret combination for the "football" on speakerphone so everyone can hear!
But, everyone has watched a lot of B movies and found them entertaining (or at least not too boring). I found this film entertaining and made it all of the way through it. It's worth a viewing just for fun (especially if you are not paying for it). After all, you know you saw "Night of the Lepus"!
WOW...talk about hitting close to home!
psiqueue14 April 2003
I had seen the trailer for this movie a couple of months back, before the events of the last month, and I knew then that I wanted to see the movie. This weekend, I watched it and was shocked at how amazing it was.
Almost paralleling the events of the past couple of months, in the film, the current President (Pollock) must deal with rising problems with North Korea, and the sudden invasion of Kuwait by Saddam's son, who is the current military leader of Iraq. Finding his hands tied, the President issues a warning to the Iraqi leader: leave Kuwait and power down your weapons of mass destruction, within two hours, or else you and your city will be hit with a nuclear bomb.
After this threat, the film does into high pressure tension mode. Will the President keep his promise? Is he bluffing? And what is going to happen if he does use a nuclear bomb against his enemies?
Trust me, this is a film that will NOT disappoint.
Almost paralleling the events of the past couple of months, in the film, the current President (Pollock) must deal with rising problems with North Korea, and the sudden invasion of Kuwait by Saddam's son, who is the current military leader of Iraq. Finding his hands tied, the President issues a warning to the Iraqi leader: leave Kuwait and power down your weapons of mass destruction, within two hours, or else you and your city will be hit with a nuclear bomb.
After this threat, the film does into high pressure tension mode. Will the President keep his promise? Is he bluffing? And what is going to happen if he does use a nuclear bomb against his enemies?
Trust me, this is a film that will NOT disappoint.
Could have been better considering the subject
bellino-angelo201411 April 2023
Warning: Spoilers
I heard for at least two years about DETERRENCE because it stars two actors that nobody follows apart me and since it's on Youtube I had high hopes about it. Last January I finally saw it and it went a bit below my expectations... perhaps this time I set the bar too high.
DETERRENCE is set in 2008. It begins at a diner when there are news reports of the Super Tuesday in the primary elections, married tourists Taylor and Lizzie Woods are having a dinner and Ralph (Sean Astin) complains to the chef about the hamburger. Outside there is a freak storm and President Walter Emerson (Kevin Pollak) arrive along with his White House chief of staff Marshall Thompson (Timothy Hutton), the National Security advisor and a TV crew for the news. Sooner there are news that Iraq invaded Kuwait under the order of Iraqi President Uday Hussein (Saddam's son) and Emerson does a speech in the diner to be broadcast. In the speech, Emerson reveals that it was actually the U. S. who secretly sold nuclear weapons to Iraq, using the French as intermediaries whilst pretending to know nothing about it. The plan was carried out in order to prevent Iraq from gaining an independent nuclear arsenal by instead selling them a deliberately sabotaged one that could never function properly as a nuclear capability. As to why he carried out the threat against Iraq, Emerson publicly justifies his actions as a firm display that the U. S. would be prepared to defend itself from military threats with nuclear weapons if necessary. Emerson also predicts that his use of nuclear weapons will coerce China and North Korea into conceding the Second Korean War within months.
The subject was interesting because it's a bit too real (considering the Ukraina invaded by Russia) but it was a bit heavy-handed to the point that some actions of the characters didn't make a lot of sense (such as when Ralph says that there will always be his vote for every real American) and at times it dragged unnecessarily. The acting was the best asset, Pollak and Hutton did their best with the material given while Astin could have been a bit less of a complainer.
Overall, one of those movies with not that many actors that considering the subject should have been great but instead is somewhere in the middle.
DETERRENCE is set in 2008. It begins at a diner when there are news reports of the Super Tuesday in the primary elections, married tourists Taylor and Lizzie Woods are having a dinner and Ralph (Sean Astin) complains to the chef about the hamburger. Outside there is a freak storm and President Walter Emerson (Kevin Pollak) arrive along with his White House chief of staff Marshall Thompson (Timothy Hutton), the National Security advisor and a TV crew for the news. Sooner there are news that Iraq invaded Kuwait under the order of Iraqi President Uday Hussein (Saddam's son) and Emerson does a speech in the diner to be broadcast. In the speech, Emerson reveals that it was actually the U. S. who secretly sold nuclear weapons to Iraq, using the French as intermediaries whilst pretending to know nothing about it. The plan was carried out in order to prevent Iraq from gaining an independent nuclear arsenal by instead selling them a deliberately sabotaged one that could never function properly as a nuclear capability. As to why he carried out the threat against Iraq, Emerson publicly justifies his actions as a firm display that the U. S. would be prepared to defend itself from military threats with nuclear weapons if necessary. Emerson also predicts that his use of nuclear weapons will coerce China and North Korea into conceding the Second Korean War within months.
The subject was interesting because it's a bit too real (considering the Ukraina invaded by Russia) but it was a bit heavy-handed to the point that some actions of the characters didn't make a lot of sense (such as when Ralph says that there will always be his vote for every real American) and at times it dragged unnecessarily. The acting was the best asset, Pollak and Hutton did their best with the material given while Astin could have been a bit less of a complainer.
Overall, one of those movies with not that many actors that considering the subject should have been great but instead is somewhere in the middle.
DETERRENCE: Interesting ideas and film. Hardly brilliant.
imdke26 September 2006
I enjoyed the drama much more than the pedantry. It can be argued that only the certifiable would favor starting a nuclear war. Stanley Kubrick made that clear in STRANGELOVE. At the end, Pollock finally lit his soggy cigar: Is this a veiled reference to Curtis LeMay, another short, cigarred warrior, considered psychotic by many?
I must comment on Lurie's statement in the Director's Commentary that nuking Japan, according to historians, was unnecessary, and that the casualty projection (@ one million) rate in an invasion was a cynical overstatement. That may be politically correct and VERY Hollywood, but it fails to consider the condition of our own armed forces and the nation. We, too, were exhausted. It has been said that Admiral Halsey, following the Okinawa invasion, did not think that he could fight any longer and wanted to resign. And he was a pretty tough cookie.
I suggest the Mr. Lurie might have been less white whine and brie preachy.
I must comment on Lurie's statement in the Director's Commentary that nuking Japan, according to historians, was unnecessary, and that the casualty projection (@ one million) rate in an invasion was a cynical overstatement. That may be politically correct and VERY Hollywood, but it fails to consider the condition of our own armed forces and the nation. We, too, were exhausted. It has been said that Admiral Halsey, following the Okinawa invasion, did not think that he could fight any longer and wanted to resign. And he was a pretty tough cookie.
I suggest the Mr. Lurie might have been less white whine and brie preachy.
A Riveting film highlighted by an excellent lead performance.
Brad K.6 September 2000
Deterrence is one of those small little films that leaves a huge impression. Like The War at Home, a post-Vietnam war drama starring Emilio Estevez, Deterrence received a very minor release, but will end up being one of the year's best films. Kevin Pollak (The Usual Suspects, Grumpy Old Men) stars as the President of the United States. Pollak, however, was not elected, but was appointed Vice President and then took over after the death of the President. Forced to stay in a Colorado diner because of a blizzard, Pollak and his 2 most trusted assistants, played by Timothy Hutton (Ordinary People, Playing God) and Sheryl Lee Ralph (Bogus, White Man's Burden) find out about an illegal invasion into Kuwait by Sadaam Hussein's son. After some thought Pollak goes on National Television and announces a deadline for Hussein to leave or Pollak will drop a nuclear bomb on Baghdad. The whole film takes place inside this diner and relies on the tension that builds up as they get closer and closer to the deadline and as Pollak has to weigh his decision hearing arguments from both sides. The film is fascinating thanks to a strong amount of tension built up as we truly wonder what is going to happen. Hutton and Ralph are both solid as the 2 assistants, but the film belongs to Pollak and his strong lead performance. Highly recommended.
Almost immediately forgettable, Deterrence is an extremely simply made "thriller" that bores more than it thrills.
Anonymous_Maxine4 October 2000
Warning: Spoilers
I didn't expect much from Deterrence to begin with (it was recommended to me by someone with consistently ridiculous taste in movies - no offense to him, of course), but I was still disappointed. First of all, the entire movie takes place in a diner in some town in the middle of nowhere. As a film student, I realize how expensive it is to move to different locations (or even just be ON location), to travel with an entire movie crew, and even that just to move a camera to a different angle could take all day and be very costly. But you need to keep in mind that in order to make a convincing "political thriller," at least SOME of this needs to be done. I mean, there wasn't even a single SHOT that was not taken in this diner (at least none that weren't borrowed from previous news footage).
Besides that, the acting wasn't great. Timmothy Hutton was the only actor in the film of any consequence, and he delivered the only really good performance of anyone in the entire film. Kevin Pollack put forth a good effort as the inexperienced and overloaded new President, but he was terribly miscast. No matter how many people came before him in the order of assuming the Presidency, no one as short and bald as him would have generated much respect from the American people. I know that this is a prejudicial thing to say, but it's true. The American public does not respect a President AS MUCH if he (or she, someday) is not tall, good looking, full head of hair, etc. Appearance is extremely important, and Kevin Pollack doesn't have much of it.
(spoilers) That little element bothered me, but I am more than willing to overlook it in the interest of enjoying the film. However, there are certain things that I absolutely will not overlook. The cook's suicide, for example. You have the stereotypical, uneducated black man working the grill in some hole-in-the-wall diner, yet he seems to be very intelligent. After attempting to voice his opinion to the President about dropping the bomb, he is rudely interrupted and entirely ignored. When it seems that the bomb will inevitably be dropped, he KILLS himself. What the hell is that all about?! Is that a subliminal message being sent out to the public? You can't change what the government does, so if you don't like it, suicide is surely the only answer. This suicide was completely unnecessary to the story and was thrown in for no other reason than to have a couple of deaths in the film, as well as to kill the only guy who knew the codes to drop the bomb. The makers of Deterrence clearly did not blow much of their budget on writers.
Even though every part of the film that did not take place in the diner was conducted over the phone, Deterrence clearly tries extremely hard to stimulate the emotions of the audience, but the simplicity of the story and the quickly thrown together script reduce the film to bottom-shelf drivel that will very soon be forgotten. President Emerson not only made the offensive decision entirely too early (it was clear that he would drop the bomb within the first half hour of the film), he also ignored the advice of his personal staff for the vast majority of the film. This is boring, boring stuff. I was not even moved the tiniest bit when the bomb was dropped and Baghdad (the civilization where civilization began) was completely destroyed, along with everyone in it. Way too simple, not at all convincing, and routinely directed, Deterrence plays like a book being read to the audience. Everything is implied, suggested, vicariously explained, and entirely without effect.
Besides that, the acting wasn't great. Timmothy Hutton was the only actor in the film of any consequence, and he delivered the only really good performance of anyone in the entire film. Kevin Pollack put forth a good effort as the inexperienced and overloaded new President, but he was terribly miscast. No matter how many people came before him in the order of assuming the Presidency, no one as short and bald as him would have generated much respect from the American people. I know that this is a prejudicial thing to say, but it's true. The American public does not respect a President AS MUCH if he (or she, someday) is not tall, good looking, full head of hair, etc. Appearance is extremely important, and Kevin Pollack doesn't have much of it.
(spoilers) That little element bothered me, but I am more than willing to overlook it in the interest of enjoying the film. However, there are certain things that I absolutely will not overlook. The cook's suicide, for example. You have the stereotypical, uneducated black man working the grill in some hole-in-the-wall diner, yet he seems to be very intelligent. After attempting to voice his opinion to the President about dropping the bomb, he is rudely interrupted and entirely ignored. When it seems that the bomb will inevitably be dropped, he KILLS himself. What the hell is that all about?! Is that a subliminal message being sent out to the public? You can't change what the government does, so if you don't like it, suicide is surely the only answer. This suicide was completely unnecessary to the story and was thrown in for no other reason than to have a couple of deaths in the film, as well as to kill the only guy who knew the codes to drop the bomb. The makers of Deterrence clearly did not blow much of their budget on writers.
Even though every part of the film that did not take place in the diner was conducted over the phone, Deterrence clearly tries extremely hard to stimulate the emotions of the audience, but the simplicity of the story and the quickly thrown together script reduce the film to bottom-shelf drivel that will very soon be forgotten. President Emerson not only made the offensive decision entirely too early (it was clear that he would drop the bomb within the first half hour of the film), he also ignored the advice of his personal staff for the vast majority of the film. This is boring, boring stuff. I was not even moved the tiniest bit when the bomb was dropped and Baghdad (the civilization where civilization began) was completely destroyed, along with everyone in it. Way too simple, not at all convincing, and routinely directed, Deterrence plays like a book being read to the audience. Everything is implied, suggested, vicariously explained, and entirely without effect.
Dumb???
bigdex10113 February 2007
I was pretty shocked when I saw the overall IMDb rating and the negative user comments. Considering the "one set" limitation - you have to have some pretty good character / dialogue to maintain interest - and I thought the film kept up just the right amount of tension until the truly shocking end - see recent events in Iraq.
I thought the whole point was that the US was threatened during the re-election phase of a President out to prove his metal - Pollack was brilliant.
Its set in a Diner so that the President is FORCED to listen to Joe and Joanna Public - likewise they get to see the inhuman pressures put upon the person in that Office.
Who cares if the bloody B2 looked like an F17 or whatever the bloody plane is supposed to be THAT AIN'T GONNA RUIN THE MOVIE - it was made on a shoestring and is a great example of how to make a substantial picture without spending millions of dollars. It gains gravity from the storyline rather than an A list cast. A strong, gripping film that seems to have grown in relevance over the years.
I thought the whole point was that the US was threatened during the re-election phase of a President out to prove his metal - Pollack was brilliant.
Its set in a Diner so that the President is FORCED to listen to Joe and Joanna Public - likewise they get to see the inhuman pressures put upon the person in that Office.
Who cares if the bloody B2 looked like an F17 or whatever the bloody plane is supposed to be THAT AIN'T GONNA RUIN THE MOVIE - it was made on a shoestring and is a great example of how to make a substantial picture without spending millions of dollars. It gains gravity from the storyline rather than an A list cast. A strong, gripping film that seems to have grown in relevance over the years.
Thought-provoking national security drama
American_Delight16 May 2011
Far from being an irrelevant glimpse of an alternate history that never materialized, the fictional re-invasion of Kuwait by Iraq in "Deterrence" provides a highly relevant alternative to the U.S. approach to rogue states in the world today. With the U.S. fighting two wars and the budget looking grim, it crosses the mind of even the most hawkish among us whether feckless air wars and costly ground wars are worthwhile. The alternative is simple, elegant, and ghastly: a promise to drop a nuclear bomb on our enemy if they do not meet U.S. demands. Imagine if Afghanistan or Pakistan had been told in September 2001 to turn over Bin Laden and Mullah Omar or face the imminent nuclear annihilation of Kabul and Islamabad. Would Bin Laden not have been swinging from the end of a noose ten years ago?
It's a compelling and stark bit of realpolitik, suitable for discussions at the café among political intellectuals. But it works well as drama too as we watch Kevin Pollak's character, Walter Emerson, grow in the movie from a mousy, underwhelming "second banana" into a steely, decisive leader. Director Rod Lurie says that ultimately, Pres. Emerson is a villain for making such a heinous threat. Viewers can make up their own minds. Some of the scenes involving the local customers in the diner border on cheesy, awkward, or artificial; but the tension, surprising decisions, and political intrigues played out in this film make it a must-see national security drama.
It's a compelling and stark bit of realpolitik, suitable for discussions at the café among political intellectuals. But it works well as drama too as we watch Kevin Pollak's character, Walter Emerson, grow in the movie from a mousy, underwhelming "second banana" into a steely, decisive leader. Director Rod Lurie says that ultimately, Pres. Emerson is a villain for making such a heinous threat. Viewers can make up their own minds. Some of the scenes involving the local customers in the diner border on cheesy, awkward, or artificial; but the tension, surprising decisions, and political intrigues played out in this film make it a must-see national security drama.
Irresponsible well done movie....
mark-44017 July 2009
Warning: Spoilers
As for a movie, technically, it was great.
Well written script, that started very innocently and quickly snowballed into a nightmare. It is strange that the entire movie was shot on one stage... the diner... but yet at the same time sent you around the world.
Acting was good and believable with even a bit of humor sprinkled in.
The thought that ordinary every-day citizens could sit over the President's shoulder in the middle of a crises is interesting. Which ones of us have never said.... "If I were there, I would have told the President this or that"?
So the movie was was technically well done.
After watching it today I have a sick feeling in my stomach. Although well done, it was very irresponsible. The U.S. drops a nuclear bomb on a city, destroying it and it's citizens.
Though some discomfort with the decision is shown by the President, ultimately he is made out to be some sort of hero.
Don't get me wrong... I feel that some sort of retaliation would be in order... but the use of nuclear weapons as a preemptive strike is something that can never be done by a peaceful civilization. And to make a movie about it... that in many ways glorifies it... is irresponsible.
I think it interesting that this movie was made almost 10 years ago. Where since a President (George W. Bush) was faced with a similar crises, (9-11) and chose to deal with it, without nuclear weapons.
To sum it up... an interesting movie, that was well done, but was horrifically irresponsible, and should have never been made.
I will copy and paste this over to the forums, as I am sure some will want to reply.
Well written script, that started very innocently and quickly snowballed into a nightmare. It is strange that the entire movie was shot on one stage... the diner... but yet at the same time sent you around the world.
Acting was good and believable with even a bit of humor sprinkled in.
The thought that ordinary every-day citizens could sit over the President's shoulder in the middle of a crises is interesting. Which ones of us have never said.... "If I were there, I would have told the President this or that"?
So the movie was was technically well done.
After watching it today I have a sick feeling in my stomach. Although well done, it was very irresponsible. The U.S. drops a nuclear bomb on a city, destroying it and it's citizens.
Though some discomfort with the decision is shown by the President, ultimately he is made out to be some sort of hero.
Don't get me wrong... I feel that some sort of retaliation would be in order... but the use of nuclear weapons as a preemptive strike is something that can never be done by a peaceful civilization. And to make a movie about it... that in many ways glorifies it... is irresponsible.
I think it interesting that this movie was made almost 10 years ago. Where since a President (George W. Bush) was faced with a similar crises, (9-11) and chose to deal with it, without nuclear weapons.
To sum it up... an interesting movie, that was well done, but was horrifically irresponsible, and should have never been made.
I will copy and paste this over to the forums, as I am sure some will want to reply.
I have ten reasons
K-Slicer3 January 2003
Warning: Spoilers
I have ten reasons why I like this movie (spoilers contained within)
1) Kevin Pollak stands out as possibly the best actor to have played an American President in the last several years. 2) Timothy Hutton and Sheryl Lee Ralph played the Presidents' top aides to the letter. 3) I am a sucker for exceptionally plotted tales. 4) I really like the circumstances that made up the movie (such as the snowstorm forcing the President into the diner and a nuke ends up landing within fifty miles of his location). 5) One bit of dialogue nearly made me cringe at the thought of nuking of Baghdad. 6) The direction was superb. 7) The introduction of the movie is unreal (I liked the interweaving of the ex-presidents speaking about war with current events). 8) The feel of "Deterrence" is rightfully unnerving. 9) The ending came as a bit of a surprise. 10) I really like films that can easily spark emotional and philosophical among those who have viewed it.
By stating the number of reasons I like this, I have a better basis for scoring. I give "Deterrence" a 10 out of 10!
Here ends my rant!
1) Kevin Pollak stands out as possibly the best actor to have played an American President in the last several years. 2) Timothy Hutton and Sheryl Lee Ralph played the Presidents' top aides to the letter. 3) I am a sucker for exceptionally plotted tales. 4) I really like the circumstances that made up the movie (such as the snowstorm forcing the President into the diner and a nuke ends up landing within fifty miles of his location). 5) One bit of dialogue nearly made me cringe at the thought of nuking of Baghdad. 6) The direction was superb. 7) The introduction of the movie is unreal (I liked the interweaving of the ex-presidents speaking about war with current events). 8) The feel of "Deterrence" is rightfully unnerving. 9) The ending came as a bit of a surprise. 10) I really like films that can easily spark emotional and philosophical among those who have viewed it.
By stating the number of reasons I like this, I have a better basis for scoring. I give "Deterrence" a 10 out of 10!
Here ends my rant!
Has its moments
preppy-327 March 2000
Good cast, good acting and an interesting idea--just not enough for an almost 2 hour film. The diner setting looks horrible, the story has it's boring stretches and the ending is not to be believed. Still, I walked out of the theatre thinking about it. It did bring up serious questions in my mind about war and nuclear weapons and how the President would react in a certain situation. So, not a total washout and it did make me think about serious issues. How many movies make you do that?
Absurd!
chrisboyd-31 April 2008
A separate reviewer of this film said it had parallels with real life events in iraq and Korea. That is simply absurd, sure it is about going to war with iraq but that is where the similarities end. The script for this film is completely unbelievable, the fact that the president would announce on TV that he is going to drop a nuclear bomb (at the start of the film) on iraq after just 5 mins of hearing they have invaded kuwait is ridiculous. I could go on and on about this film, the casting of the president, his personal advisers etc are simply all wrong and do nothing to credit this movie with any legitimacy. If we are to believe that the kind of discussions held in this film go on in the white house in real life, god help us all. Worst Political Dramatisization I have seen in a long time
Excellent, thinking person's movie. Not for the weak-minded.
OKiemudgeon16 July 2002
I must admit I had to see the film twice to appreciate all the detail that was included. This is one man's vision, Rod Lurie, since he wrote, directed and produced the film and the more that I watch it, the more I appreciate what was done. The problem with this type of film is that most people will not be able to give it the attention it deserves.
I can't complain about the casting or the acting, since the actors stayed true to the vision of the film. The story is riveting and full of surprises and with a fine touch of comic relief. The most interesting thing for me about the film is that it's completely relevant for today (2002), which is when I discovered it.
Don't watch this with your significant other when you want to snuggle. It's disturbing, engrossing and most definitely provocative.
I can't complain about the casting or the acting, since the actors stayed true to the vision of the film. The story is riveting and full of surprises and with a fine touch of comic relief. The most interesting thing for me about the film is that it's completely relevant for today (2002), which is when I discovered it.
Don't watch this with your significant other when you want to snuggle. It's disturbing, engrossing and most definitely provocative.
Good, but...
eury18 September 1999
This was definitely an entertaining film, but the pacing dragged at times and the overall feel was more like that of a TV movie than a "provocative political thriller." Pollack made a valiant, though miscast, effort as President, and Timothy Hutton played his part as chief of staff beautifully. All in all, the film was entertaining but short of brilliant.
A gem of a low-budget thriller
arglebargle-4789318 November 2016
I found this on Amazon and pulled it up to watch based on the IMDb rating of 6.5 (at the time I'm writing this). If I like the film genre, I generally find I can spend a pleasant 90 minutes or so doing other things and watching any film on the tube in the 5.5-7.5 range. Better than that and I want to concentrate on the film a little better.
As to the movie itself, there are no special effects. No twisted plot (although this film has a decent one). There is one cliché jerk, and it was confined the local redneck. And we also have a lunatic (can't have a thriller without one). What improves this film is what it lacks. What we don't have is military personnel that don't act military. There is no politician who has no people skills. There are no bull-headed advisers who can't acknowledge compromise. There's no loose-cannon army general. No security guards that were either constantly jerks or couldn't be trusted watch the White House dog.
I really get hating films like this when professionals get reduced to caricatures created by ignorant screenwriters. Bogus behavior to create tension just stinks. In "Deterrence" the characters remained realistic and competent. The situation and moral dilemmas were in place to create the tension. That's the nature of good drama. The actors weren't spectacular, but everyone turns in a professional performance.
Final note: the live news felt much better for this film than any other I've seen. The reporter tripping over his words saying "White house" and then correcting to "house of representatives" smacked beautifully of a reporter under fire. Live news has goofs. There were elements of this low-budget thriller that would do well to be added to the big budget films.
As to the movie itself, there are no special effects. No twisted plot (although this film has a decent one). There is one cliché jerk, and it was confined the local redneck. And we also have a lunatic (can't have a thriller without one). What improves this film is what it lacks. What we don't have is military personnel that don't act military. There is no politician who has no people skills. There are no bull-headed advisers who can't acknowledge compromise. There's no loose-cannon army general. No security guards that were either constantly jerks or couldn't be trusted watch the White House dog.
I really get hating films like this when professionals get reduced to caricatures created by ignorant screenwriters. Bogus behavior to create tension just stinks. In "Deterrence" the characters remained realistic and competent. The situation and moral dilemmas were in place to create the tension. That's the nature of good drama. The actors weren't spectacular, but everyone turns in a professional performance.
Final note: the live news felt much better for this film than any other I've seen. The reporter tripping over his words saying "White house" and then correcting to "house of representatives" smacked beautifully of a reporter under fire. Live news has goofs. There were elements of this low-budget thriller that would do well to be added to the big budget films.
A legal and political reality TODAY!
lawlibrarian19 October 2002
Director & writer Lurie, a West Point grad (Ring Knockers, where are YOUR reviews?) hits the legalities of an un-elected successor president (Gerald Ford would serve as the precedent) facing a military crisis leading to his making a decision regarding waging war or committing an act of deterrence.
The power of the executive branch is 100% on (as political junkie Lurie's education shows us the mechanisms of political power during a military crisis). The military component is also 100% on point.
Mr. Lurie's first film is written for a small budget and could have been a two-act play--but the financial limits aside this is one fine film. It is prescient as we face war with Iraq once again. Mr. Lurie is a writer/director I'm going to follow. His second film, The Contender, is as powerful a political drama as any top film could hope to be. Imagine the sexual politics of a Clinton applied to Margaret Chase Smith.
Ignore the reviews: watch this film and make up your own mind.
The power of the executive branch is 100% on (as political junkie Lurie's education shows us the mechanisms of political power during a military crisis). The military component is also 100% on point.
Mr. Lurie's first film is written for a small budget and could have been a two-act play--but the financial limits aside this is one fine film. It is prescient as we face war with Iraq once again. Mr. Lurie is a writer/director I'm going to follow. His second film, The Contender, is as powerful a political drama as any top film could hope to be. Imagine the sexual politics of a Clinton applied to Margaret Chase Smith.
Ignore the reviews: watch this film and make up your own mind.
"I'll have my burger with a side of fried Iraqis" said the pending prez.
mking195022 July 2005
Okay. I saw this listed on the Scream network last night (Thursday Thriller) and the plot sounded pretty good, so I checked it out. The cast was great. I thought maybe this was a play originally, because the whole movie takes place in the diner. The plot is basically that the V.P. has been acting president for several months after the death of the president. He is on the campaign trail, and he has won an important primary. A debilitating snowstorm lands him in a little isolated country greasy spoon diner, where several otherlocals and customers are stranded. All hell breaks loose when the TV announces that Saddam Hussain's son Uday has invaded Kuwait.
This one has actually held up fairly well as a post 9/11 alternate history. Shawn Astin plays a local redneck. There is a couple in the diner waiting out the storm by squabbling and playing chess; the president offers an opinion on the board setup. I suspect that most world leaders are pretty good at chess or they don't last long in office.
The cast of characters was pretty representative of the American sentiments. The part I disbelieve the most is the fact that a nuclear bomb blasting away a whole city of innocents could be taken so lightly by a president. In real life, I doubt if he would get away with his decision in these times... since we are now all too painfully aware of how united the Arabs can be; the movie would have an epilogue entitled 'Retaliation'.
Ask me now if I mind that Uday is not around to follow in his father's footsteps... not likely.
This one has actually held up fairly well as a post 9/11 alternate history. Shawn Astin plays a local redneck. There is a couple in the diner waiting out the storm by squabbling and playing chess; the president offers an opinion on the board setup. I suspect that most world leaders are pretty good at chess or they don't last long in office.
The cast of characters was pretty representative of the American sentiments. The part I disbelieve the most is the fact that a nuclear bomb blasting away a whole city of innocents could be taken so lightly by a president. In real life, I doubt if he would get away with his decision in these times... since we are now all too painfully aware of how united the Arabs can be; the movie would have an epilogue entitled 'Retaliation'.
Ask me now if I mind that Uday is not around to follow in his father's footsteps... not likely.
A pleasant surprise at first; a Biblical prophecy last
madskirt22 September 2001
Got lucky and caught this little gem on cable without promo, hoopla or expectations. Had a little trouble seeing Kevin Pollak as the 'prez' until the story unfolded. On the surface it's a might makes right battle of good over evil ala Sid and Marty Kroft. (Hand puppets.) Then I settled in for the real story. Pollack is a weak, never-elected, mid-term veep come reticent-president called to task. The handlers try to handle, the president tries to preside and for a bit we believe he is without wits. We learn about our nation's security, the definition of security, and we are reassured while we recoil in horror. Only later do we get the second coming in Pollack and the necessity of his ultimate action. Only more relevant on the heels of the events of 9/11.
Goebels couldn't have done a better job!
brett-6127 January 2003
Warning: Spoilers
- SPOILERS (But you'll thank me for them) - It is a FACT that the USA itself supplied arms to Iraq - and it wasn't part of some geo-political practical joke! Does no one remember Oliver North? The whole moralistic speech about the French endangering "the American people" by selling arms to Iraq when the US has been perfectly happy to do the same is shockingly propagandistic. The tone the American president uses in ordering around the French president like an employee is laughable. But the worst part is the utterly amoral ending in which the US "nukes" a city of millions of people knowing there was no threat at all, and the whole affair had been the political equivalent of a whoopee cushion. It stinks, and some of the rapturous reviews I've read here fill me with dread. Surely people can't believe that (a) this is a realistic portrayal of international politics or (b) that the behavior of this (fictional) US president is morally justified?
Today's headlines in a movie made in 1999
stormhav2 August 2002
Allowing for the liberties of one man's vision this is a thoughtful movie. The concept of Iraq violating the peace of the world is a very real idea. The brinkmanship displayed is extreme but how different is it from the threats of invasion the are so commonly reported in todays headlines. The ending of this movie like Fail Safe is very hard to digest as a real option but like Fail Safe it causes us to think about the seriousness of war in our times. In both cases the role of instant communication is a contributor to the resolution that saves the world but at a price. The cast is adequate. The President is calm and very profession in his detachment from the emotions of the situation. Another shared value with Fail Safe. The sum of this movie is a contempory reminder of the danger of believing that we have progressed with technology as our protector when in fact the critical decisions are still human and the consequences are of those decisions are human. I recommend this movie to all serious thinking views.
A remarkably dumb movie
jbf-59 February 2005
In order for a techno-thriller to work, it must at least be plausible enough for us to be willing to suspend belief. This film has absolutely no feel or understanding of even the most basic features of its subject matter. It tries to fake credibility while throwing around ridiculous non-facts such as a 100 megaton bomb, a B2 stealth bomber being casually tracked by Iraqi radar, a TV communications satellite that somehow is equipped with not only a real time TV camera but one that films ground level shots. When the movie shows a clip of the B2, we instead see an F-117 which looks absolutely nothing like a B2. The super duper satellite (actually just one of a small constellation of satellites the TV network supposedly owns) seems to be able to warp back 50 years at will because it captures familiar black and white footage that is obviously from one of the early H-bomb test in the Pacific Ocean. This is more remarkable still as the explosion is supposed to be taking place in the middle of a desert.
The President and his advisors are playing out their full intercontinental nuclear game of brinksmanship in a little over an hour, and yet still have time to chat up the morons repeatedly at length in the diner. For some inexplicable reason the morons, including one gun toting one, have not been sent packing by the Secret Service but instead are allowed to butt into and sidetrack negotiations between heads of state in which tens of millions of lives are at stake. The only moron who is even mildly rebuked is a ludicrous right wing homophobic bigoted anti-Semite cardboard character of the sort only a Hollywood provincial pinhead could believe exists out there in fly-over land.
All these features seem to be in the film to give it heft and credibility so that it can go about preaching some kind of demented apocalyptic message to us. In the course of their proselytizing, the films writers have their President off handily incinerate a large city of mostly innocents in order to demonstrate what a peace loving mensch he is.
Alfred Hitchcock thought that actors were some of God's dumbest creatures. He obviously never met any of the writers, producers, or director of this film.
The President and his advisors are playing out their full intercontinental nuclear game of brinksmanship in a little over an hour, and yet still have time to chat up the morons repeatedly at length in the diner. For some inexplicable reason the morons, including one gun toting one, have not been sent packing by the Secret Service but instead are allowed to butt into and sidetrack negotiations between heads of state in which tens of millions of lives are at stake. The only moron who is even mildly rebuked is a ludicrous right wing homophobic bigoted anti-Semite cardboard character of the sort only a Hollywood provincial pinhead could believe exists out there in fly-over land.
All these features seem to be in the film to give it heft and credibility so that it can go about preaching some kind of demented apocalyptic message to us. In the course of their proselytizing, the films writers have their President off handily incinerate a large city of mostly innocents in order to demonstrate what a peace loving mensch he is.
Alfred Hitchcock thought that actors were some of God's dumbest creatures. He obviously never met any of the writers, producers, or director of this film.
Should have been better than it was
Brendan328 February 2000
Overall, the film is pretty good for a low budget FAIL SAFE set in a diner, though I have to admit that I'm glad I saw it on a screening video rather than on the big screen. It plays well, as a good made for cable movie, but not as a big screen feature. The entire film is set in one interior location with the only visual images of the outside world coming from television broadcasts that the characters watch in the diner. A film can be done well shot in one location, as Hitchcock proved, but writer/director Rod Lurie isn't quite up to the challenge and the film sometimes feels sluggish. The film opens with a montage of clips of speeches by former presidents, and one future fictitious one, decrying war, intercut with a view of Earth from space, as the opening credits come up. For some pretentious reason the first five minutes of the film, setting up the support characters in the diner, is shot in black and white and only switches to color with the entrance of the president (Pollak) and his entourage. The locals who inhabit this Diner are one-dimensional stereotypes. There is the weathered and wise old black cook, the ignorant racist trucker, and the dizzy French Canadian waitress. We only know that she's French Canadian because one of the patrons identifies her accent, though her accent shifts back and forth from Southern drawl to a Midwest (Fargo) accent. The film would have been a lot better had these characters been erased from the screenplay all together. Perhaps it had to be set in a diner because the budget couldn't cover a war room or White House set. The crisis story is believable and much of the dialogue between the president and his advisors is well written. Timothy Hutton, as the president's old friend and advisor, has a nice short monologue about the Los Alamos tests and the destruction of Baghdad that does more to evoke the scale of the situation than anything else in the film does. To be fair to the film, I watched it a twice before jotting this down. There was a twist at the end of the film that I thought was out of place the first time I saw it that made sense upon my second viewing. The president has an ace up his sleeve and I thought it was preposterous that he would hold back information from his staff just so the film could surprise the audience at the end. But on second viewing I saw where he advises his staff off screen away from the other characters. Stock footage is used often, and usually pretty well, during the news reports that come into the diner. Though sometimes they should have avoided using stock footage all together. (An F117 is not a B2 bomber and the detonation footage from the Bikini Atoll has been used a thousand times already and detracts from the emotional impact of the moment) It's a fairly clever script that would do well, minus some of the support characters, as a one-act play. It's definitely worth renting when it comes out on video. As for seeing it in the theaters
it's good to see studios like Paramount putting out small original films like this
but I wish it could have been done better for the big screen.
Far fetched but still entertaining.
CharltonBoy17 December 2001
Deterrence is a film that hardly reeks of big budget, it does not have A list actors and it was hardly a big hit in the cinema but for me this was a gem. It is the story of the President who is snow bound in a diner in Colerado when he hears that Iraq have invaded Kuwait again. This time America is not messing around and they give an ultimatum...Withdraw from Kuwait of be Nuked! As far fetched as it seems this film is totaly intriging and has you interested from the first to last minute. The acting is above average which is a pleasant suprise and the script and storyline is deserved of a bigger budget. Take my word for it, dont let anything deter you from Deterrence! 8 out of 10.
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
