Meltdown (2004) Reviews

• Solid direction, acting, and editing make for a strong TV script

  Mister_Anderson2004-06-07

  *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

• A real sleeper

  davelocke2004-06-21

  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.

• Compelling and Relevant

  bertieclem2005-03-08

  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.

• Decent film, irritating camera work

  James_T_Kirk2004-06-08

  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.

• Terrible

  arorashadow_20032004-07-07

  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.