Rating: 
Summary: A frightening future scenario right out of today's headlines
Review: In early 2002, the Bush administration revised and submitted to Congress the U.S. "nuclear posture" review, outlining scenarios in which nuclear weapons might be used. Two such scenarios: an Iraqi threat to the security of Israel and "surprising military developments." Both of these scenarios come to pass in "Deterrence," an intelligent political drama that keeps the viewer engaged from start to finish. On primary election night in the not too distant future, an American president - like Gerald Ford in 1976 - is seeking election to the office he recently obtained through constitutional succession. Election night coverage is interrupted by a news bulletin out of the Middle East: Iraqi armored divisions comprised of a half million ground troops led by Saddam Hussein's son Uday and backed up by mobile medium range chemical and biological missiles have crossed Iraq's southern border and are advancing into Kuwait and Saudi Arabia, overrunning a small U.N. peacekeeping force. Several hundred American troops serving in the peacekeeping contingent are killed in the invasion, a blatant violation of the accords that ended the Gulf War in 1990. Unlike the Bush administration of 1990, President Walter Emerson's administration of 2008 has disposed of the doctrine that America's military is capable of fighting two simultaneous wars in different parts of the globe. So Emerson reverts to the Cold War strategy of nuclear deterrence employed to discourage a Soviet invasion of West Germany in an attempt to repel the Iraqi incursion. This is an intriguing "what if" film that is very contemporary with current world events. It is presented from the perspective of a handful of diner workers and patrons stuck in a blizzard with the presidential entourage following fast moving developments on the diner's television set.
Rating: 
Summary: Great story, mediocre production
Review: It is the year 2008 and President Emerson is campaigning for the Colorado primary of the upcoming presidential election. Emerson is an un-elected president, elevated to the presidency when his predecessor died in office and he is having a difficult run in the primaries. His party is caught in a blizzard and is forced to take shelter in a roadside diner. Shortly after his arrival, he learns from a television news report that Iraq has invaded Kuwait and the army is on its way to Saudi Arabia in a repeat of the 1991 Gulf War Crisis. Emerson turns the diner into a mobile situation room and assesses the strategic implications. He is informed that the confidence is high that Iraq has mobile chemical and biological weapons that can be deployed in the next 90 minutes. To further complicate matters, U.S. forces have been drawn so far down and are so scattered that they can't mount any meaningful response for weeks. President Emerson makes an executive decision, and after obtaining a live feed, goes on television to announce that if the Republican Guard does not retreat, he will order a nuclear strike on Baghdad in one hour and 20 minutes. Iraq refuses to negotiate with Emerson because he is Jewish. They then announce that they have more than 20 long-range nuclear weapons that they will launch on cities worldwide like New York, Paris and Tokyo if the B2 bomber enters their airspace. They also have one targeted at NORAD, which is 40 miles from the president's current location. This is the setup in this taut international thriller where two intractable leaders stare over the abyss waiting for the other to blink. This is an excellent story that makes nuclear confrontation seem all too plausible in the post cold war era. Though there are many flaws, the basic concept is sound and frightening, and the nail biting suspense is absorbing and extremely well done. The likelihood of this scenario can be debated, but there are certain areas where the film comes up short. The film was produced on a shoestring (less than $1M) and it showed. It had the feel of a TV movie. The camera work was mediocre at best with numerous shots poorly framed. The camera operator often had trouble following the movement of actors. The news reports were also unrealistic. One plot element was inconceivable. The entire idea that the five citizens in the diner would be allowed to stay and witness the president's decision making process during a national security crisis is ludicrous. That would be like inviting people from the White House tour into the Oval Office during such an event. Some arrangement would be made to sequester these people. They would have been locked in the kitchen or told to sit in their cars until the crisis abated. The acting of the major players was very good. Kevin Pollack gave one of his best performances to date as the president without a mandate. He was strong, tough and resolute and took complete command of the situation. Timothy Hutton was also excellent as the chief of staff, always buzzing around the president giving him new angles to consider and often overstepping his authority. Sheryl Lee Ralph gave a strong performance as the president's national security advisor and was strident and insistent about her opinion, which was in direct opposition to the president's decision. Despite its shortcomings, this film presented a tense and engrossing story that was within the realm of possibility, making it that much more interesting and terrifying. I rated it an 8/10. It definitely rises above its humble budget and is worth hunting down in the rental stacks.
Rating:
Summary: A Very Good Suspenser
Review: It is the year 2008 during the election and the President is in Colorado in a small town to do some last minute campiagning before the polls close. Hoping to get his parties vote on a mandate from the public. Because a VP who was sworn into office because the president popular i might add passed away. While on the trail a blizzard hits the town and the president and his staff seek refuge in a small roadside diner. In the diner they learn on the TV that Suddam Hussein's son who is the leader of Iraq. Learns that he invaded Kuwait. But President Emmerson played by Kevin Pollak who is in good form here learns about he gives the Iraqies a choice to either withdrawl or the U.S. would drop a multimegaton bomb on Baghdad the capital. In hearing that the president and his top aides good surrporting work from Timothy Hutton and Sheryl Lee Ralph who are his top advisors. We also learn that our military in nowhere the size and strength in 1991. The troops are back in Korea and China and Japan are at each others throats. In the diner the president has uplinks with his advisors and there is a camera man there to tape a live speech from the Prez. But when things get worse and the iraqies are not withdrawing. He is faced up with a impossible decision. Set up by critic turned director Rod Lurie keeps the story tight nit and and the tension that builds through out the movie until it reaches it's climax. This is the way Hollywood should make these kind of movies small but effective cast, No special effects and limited to one setting the diner but the tension grabs you and won't let go. Kevin Pollak is in good shape and Timothy Hutton and Sheryl Lee Ralph give convincing work. This is a good example of a character driven suspense film. I really want to see what Lurie comes up with next after The Contender.
Rating: 
Summary: Ambiguous, or just not clearly thought out?
Review: It works as a goofy political thriller in a nuts and bolts way (though I must say that "Miracle Mile" (1988) beats it for subtext and comedy hands down), but I remain very confused about this film's Point-of-View. Would someone else care to comment on this film's unapologetic Iraqi bashing, it's by-default portrayl of 12,000,000 in Baghdad as "collateral damage" (so to speak, to borrow both the Pentagon's and McVeigh's lingo) when the President ALREADY knew their weapons were going to be, uh, I won't reveal that one. Doesn't this make him a murderer and a mad man? Strangely enough, what begins as seeming race-baiting by a very ambiguous script winds up - as the credits roll - reverberating like an anti-semitic yarn. Yes, this film has some problems, but, it has interesting ones. I really can't decipher which side of the fence this strange film is on. I'm all for ambiguity in thoughtful films, but this one had me scatching my head in ways that had nothing to do with layers or symbols. As a video entertainment, it passes 90 minutes rather well. I have to give Lurie credit for making a one-room thriller taut and engaging. His directing skills are above par in this lame age of Hollywood.
Rating:
Summary: Tense, Timely, Presciently scary
Review: Kevin Pollak, Timothy Hutton and Sheryl Lee Ralph lead an excellent emsemble cast in this tense political sci-fi thriller that posits an American President choosing to "exercise the strategic nuclear option"in defense of United States geopolitical priorities. Kevin Pollak plays EMERSON,an unelected President (THE PRESIDENT dies; the VP has resigned in disgrace a la Spiro Agnew)who confronts a new invasion of Kuwait...the prelude to siezing the oil fields of Saudi Arabia...by the son of Suddam Hussein. This out-of-the-blue war of "Manifest Destiny/brutal conquest" (so declared by Pres.Emerson)blindsides the US, whose conventional forces...deployed to meet Chinese and North Korean threats in the Far East...cannot respond in time to prevent a radical altering of the World's Political-Economic Order. Hence PRESIDENT EMERSON delivers an ULTIMATUM...requiring immediate withdrawal of Iraqi troops and personal surrender of Hussein-the-Sequel...declaring intention of the United States to drop a 100 megaton hydrogen bomb on Baghdad, the Iraqi captal in ONE HOUR... This is only the beginning. The Counter-Ultimaum of Hussein commences a count-down to Terror that is lifted from Today's Headlines. Additionally, the "venue" of THE SHOWDOWN is not Washington's high-tech War Room/Command Center (or a NORAD equivalent)but a hamburger joint in the boonies of Colorado where The President and a tiny campaign entourage (Emerson has just won a crucial Primary that can legitimize a bid for his own nomination and re-election)have retreated to wait-out an impassably dangerous blizzard. The reaction of the cast to The Prelude to WWIII is fascinating. Some evoke pity; some empathetic bewilderment and some...not unpredicatably...outrage as the President's advisors attempt to SPIN a possible thermonuclear First Strike...and consequent retaliation...into Gallup Poll political advantage. DETERRENCE recalls Sidney Lumet's rendering of FAIL SAFE.The viewer is presented with THE ULTIMATE Secular MORALITY play. It is clear Director Lurie didn't intend his film to devolve into easy Good Guy Prez vs.Bad Guy Dictator win for the WEST; nor the type of amoral vacuity that characterized THE DAY AFTER. The President makes a terrifying decision and terrifying things happen subsequent to it. It is a tense, timely film that shows a fated human being about to do a monstrous...inhuman?..thing. It is powerful drama that hopefully remains only presciently scary "entertainment"...
Rating:
Summary: Derivative but Very Interesting At Times
Review: Much of this movie has already been made before in the much better movies 'Fail Safe' and 'Doctor Strangelove.' The similarity between this movie and 'Fail Safe' is striking. Both are concerned with the need to make irreversible decisions in a world controlled in large part by chance. By and large, 'Fail Safe' is much more successful in doing this with Henry Fonda as the president much more successful as a rational man trying to control irrational events. Walter Matthau in 'Fail Safe' portrays the type of shallow intellectualism that pervades 'Deterrence.' The Matthau character is a clever intellectual and is full of shallow analysis and post facto rationalizations that entirely miss the point of the events that are happening around him. The real point is that there is no rationality and that there can be no predictions or long range control. Leaders can only deal with problems as they present themselves and hope that they have enough ingenuity to steer the course of events away from immediate disaster. 'Deterrence' misses that point but does a reasonably good job of showing the isolation of the decision maker. A very disturbing gaffe occurs late in the movie with stock footage of a hydrogen bomb explosion in the Pacific standing in for the destruction of Baghdad. Ships are clearly visible in the shot. For a period before that point the movie was very gripping with the tension of the irrevesible decision to drop the bomb. The unfortunate choice of stock footage tends to spoil the end of the movie.
Rating: 
Summary: this movie reeks
Review: not riveting or provacative
Rating: 
Summary: Saddam Hoosanes son actually makes war while
Review: president gets stuck in a diner during a snow storm while on his campaign. So the towel boy gets the ultimatum: stop or suffer nuclear detonation over Bagdad. This story sucks, filled with rightous presidential verbal poo.
Rating:
Summary: Powerful Piece
Review: Rod Lurie's "Deterrence" is an extremely overwhelming film in which Kevin Pollak stars as the US President faced with the possibility of having to detonate Baghdad after an Iraqi invasion of Kuwait.
Rating:
Summary: Smart dialogue, excellent actors. But not for everyone.
Review: Rod Lurie's most recent films, Deterrence and The Contender, are struggling to find the right target audience. Conservatives openly hate Lurie's liberal philosophies; but liberals may be turned off by his unapologetic way of exposing power, deceit, and deal-making behind closed doors. This director clearly has talent. His scripts are whip-smart, he's a keen observer of the mechanics of power, and he has a knack for pushing well known actors to higher levels. But Lurie seems to hold little appeal among the masses. His films are better suited to viewers who like strategy and have a strong tolerance for ambiguity. In this regard, Lurie's works break with American tradition, revealing instead a stronger affinity with British dramas like The Lion in Winter, A Man for All Seasons, or Becket
| 
