I interpreted this movie as yet another method of instilling fear within us. Anyone who's taken a U.S. history class knows of the events of Hiroshima, and practically everyone in the world knows of the events of September 11th. In my opinion, anyone with a brain is aware of the potential for a nuclear attack, and that as resentment grows and technology develops through time, the chances of such an attack happening get better and better. Why spend so much money creating a docu-drama with good actors and professional screen shots about a nuclear situation everyone's already familiar with? Why not spend less money and just make a documentary, with more facts and less dodgy U.S. glorification? This film totally portrays the U.S. as this do-good administration of compassionate pacifists (as another reviewer pointed out), which, as I'm sure the majority of us are aware, isn't quite the whole story. And I'm sorry, but from the get-go, the tag line, "this film is based on facts" really bugged me, especially since the storyline is fictional. Facts such as that there are terrorists out there plotting to nuke other countries, most notably us? No way, really!? Who would've guessed?
4 Reviews
Thinking about the Unthinkable in 2005
stephen-riese28 December 2005
Warning: Spoilers
The Nuclear Threat Initiative made this film to draw attention to the threat of nuclear terrorism. It is clear in that message. The film's scenario is both frightening and plausible - it could happen.
The film is very well done, especially considering that Last Best Chance is a "docu-drama." While it is short (45 min), you could easily imagine the hypothetical plot being used in a Bruce Willis action movie. After the story ends, you can see a Tom Brokow interview with Senators Sam Nunn and Richard Lugar.
Should you watch Last Best Chance? If you want to be entertained while at the same time learning more about this significant and realistic threat, then yes, you should watch it.
* Spoiler * The movie leaves the viewer hanging. Of course, this reflects the reality of the situation they are trying to showcase. Just a caution - don't expect to leave the film with that warm fuzzy feeling that we grow accustomed to and expect in typical Hollywood movies.
The film is very well done, especially considering that Last Best Chance is a "docu-drama." While it is short (45 min), you could easily imagine the hypothetical plot being used in a Bruce Willis action movie. After the story ends, you can see a Tom Brokow interview with Senators Sam Nunn and Richard Lugar.
Should you watch Last Best Chance? If you want to be entertained while at the same time learning more about this significant and realistic threat, then yes, you should watch it.
* Spoiler * The movie leaves the viewer hanging. Of course, this reflects the reality of the situation they are trying to showcase. Just a caution - don't expect to leave the film with that warm fuzzy feeling that we grow accustomed to and expect in typical Hollywood movies.
Worst Part Left Out
davidgoe5 September 2007
Warning: Spoilers
Only kinda a spoiler in that you are left hanging as to the ultimate outcome, and thus are not informed of the worst part of nuclear terrorism. That worst part is not the carnage and perhaps hundreds of thousands dead and dying and decades of economic growth blown away leading to a world depression.
No, the worst part is what to do next. There's no such thing as definitive nuclear forensics, no bits of rental van axles with serial numbers on them, no security cameras in the area to help solve who did it. The sort of evidence we rely on for a normal investigation is all vaporized. The pedigree of the nuclear material can perhaps be compared to very small samples we have as exemplars, but all this tells you is where the material was stolen from, which is likely Russia as having the weakest security, or perhaps even a blend from various locations. In either case, these are not the real culprits.
So what to do next. There is no real retaliation option. Huge chunks of the world population don't even believe Osama bin Laden had anything to do with 9/11 even though he admits it on tape along with reams of other evidence. How many people would be persuaded by highly technical radiological evidence of isotope decay patterns? As the basis for a retaliatory nuclear strike? I don't think I would and can't imagine any moral person would. This dilemma, that retaliation against the perpetrators is impossible, becomes the real nightmare.
No, the worst part is what to do next. There's no such thing as definitive nuclear forensics, no bits of rental van axles with serial numbers on them, no security cameras in the area to help solve who did it. The sort of evidence we rely on for a normal investigation is all vaporized. The pedigree of the nuclear material can perhaps be compared to very small samples we have as exemplars, but all this tells you is where the material was stolen from, which is likely Russia as having the weakest security, or perhaps even a blend from various locations. In either case, these are not the real culprits.
So what to do next. There is no real retaliation option. Huge chunks of the world population don't even believe Osama bin Laden had anything to do with 9/11 even though he admits it on tape along with reams of other evidence. How many people would be persuaded by highly technical radiological evidence of isotope decay patterns? As the basis for a retaliatory nuclear strike? I don't think I would and can't imagine any moral person would. This dilemma, that retaliation against the perpetrators is impossible, becomes the real nightmare.
Fred Dalton Thompson Finally Got to Become President
NoDakTatum1 November 2023
Terrorists are turning stolen nuclear materials into bombs, and headed west to wipe out millions of American lives in this sometimes tense, sometimes preachy suspenser. In a multi-plot storyline, nuclear materials are stolen from a Russian storehouse and distributed across Europe and Africa by Al-Qaeda. Simple but destructive nuclear devices are being built at a furious pace and the American government, led by President Ross (Fred Dalton Thompson), tries to stop them with the help of his cabinet and the Russian president. As intelligence agencies pursue the bomb makers, the terrorists continue on their deadly quests, getting rid of cohorts who know too much, and eventually succeeding in getting the devices to their intended targets.
This film was released by the Nuclear Threat Initiative, and was given away for free at their now defunct website. The entire point of the film is that nuclear terrorism is a real possibility- the film was released in 2005, but as a piece of filmmaking, "Last Best Chance" is mediocre. The film plays like an action film without an action hero. It's "The Peacemaker" without George Clooney. We get generic Oval Office scenes, with Thompson chewing the scenery in a role he tried to play in real life. We have stone-faced henchmen transferring lethal cargo from one location to another. This does play like an action film, but tries to be a cautionary political thriller, and may have been more effective as a documentary. At the end of the fictional could-happen story, television news anchor Tom Brokaw has a brief conversation with Senator Richard Lugar and former senator Sam Nunn about the film and the possibility of a nuclear attack on the United States and its allies. This odd segment runs about fifteen minutes, and the men reiterate the dangers of unsecured nuclear materials, and how the film's situations could play out in real life. Goddard's direction is feature-film good. He has some interesting but sometimes predictable angles, and the intensity on the actors' faces is both appropriate and telling. His screenplay is shackled by its message; nuclear terrorism is a real threat, and we can't rely on an indestructible cop, disgraced special forces veteran, or a suave British agent to save the day. The cast are all fine, but with such a limited screen time, forty-five minutes total, it's hard to get to know any of them, and again, the message is primary over characterization and story arcs. Goddard's screenplay is not partisan, this is an international problem, and it's solutions are common sensical. Nunn (a Democrat) and Lugar (a Republican) have joined with Brokaw (mainstream media) in giving the subject attention, although I rarely heard anything about nuclear terrorism when I watched this over a decade ago. All in all, "Last Best Chance" sets out to shine a light on a little-known but viable threat to our security. I am wondering if a well-illustrated documentary on the subject would have carried more gravitas than a well-shot, well-meaning, but ultimately average dramatization. After all, it's not like the United States would ever throw open its borders and let just anybody in, right?
This film was released by the Nuclear Threat Initiative, and was given away for free at their now defunct website. The entire point of the film is that nuclear terrorism is a real possibility- the film was released in 2005, but as a piece of filmmaking, "Last Best Chance" is mediocre. The film plays like an action film without an action hero. It's "The Peacemaker" without George Clooney. We get generic Oval Office scenes, with Thompson chewing the scenery in a role he tried to play in real life. We have stone-faced henchmen transferring lethal cargo from one location to another. This does play like an action film, but tries to be a cautionary political thriller, and may have been more effective as a documentary. At the end of the fictional could-happen story, television news anchor Tom Brokaw has a brief conversation with Senator Richard Lugar and former senator Sam Nunn about the film and the possibility of a nuclear attack on the United States and its allies. This odd segment runs about fifteen minutes, and the men reiterate the dangers of unsecured nuclear materials, and how the film's situations could play out in real life. Goddard's direction is feature-film good. He has some interesting but sometimes predictable angles, and the intensity on the actors' faces is both appropriate and telling. His screenplay is shackled by its message; nuclear terrorism is a real threat, and we can't rely on an indestructible cop, disgraced special forces veteran, or a suave British agent to save the day. The cast are all fine, but with such a limited screen time, forty-five minutes total, it's hard to get to know any of them, and again, the message is primary over characterization and story arcs. Goddard's screenplay is not partisan, this is an international problem, and it's solutions are common sensical. Nunn (a Democrat) and Lugar (a Republican) have joined with Brokaw (mainstream media) in giving the subject attention, although I rarely heard anything about nuclear terrorism when I watched this over a decade ago. All in all, "Last Best Chance" sets out to shine a light on a little-known but viable threat to our security. I am wondering if a well-illustrated documentary on the subject would have carried more gravitas than a well-shot, well-meaning, but ultimately average dramatization. After all, it's not like the United States would ever throw open its borders and let just anybody in, right?
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
