Grimossfer Clever and entertaining enough to recommend even to members of the 1%

BelSports This is a coming of age storyline that you've seen in one form or another for decades. It takes a truly unique voice to make yet another one worth watching.

Ogosmith Each character in this movie — down to the smallest one — is an individual rather than a type, prone to spontaneous changes of mood and sometimes amusing outbursts of pettiness or ill humor.

Robert Joyner The plot isn't so bad, but the pace of storytelling is too slow which makes people bored. Certain moments are so obvious and unnecessary for the main plot. I would've fast-forwarded those moments if it was an online streaming. The ending looks like implying a sequel, not sure if this movie will get one

arglebargle-47893 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.

lbhalos17 Aside from the acting, this is a laughable movie on just about every level.The President (un-elected) overrides every fail-safe, in spite of being advised otherwise including the legality of taking such action, to drop an atomic bomb on Iraq.The President finds himself in a diner, trying to negotiate with the Iraqi leaders while using an interpreter who hasn't been properly trained or vetted. He takes time to ask the opinions of people in the diner as time runs-out.At one point, the cook in the diner pulls-out his shotgun (which wasn't discovered by the weapons- search conducted by the Presidents' Secret Service detail of two) and shoots the Airman carrying the "football," injuring him. As he continues to point it at the wounded Airman, the two Secret Service agents allow him to fire a second round before ending his threat (with a now-empty double-barrel shotgun).The ending is just dumbfounding... Apparently the President, along with the French President, are the only two who KNOW that the weapons they sold to Iraq are dummies and won't arm. This is played-out as a great winning scheme by the President, as he nukes Iraq while watching their dummies fall fairly harmlessly in neighboring countries.I think this could've been a very good movie, had it been based more on fact than just the silly twist at the end. The bottom-line is that the President NEVER needed to drop a nuke on Iraq; he KNEW they were mostly defenseless. The world would probably stand behind a President who called their bluff. Then, they could easily be dealt with conventionally.

teddyryan The idea for Rod Lurie's first feature film is a good one - the President is trapped in the boonies and must deal with a nuclear crisis. And, DETERRENCE certainly has some very play-like charming elements - small setting, clash of characters, localized tension, etc - that make it a passable watch. Not to mention, it does a wonderful job of portraying news/mass media as the film's crisis unfolds.Unfortunately, although the writing is informed, tip-top, and clever, I think the casting falls short.Let's start with the President played by Kevin Pollak. I felt this was a bad casting choice by Lurie. In addition to his noticeably short height and Napoleonic demeanor, Pollak lacks the presidential aura of either a Martin Sheen or Michael Douglas. Therefore, no matter what interesting dramatic conflicts arise for President Emerson during the story, I can't help but wish someone was playing him.Also, there's a few patrons/employees of the diner that are very one note - you'll notice this was you watch.Ted's Grade: C+/B-

mark-4401 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.