Your IP has been blocked. Please perform the action below to regain access.
75.126.130.58-
Customer Reviews
Average Rating:
-
The China Syndrome
I grew up with these guys and gals on TV. Thought the seventy's and eighty's and even the ninety's. This movie made me think. This really happened in Russia. I really like the movie, some spots in the movie I had a ruff time watching. One for instance was where the plant manager was in the control room holding some of the workers and camera crew kind of hostages, trying to convince the government that the plant was unsafe. The Plant manager finally was shot dead in the end and the plants crew where interviewed on Camera at the end. The plant manager didn't need to be shot to death, they could have taken him to the loony been.
Rating: -
One of the best of the 1970's
Great film of the late 1970;s with a powerful message; Corporations with too much power abuse the rights of others- it holds so much truer today where corporations have made ordinary people into nearly slaves.
Jack Lemmon gives a brilliant multi faceted performance, while Jane Fonda and Michael Douglas give equally excellent performances.
Stephen Bishop's 'Somewhere In Between' opens the film during credits, and sets the film off wonderfully.
The film looks like 1978- the hair, the clothes and the technology are certainly fun to look at- so obviously dated now (I was 27 when the film was released in early 1979- so I remember it all so well. We did dress badly then-
An important film nonetheless, that I enjoy more after every viewing.
Rating: -
Great acting by all the Leads. Especially Jack Lemmon
I'm not going to rehash the storyline. I'll just say that everytime I watch this movie, it astounds me that Jack Lemmon didn't win an Academy Award for his part in this movie, as a diligent employee after an "accident" at the nuclear power plant in which he works. Jane Fonda and Michael Douglas also give admirable performances. Wilford Brimley is just as serious, intense and convincing in his portrayal as one of Lemmon's co-workers.
The idea of only having a lead-in music theme (by Stephen Bishop-Somewhere In Between) and then leaving the rest of the movie devoid of additional music was absolute genuis. As the viewer is then given ample space for maximum concentration on the subject matter. I'm a movie-goer who loves music that heightens the drama and stirs the emotions, but this movie worked perfectly fine without it. And the emotional ending proved that music wasn't required (even with the ending credits scrolling).
Sure, some parts of the story may have seemed far fetched; such as the hired thugs who go after anyone trying to expose the truth about the possible "China Syndrome" incident. But the usual cover-up from the higher-ups that we usually expect (or suspect) doesn't disappoint.
Moral lesson(s), personal integrity, subterfuge, a [little] lesson in the operation of a nuclear power plant, differing viewpoints on the issue of nuclear power (whether staged or real) and an emotionally shocking ending are what this film is about. A great disaster movie for a disaster that didn't happen.
Rating: -
Warning Against Shoddy Engineering
This film begins in a television studio and shows what goes on for television reporter Kimberly Wells and her filler articles. The next newscast is from a nuclear power station. The film crew visits the turbine room. Suddenly there is a vibration and an alarm goes off. It's a routine problem but there is a complication. Then another. A sticky meter gave a false reading. There is a crisis but the power station operators are able to recover normal operation.
Back at the studio the manager decides to hold off on this story. Corporate headquarters explains why the power station can't be delayed: it costs $492,000 dollars a day! The cameraman is quite excited and agitated because his film will stay in the vault. He blames other people for his problems. The investigation clears the station operators at the plant. So why would anyone worry? Do reporters have a bias against nuclear power? Who owns the press? Back at the power station an investigator finds stray radiation at a pump. They are concerned. We see filming at the hearings. Jack Godell investigates the engineering records and finds discrepancies. Jack's request for a retest is rejected; it would cost too much. Jack visits D.B. Royce and has his fears confirmed.
Jack is warned: the big construction company has their own security force. Jack offers to give copies of the radiograms to Kimberly, who wants to do this story. The courier with the films has an accident on the road. Will Jack show up at the hearing? A car chase adds action and pads out the story. In the power station Jack takes direct action against the other personnel. This threat is real! The chairman of the board McCormack arrives to handle the problem personally. There will be a delay until Godell can be interviewed. What can happen no? Will countermeasures be used? There is an interesting philosophical discussion about human error. Is there "absolute safety"? What about aging or natural disasters? [Is this drama really a scientific horror film?] The problem with the "lone gunman" is resolved. But the interview by Kimberly Wells puts a new spin on the events.
There is always a trade-off in engineering. If America uses its abundant coal there is either more pollution or higher costs of electricity. Oil means exporting dollars. Natural gas is limited, as is water, solar or wind power. Since nuclear power is newer most people fear this offspring from atomic bombs. The competitors of nuclear power inflame these fears. This film was made about 30 years after the start of the atomic age. Another 30 years has gone by. The New England states and New Jersey get half their electricity from nuclear power. So do Japan and France. What about your state?
Rating: -
HELP ME, FONDA!
Mature thriller that seems to have slipped "under the radar"; most people I know have never heard of it, or confuse it with "Chinatown". Fonda does nightly stories on television and happens upon a supposed "turbine trip" at a nuclear power plant that is anything but routine. Rebel cameraman Douglas secretly films the incident, and as anti nuclear specialists confirm the seriousness of the near disaster,hero Lemmon is checking the specifications of the plant. Lemmon finds numerous faults and forgeries in the plant's history, and as a sincere moralist, he's going "public" with Fonda and Douglas' assistance. Then the real "fun" begins. Anyone with a conscience (or trying to develop one) should see this important, contemporary film; a story of great relevance that seems to have been minimized over the years, intentionally or not.
