Deterrence

The year is 2008, and U.S. President Walter Emerson (Kevin Pollak) has something to prove. He wasn't elected (he took office upon the death of the previous president), and he needs a pivotal boost in a current primary election. While he and his entourage are trapped under heavy snowfall in a tiny Colorado diner, Emerson must decide whether to unleash a nuclear arsenal on the son of Saddam Hussein, who has invaded Kuwait and taken hundreds of American lives. With his chief of staff (Timothy Hutton), top advisers, and a cluster of terrified diners, Emerson sorts through his options as tensions come to a boil.

This all works well on the surface, and Deterrence gains depth by depicting a president who is potentially as evil as his unseen enemy. But the film is almost fatally vague (clearly Lurie wants viewers to bring their own interpretation to these events) and ends with a twist that's too contrived to be dramatically satisfying. Until that point, however, Deterrence will certainly keep you engaged. --Jeff Shannon

This is a very well-conceived movie and the superb Kevin Pollak was a great choice as the Pres. If I have a criticism at all, it is that the movie suggests that the reason the US could not engage the invading Iraqi army is that most of their troops were positioned to deal with North Korea at that time.

This is unlikely, as the Korean situation is very simple, in that there is an infinitely greater chance that the US would use Tac Nukes against any invading force as a first resort. If North Korea ever began a barrage of the South Korean capital (a city of 10 million people), they would be able to effectively destroy it with conventional rockets and shells during the first 24-48 hours, causing millions of casualties.

There is no doubt in the minds of any military analysts that the US would have to go nuclear and on a massive scale well within the first two hours. While the North Korean capital would almost certainly receive a 'deterrence'-style surrender or die message from the US, the main thrust would be the large scale use of heavy tactical and even strategic nuclear weapons against the launch areas for the rocket tubes etc., many of which have been embedded to make them difficult to bomb. Neutron weapons would be one of the most effective responses for this type of target.

Not a pleasant topic and one that we all hope will remain in the realms of the theoretical, but then again, that's up to the North Korean leader.

Deterrence captures the life or death nature of this kind of diplomacy and is an important reminder of the stakes involved.

The only other criticism is that (Don't read on if you don't want to know anything about the film, I'm about to mention a plot event...) when the diner owner shoots and wounds the military aide carrying the briefcase containing the launch codes, there is NO WAY the Security people would stand there, pointing their guns at him trying to talk him down and risk that he will fire a fatal shot, thus making it impossible to open the briefcase. The guy would have been tomato paste after getting off the first round.

All in all a great movie. Essential viewing for dictators everywhere.


Chilly movie!   January 29, 2004
Jeffrey Leach (Omaha, NE USA)
About the only thing more enjoyable than a post-apocalyptic film is a movie about the lead up to the end of the world. "Deterrence" recalls "Fail Safe," "Dr. Strangelove," "By Dawn's Early Light," or a host of other "when nukes go wild" type films. Well, almost. Only one bomb goes off here, after which Armageddon is put off for a sunnier day. But the tension so intrinsic to this amazing genre is here in spades, that special, palpable tension so thick you could spackle the cracks in your ceiling with it. "Deterrence" is a nice nail biter with a solid cast, a claustrophobic atmosphere, and an effective cast to carry the whole thing off. It's too bad this movie is such an obscurity; I would like to state that "Deterrence" deserves more attention than it has currently received. Moreover, with the end of the Cold War we just do not see films like this anymore. Anyone who grew up during the days of mutually assured destruction policies and doomsday planes swooping over the roofs of their houses at fifteen-minute intervals will probably appreciate the implications of this movie more than those youngsters born after Ronald Reagan was president.

It is the future (2008, to be exact) when President Walter Emerson (Kevin Pollack) stops over at a little diner in Colorado during a snowstorm. Conditions are so bad outside that the man cannot even get a helicopter in to transport him out of the area. Emerson is pounding the pavement around the country in order to secure his party's nomination for a run at the White House. He is president, but only because he assumed the office after his predecessor suddenly died. The political battle is close, and it will soon get much closer when an international tragedy of epic dimensions erupts in the Middle East. While Emerson schmoozes with a few of the people trapped in the diner, his aides make the shocking announcement that Saddam Hussein's son, now the leader of Iraq, has launched a surprise attack on Kuwait and wiped out a contingent of U.S. Marines stationed there. Even worse, Iraq claims to possess nuclear weapons and threatens to unleash a holocaust of unprecedented proportions if Emerson attempts to dislodge the Iraqi army now ravaging Kuwait. The president is in a quandary; he must consider his response in terms of the upcoming election, but he must also deal decisively with the Iraqi situation with only a few laptop computers and a satellite phone at his disposal. Serving as the leader of the free world can really drag.

Incredibly, President Emerson uses a news crew following his campaign to make a live newscast to the nation where he threatens to drop an atomic device on Baghdad within a few hours if the Iraqi leadership fails to withdraw its troops. The prez doesn't stonewall, doesn't beg for more time to consider his options, doesn't check polls before making a decision; he steps right up to the camera, delivers his ultimatum, and begins to monitor the situation. What leadership! What chutzpah! Well, that is the problem. Emerson's Chief of Staff Marshall Thompson (Timothy Hutton) occasionally drifts into the foreground to question the motivations of such a brazen decree. He points out that nuking Baghdad is equivalent to dropping a bomb on the birthplace of the human race. Thompson also wonders about the potential fallout sure to batter the gates when Emerson, a Jew, attacks an Arab nation with such a devastating device. Further complicating matters are a series of increasingly irate phone calls between the president and the Iraqi ambassador, communications that take on downright sinister implications when the Iraqi's claim to possess a bundle of nuclear weapons located on ships around the world. They will launch these bombs at American targets, says the ambassador, unless Emerson accepts the invasion. Predictably, one of these targets is Washington, D.C. where the president's family waits for his return.

If you cannot tell, I liked "Deterrence." I started out with doubts as I loaded the DVD in the machine, however. I worried about Kevin Pollack turning in a competent performance as the president, a worry completely unfounded as the first few minutes of the movie unfolded. What really gave me a positive feel for the guy was how he worked the locals at the diner. Anyone who has seen a politician in action will instantly recognize Emerson's breezy familiarity with people he met mere seconds ago. I thought these initial scenes really helped set up the idea of Pollack playing the president. Who knew a comedian who does such a killer impression of William Shatner's Captain Kirk could pull off a role requiring him to resolve more moral dilemmas than Plato? For the most part, the supporting cast does an adequate job backing up Pollack's essentially one-man show. What didn't work as well was the cast of locals in the diner. For a large part of the movie they simply fade into the woodwork until one of the shocking twists at the conclusion requires their presence.

Anyone who says they saw the twist conclusion coming from miles away is not telling the truth. Although this denouement is arguably too pat, it did instantly change the entire scope of the film. There is that great moment when you learn why the president does what he does and you quickly scan your memory of the preceding scenes in order to see what clues the director gave you in advance. They are there, but you won't see them until the very end. As for the DVD version of "Deterrence," there is a commentary track from the director but that's about it. No matter, though, since "Deterrence" is a great thriller and a grand continuation of a genre that could have disappeared with the Berlin Wall. Enjoy.


True definition of the word tension!!!!   December 26, 2002
Kevin P. Grover (Columbus, Ohio)
"Deterrence" is probably the most underrated movie in history, and therefore doesn't receive the accolades which it truly deserves.

Kevin Pollack is the President. Seeing him play this part, I honestly believed that the role was made for him. His way of expressing determination when speaking to IBS while in the diner when making his speech...and speaking directly to the Iraqi people...was earth-shattering. I truly believe that no one else could have played that role to the degree it was played.

Timothy Hutton was superb in his role as well. His character argued against the President when needed, and recoiled when necessary.

All of the roles were superb, right down to Sean Astin as the smart-mouthed punk. I must, however, give exceptional credit to the man who portrayed the anchor on IBS. When I learned he was a local TV weatherman, I was shocked. He could easily handle a news anchor desk...and should be doing so.

The most extraordinary part of this film was that it was all shot inside the diner, never changing scenes.

I highly recommend this movie to anyone who wants a feature that will literally glue them to their chairs. You won't even want to blink for fear of missing something. My favorite scene is the dialogue when Pollack is speaking to the Iraqi representative:

Iraqi: "Mr. President, understand this: We have the oil. We have the power."

Pollack: "I have the match." (slams phone receiver down, cutting connection)

If THAT isn't tension, someone please tell me what is.

If my writing ever goes to screen...I want this writer, director, and producer on it. They know how to write, direct, and produce a movie that is well worthy of academy award nominations and trophies.


Waste of time, incredibly stupid   November 16, 2002
If you're reasonably intelligent, you'll be annoyed if you waste your time watching this movie. Cheesy dialog, unconvincing acting, and a ridiculous ending all ruined what could have been an awesome tale. I had hoped for a good nail-biting, tension-filled movie, perhaps with a meaningful message about nuclear weapons (either pro or con, at least something meaningful). Instead? Nothing. Just a wish that I'd spent my time doing something else. There's nothing "deep" about this, the only "message" you could possibly derive is one you add yourself -- it's not in the film. The characters are terribly inconsistent... Ugh. I could go on and on about how poor this movie is, but I can't think of anything positive to say about it -- and that is really sad, because the basic concept has so much potential.