Stone starts off the movie by showing how the world was seemingly united on the dream of using nuclear energy for good back in the 50's & 60's but them big oil & coal used their influence to steer public opinion away. Hmmm, they do that? Is that possibly why, despite knowing how bad fossil fuels are, we're still addicted to the stuff 100 yrs later? Maybe I, too, was duped by their anti-nuke propaganda - but there are some flaws in Stone's sunny brush-overs ... all 3 major nuclear accident events are all just written off as problems caused by "poor design". Does he not think that the oil & coal industries, along w/ grimy corps like known polluters GE & short-cut takers like Halliburton aren't going to have their paws in the overhaul of our country's energy source? Or that we won't be buying fake steel and defective parts from China? And that 1 nuclear.accident, albeit extremely rare, has the potential to exterminate/radiate all life forms within hundreds of miles - Sweden detected high levels of radiation 2 days after Chernobyl, and they're over 600 miles away. But we do need to move away from oil & coal once and for all, and this new technology of recycling/re-using the nuclear waste would solve a half century-old dilemma if it were true. I say let's power back up all the existing decommissioned plants here in the U. S. until solar & wind is finally ready to take over ...
Add a Review
-
One-Movie-a-Wk-Guy17 May 2023
-
Xstal11 June 2023We are taken on a tour of fissions past, when all we ever knew was just a blast, of how a power could just smash, turning the world into cheap trash, while extra fingers, toes and eyes could be amassed; we all know the world is ending due to fossils, we didn't pay too much regard to the apostles, who couldn't break oil cartels, who lied, misled about their wells, with an event of extinction, that is colossal; so what to do, and in essence, who to believe, as we know that everyone will cheat, deceive, it looks like nukes are the escape, to stop environmental rape, until the atoms find a way to make escape!
You know, the problem is, you don't really know, and this is more than likely sponsored by groups with an interest, so keep an open mind, and investigate for yourself. -
frank-liesenborgs13 June 2023I have always been curious about why we don't build more nuclear reactors. One of my main concerns has been the issue of nuclear waste and the limited lifespan of these reactors. However, after watching this insightful documentary, narrated by Oliver Stone, I have come to appreciate the potential benefits of expanding nuclear power. Stone's argument that increasing the number of nuclear reactors can effectively address global warming seems to hold merit. This documentary delves into many aspects beyond what I have mentioned here, making it a truly engaging watch. I highly recommend it to open-minded individuals who are willing to approach the subject without injecting politics into the discussion. True to Oliver Stone's reputation, the film's quality is unquestionable. What I particularly enjoyed was how the documentary acknowledges the possibility of viewer bias, stemming from Hollywood's portrayal of events, and guides us through facts. While I eagerly await the emergence of the next breakthrough in power technology, the urgency of the issue at hand necessitates that we base our decisions on information rather than misguided beliefs. It is crucial that we proceed with a well-informed approach to address the challenges of our energy needs.
-
A compelling case for nuclear energy. A film that shifts the perspective from nuclear "trauma" to the technological wonder nuclear "could" be. A striking claim, but watch for yourselves, to determine if this film is as persuasive as I find it. Not only does it point out the boon nuclear could be for humanity but also how the other resources are lacking and may leave us hacking up smog or what not. Nuclear is more than electricity, how it may heat and supply bounties of clean water, clean transit, etc. Stone does a simple yet effective job of pitching an industry that is unfairly and inaccurately represented and understood by the masses. Watch it and decide for yourselves.
-
mattbooneusa8 June 2023I have always wondered why we do not build more nuclear reactors . My main thoughts were that nuclear waste was a big problem and they can only run for 50-80 years. Stone seems to be right that adding more nuclear reactors will help with global warming. I remember when Germany stopped using all of their nuclear power and I wondered how they will get their power when their renewables are not available and they are using coal power for that need which is very dirty and bad for the environment . This is a really interesting documentary that goes over a lot more than I mentioned here. I recommend this for anyone open minded and don't bring politics into it and you will enjoy this documentary.
-
I recently watched an interview with Oliver Stone on Breaking Points, and it piqued my interest enough to pay $3.99 to watch his movie on Amazon Prime Video. I am even considering purchasing it for $12. The movie is available on various platforms, including YouTube. It adopts a sober, somber, educational, and calm tone. It is highly informative and makes an effort not to denigrate other forms of energy. Instead, it highlights how there has been a lot of misinformation about nuclear power, and how many people are confused, believing that nuclear power is more dangerous than coal, gas, pollution, climate change, or oil. This is not the case, as is evident even in the events of Chernobyl or Fukushima. The movie presents its case persuasively, seeking your support without being overbearing or aggressive. I urge everyone to support this film and Oliver Stone for his courage and for epitomizing the true essence of a heterodox hero.
-
I liked the documentary a lot, except the hysteria and the urgency about man-made climate change, which.is a farce. I am surprised Mr. Stone hasn't researched the latter more thoroughly. I have studied the subject for many years, and it's bs, and the fake heroism of the "save the planet" nonsense is ridiculous and insulting. Still, this is a very good documentary.
I must write a longer review, so I'll add a bit more. I have also studied nuclear power for a long time, and I am not certain this is the way to "save" the world, but again, the documentary makes a very good case for it. The visuals are really great. -
Keep in mind that this documentary is fully founded and promoted by a company specialized in the construction of nuclear reactors (Newcleo). The primary focus of this recently (2021) created organization is to advocate for the construction of new nuclear reactors and to influence energy policies across Europe, such as in Italy, where nuclear energy is presently prohibited.
Newcleo, in the next 7-8 years, plans to develop two reactors in France and the United Kingdom, with a non-nuclear prototype in the study phase in Italy. Additionally, they intend to establish a nuclear fuel factory producing mixed plutonium-uranium oxides (MOX). The concept for the MOX facility emerged after the conflict in Ukraine, driven by the demand for radioactive fuel independent of uranium sourced from Russia, one of the world's major producers. The company will require capital in the range of 3-4 billion euros to accomplish these endeavors. For these reasons, probably, they have produced a documentary to support their cause, shift public opinion on the subject and seek funding.
Throughout the entire duration of the documentary, not a single mention is made of any drawbacks associated with nuclear energy. Is nuclear energy so flawless that it possesses no disadvantages? Not quite. For instance, uranium mining causes lung cancer in large numbers of miners because uranium mines contain natural radon gas, some of whose decay products are carcinogenic. Clean, renewable energy does not have this risk because (a) it does not require the continuous mining of any material, only one-time mining to produce the energy generators; and (b) the mining does not carry the same lung cancer risk that uranium mining does. Additionally, uranium, the fuel for nuclear reactors, is energy-intensive to mine, and deposits discovered in the future are likely to be harder to access. As a result, much of the net energy created would be offset by the energy input required to build and decommission plants and to mine and process uranium ore. Then there's the significant issue of nuclear waste, which is only superficially addressed. New storage systems are being designed, but a completely safe and efficient 100% solution has not been found yet.
I am not against nuclear energy, but I would like to hear a more impartial and objective perspective on the topic, or at least hear the opposing viewpoint before drawing my conclusions. -
ops-5253514 June 2023To stir up peoples mind in all his filmatographic productions, and shedding the light on nuclear power as the messian force of clean power generations will make many a rambling stone rumble...
im 99% into the argumentation of this film, its spanning wide and gives you a thorough walk through on the power production subject on an historical basis, and the direction of todays dramatic dismanteling of our power banks of nuclear energy makes me doupt the trend. E.g. The german complete stop of production and development of nuclear power, its headless and over the heels consideringthe real clean natural energy ressources that they have. Norway have hydropower en masse, germans doesnt, and wont have due to glacial melting and soforth.
Well if youre on the nuclear power wave, this is a thunder roll on enigmatic documentarymaking, if youre against, you will meet arguments that weighs quite a lot. A big recommend from the grumpy old man. -
simonsavage30 November 2023A bit American centric, but otherwise extraordinary. Is obviously biased, but hopefully so and the bias is well justified.
I run a company that focuses on energy storage technologies and have been looking at grid storage systems and applications... Following this, we will abandon that and focus on mobile energy applications where batteries, supercapacitors etc are really important and the best type of solution to address the challenges.
Have to admit that I watched this on a plane, turned me into a blubbering mess. Bravo Oliver, I'm a big fan, but this is your most impactful work to date.
Strongly recommend to anyone, very easy to watch, understand and follow the arguments. -
tdmduc29 August 2023In search of the soundtrack, watched the film and enjoyed Master Stone's brilliant articulations into the world of our energy issues and in particular: the yes or no use of nuclear power in the future.
Nice for the Vangelis fans: Oliver Stone was a lifelong friend so it wasn't too difficult which music this gem of a documentary should be accompanied by.
Unfortunately, Vangelis died in 2022 so that became another thing.
Fortunately, Oliver Stone and Budd Carr pulled it off nicely.
Musical credit for mister Papathanassiou and a "in memory" mention are at the end of the movie.
This film just goes to show again that some things should not be left to the common people because because of all the protests and political wars and "democratic" lapses, we are at least 40 years behind because of all the fiddling and mistakes of the past.
What a time mankind has wasted. I say Nuclear NOW!
And sooner rather than later. If only for the sake of our children.
Peace out from Deventer,NL. -
bhoundproductions11 June 2023I don't know what the advertisement process is for documentary films, but I heard about this film on Joe Rogan's podcast. #1992 with the director Oliver Stone. And it did not disappoint. It's Oliver Stone, so the quality of the film is not in question. I really liked how the film acknowledges the potential for the viewer to have bias, based on Hollywood version of events. And then helps the viewer walk through actual facts. At the End, I think I'm with everyone that can't wait for the Next Version of Technology for power what ever that night be (crashed UFO secrets???). But until then because the issue is so important. We need to proceed on facts and not disillusioned beliefs.
-
Nuclear now is fragmented storytelling with questionable references.
Thunberg, gates, Kennedy. And at the end Martin Luther King and gandhi.... are all used in this one picture.
I almost added Hawking as well. Hawking was very aware of climafe change. But the way he was used... well I don't know. It doesn't feel like it adds to the story.
This is mixed with Excellent made graphs are shown without source reference and some interviews conducted by stone.
Everything else said before is misinformation and indoctrination. And the answer is nuclear without opposing views or just let bill Gates tell us that renewable are not enough and we need to compliment it with nuclear.
The opposing view that we get there with renewables is dealt with. Later on out of the many projects available one with bill Gates is picked as well. So bill Gates is now a leader to tell us about pandemics and climate change, nuclear energy??
I really would like to hear from specialists and researchers. Not investors.
Green peace and green parties don't come out well in the movie.
As does Jane fonda, Bruce Springsteen and other musicians who are opposed to atoms.... Think of them of influences...
Yet he uses another influencer to give the message of nuclear now. And all the famous people mentioned before. He uses to convey that message.
Honestly as a documentary it is trash.
I think it's a real shame that a filmmaker with his credentials has made this movie that should fit inside 50 minutes but instead takes twice as long.
He even felt it necessary to have the joke to swim in the pool in there. While the preceding minute was all about staying away from the pool. Those 2 minutes could have easily been cut.
There is also this famous scene from stand by me. Accompanied by a story that you can't outrun climate change?? I get what he is trying to say but using stand by me there it feels like exploitation and it distracts from the message as I am watching the boys... This is not once, not twice but quite often that the storytelling goes astray.
Now I do agree that we won't get there . And we need to reconsider nuclear and other sources.
And it absolutely makes no sense to shut down operational plants without a cleaner alternative available.
Anyway I find it disrespectful to the viewer to mix real info with mentioned big names.
I still give it 3/10 for taking his time to shed a light on nuclear energy. And the music of Vangelis.
The way the movie is written and edited however it is just glorified propaganda.
It is a missed opportunity as I am on the nuclear bandwagon but I would love to have seen a more nuanced story that he would have just used researchers and scientists with source reference. -
dfschaffer18 July 2023The best parts of the movie are the early footage of a post-war America coming to terms with the destructive power and the limitless possibilities of a nuclear powered future that must be harnessed by a can-do alliance of military and science, physicists and engineers marching arm in arm to a bright tomorrow. Then that wonderful promise is jeopardized by an unholy cabal of fossil fuel interests sowing discontent and fear among the general public. Three nuclear disasters ensue, of little consequence in terms of human life, and suddenly the world is dismantling nuclear reactors faster than one can say Fukushima. Climate warming is begrudgingly acknowledged by the world and now it is clear that nuclear power is the only answer to save our planet.
Unfortunately, the movie becomes a very one-sided plea for a return to "safe" nuclear energy generation. It would have benefitted from an occasional contrasting viewpoint from any one of a number of recognized scientists, or dare I say "responsible" politicians. No where is there mention of the terrible risk factor inherent in a nuclear mishap. The body count of the three major nuclear accidents to date is minimized to less than 60 fatalities, all due to Chernobyl mismanagement. The nuclear waste issue becomes a question of what to do with to do a few hundred thousand square feet of contaminated material - the size of one typical Walmart. Any health risk is inconsequential compared to the daily environmental exposure and industrial accidents we experience on a regular basis. In sum we are asked to trust that any and all design and health risks have been addressed and that if we want to ever see that "Jetson" future we were all promised, we'd better get on board with nuclear power generation. -
rathat29 March 2024Nuclear energy is all in all very expensive. No nuclear power plant is insured because the risks are so high that the insurance will cost more than what's the income. With the nuclear waste you need to find a place where you can secure store this for million of years. That costs billions in the near future and thousands of billions in the next thousands of years. And last but not least has a nuclear power plant a planed runtime. After, the takedown is more expensive than the building because all is radioactive. When not highly subsidised (like all powerplants from the 60s to the 80s) one kWh will cost 1-2 Dollar. Who wants to pay this? This film is pure advertisement for the nuclear power companies.