5 Comments

1. R. J Metz says:
   November 29, 2009 at 3:20 pm

   I like movies that are about whistleblowers and union workers, favorites of mine include, SILKWOOD, ERIN BROCKOVICH, and NORMA RAE. But this one is just no good at all! It is too violent, the language is terrible from start to finish. It doesn’t even deserve one star! Jane Fonda showed no talent whatsoever! I am very glad, that I checked it out of my Library before wasting a lot of money on the DVD. My advice to viewers is, avoid this one at all cost. Just watch SILKWOOD, and consider yourself as having seen both.
   Rating: 1 / 5
2. Mynameisthis says:
   November 29, 2009 at 5:35 pm

   The acting was bad and the science was bad. If it weren’t that Three Mile Island happened around that time, the film would have been an utter flop. Don’t waste your time with this toxic lie.
   Rating: 1 / 5
3. David Thomson says:
   November 29, 2009 at 7:14 pm

   Do you want to know one of the main reasons why your energy bills are so high? It is because of the damage done to our nuclear energy industry by the leftist establishment. Yes, Jane Fonda and her left-wing cronies may have cost you personally many thousands of dollars. Our national economic loss is in the billions—if not the trillions. The China Syndrome is a fictional account of the alleged duplicity and even murderous actions of those running our nuclear plants. These scoundrels care little about the consumer’s safety. But how can these business men protect their own lives if a nuclear meltdown occurs? Alas, one is not suppose to ask logical questions. This is, after all, an anti-capitalist propaganda film. Capitalists are mindless thugs who always place profits before human decency. Only hard core socialists and benevolent communists can be trusted.

   Jane Fonda and Michael Douglas portray your stereotypical liberal MSM journalists. Jack Lemon is a manager at the nuclear facility who prefers to believe the reoccurring safety problems are relatively minor. The audience, of course, knows differently. Heck, this is a Jane Fonda message movie. Did you really expect anything else? We realize before ever viewing The China Syndrome that the capitalist pigs will likely destroy the world. Well, is this film at least mildly entertaining? Yes, it is. I give it a four star rating. Later you might also want to watch Battleship Potemkin and Mission to Moscow. They may rate among Ms. Fonda’s favorites.

   David Thomson
   
   Flares into Darkness
   Rating: 4 / 5
4. _porterhouse says:
   November 29, 2009 at 9:54 pm

   The China Syndrome, produced by Michael Douglas when he took a moment to put down his joint, is a decent enough picture, as suspense/cover-up pictures from the 70’s go. But it is more than that. It has true historical significance, as it constitutes the entirety of what most people know about nuclear power. The considerable ignorance the film has thus engendered would ordinarily be of some concern.

   However, said ignorance is of no import. True, the environmentalist anti-nuke crowd has effectively shut down nuclear development in the United States for the last several decades, while France, Lithuania, and other countries have demonstrated the ability to provide the vast majority of their energy needs safely, cleanly, incredibly efficiently, and as importantly, domestically – all with nuclear power. Further, China has emerged at the vanguard of nuclear power, deploying new “walk-away safe” plants that depend on neither engineering nor human beings for their safety, but on the very laws of physics – by design, they simply cannot melt down, and they have no byproducts that cannot be disposed of safely.

   Yes, it’s true, the aforementioned anti-nuke crowd has prevented any of these technologies from being implemented in the United States, but again, it’s important to realize that they’ve caused no real harm. As we’ve got plenty of readily available oil, coal, etc., it doesn’t actually matter if we avoid making use of the best, most efficient energy sources. As we know, the third world presents no difficulties whatsoever, so we are in the enviable position of not having to worry about progress, or science, or any of that stuff that the less fortunate have to turn to in order to better their lives.

   We are in fact in the catbird seat, as it were. My advice: watch this film, develop your anti-science position, vote Nader (or Kerry if you’re a realist), fight nukes, and try mightily to keep people from buying SUVs. Anything else would require effort – reading books, questioning assumptions, and so on. Such effort would fly directly in the face of your coddled status as ignorant citizen. You have a right to be intellectually lazy – exercise it!
   Rating: 1 / 5
5. Burak Kilic says:
   November 30, 2009 at 12:32 am

   I see that people of the 70s appreciate the social impact of the film, more than those of us who are a part of the younger generation. I, in fact, as a young man, who hasn’t lived during the years of Three Mile Island and Chernobyl incidents, did not pay that much close attention to the people’s fright against nuclear reactions. From younger perspective, I believe that the ‘Chine Syndrome’ hasn’t got much to offer to the younger audience, as far as suspence, tension, and storyboard is concerned.

   The film is about the collaboration of a reporter (Jane Fonda) with a director in the nuclear power plant against the running of the plant, after a dangerous event that could have harmed hundreds of thousands of people by radioactive means. Although it seems to start interestingly enough, the tension does not develop at equal rate. One expects a huge or at least somewhat bigger event to happen; but instead gets an unreasonable exaggeration of the initial event, which just does not satisfy the audience.

   Michael Douglas plays the cameraman who works with Fonda in shooting reportages. He is the one who gets suspicious of the seemingly perfect control down in the plant, and plays a major role in the investigation of the plant. The movie is not bad; but it doesn’t carry forward how it starts. That creates a disappointment. And as I mentioned, one cannot appreciate the social impact truely, if he/she hasn’t lived during the years of nuclear danger. Good acting, but a little insatisfactory story for the young ones…
   Rating: 3 / 5