I learned a lot from this movie. I served on a US Navy submarine from 1978 to 1983. The quality of the information is very high; both Robert Gates and Oleg Gordievsky are interviewed. The information is easy to understand and although quite scary, it is presented in a sophisticated and entertaining way. I have not seen a better movie about the cold war.
4 Reviews
Gripping and accessible documentary that is good apart from a stupid use of music throughout
bob the moo11 April 2008
In 1983 a series of events and misunderstandings raised the tension in the cold war to the point where it almost became a hot war. A Korean airliner was shot down, Reagan labelled the Soviet Union the evil empire, an early warning satellite mistakenly showed that the US had launched five missiles at Russia and spies on the ground tried to identify signs of an imminent strike from the West. In the middle of this paranoia and tension, NATO conducted one of regular exercises "Able Archer" from a bunker in Belgium. The exercise simulates the build up to nuclear war and only involves testing the communication process over many days, however to the Russia's listening to these signals, it only served to up the ante even more, pushing the world to the brink of full nuclear war.
This is not a perfect documentary but it is a very good one thanks to the material it covers. With some subjects the material is so compelling so that all the documentary makers need to do is make sure they don't drop the ball and just ensure that they make it clear and concise. It will not surprise you to learn that the subject of a near-miss nuclear war is one that is compelling and I do believe that if they had just had a man on the screen telling me about these events that I still would have been gripped.
As it is the film does a good job of making the events, unfortunate coincidences and misunderstandings accessible and understandable. It jumps around in time a little bit but the structure just about holds it all together and presents a terrifying view of how close we came. I remember in Fog of War, the documentary about the Cuban Missile Crisis how it appeared that little things could have pushed the world over the edge. So it is here and the film gets lots of relevant and import contributions from both sides to tell this story. At its best it is interesting but also terrifying.
However it is not perfect and there are a few things that equate to "ball-fumbling". First is the use of music. The "choice" of music is not a big problem because it is all from 1983 but apart from using it as setting the period at the start of the film what is the point of it. There are countless examples but the worst is a scene that should have been unbearably tense as we see all parts of the Russian military sitting by red phones in readiness it is near the end of the film and shows how close it was, so why deliver it with the Eurhythmics "Sweet Dreams" playing all over the top of it? This flaw is not a deal breaker but it is like the makers were trying hard to spoil things it is only the strength of the material that saves it. Another weakness is that it is delivered around the advert breaks and these engineered "coming up next" style moments break up the flow, although I understand why.
Overall then an engaging and quite chilling documentary about a piece of very recent history. The film structure and use of relevant contributions makes the subject easy to follow and understand just a shame that they have to have the constantly misjudged soundtrack damaging the good work as often as it does.
This is not a perfect documentary but it is a very good one thanks to the material it covers. With some subjects the material is so compelling so that all the documentary makers need to do is make sure they don't drop the ball and just ensure that they make it clear and concise. It will not surprise you to learn that the subject of a near-miss nuclear war is one that is compelling and I do believe that if they had just had a man on the screen telling me about these events that I still would have been gripped.
As it is the film does a good job of making the events, unfortunate coincidences and misunderstandings accessible and understandable. It jumps around in time a little bit but the structure just about holds it all together and presents a terrifying view of how close we came. I remember in Fog of War, the documentary about the Cuban Missile Crisis how it appeared that little things could have pushed the world over the edge. So it is here and the film gets lots of relevant and import contributions from both sides to tell this story. At its best it is interesting but also terrifying.
However it is not perfect and there are a few things that equate to "ball-fumbling". First is the use of music. The "choice" of music is not a big problem because it is all from 1983 but apart from using it as setting the period at the start of the film what is the point of it. There are countless examples but the worst is a scene that should have been unbearably tense as we see all parts of the Russian military sitting by red phones in readiness it is near the end of the film and shows how close it was, so why deliver it with the Eurhythmics "Sweet Dreams" playing all over the top of it? This flaw is not a deal breaker but it is like the makers were trying hard to spoil things it is only the strength of the material that saves it. Another weakness is that it is delivered around the advert breaks and these engineered "coming up next" style moments break up the flow, although I understand why.
Overall then an engaging and quite chilling documentary about a piece of very recent history. The film structure and use of relevant contributions makes the subject easy to follow and understand just a shame that they have to have the constantly misjudged soundtrack damaging the good work as often as it does.
Bad Language by the Narrator
ellisfamily2 February 2009
This is a great documentary drama, except for the constant bad language of the narrator, Gina McKee.
McKee has at least as big a bad language problem as George W. Bush. Neither Bush nor McKee can say "nuclear": Both say "nucular". And, if anyone tells you that is not bad language then do not believe them.
For an actor, or journalist, or what ever McKee is, a single word mispronounced in a show might be forgiven. However, this is bad constantly. The narrator can not avoid it, especially as the subject is about the prospect of "nuclear" war so the word comes up constantly.
However, after the Producer (Henry Chancellor) and Executive Producers (Taylor Downing and Sam Organ) and/or almost anyone else involved had spoken to McKee about the project, and done nothing, then they become equally responsible for the bad language.
What if a show is about writing a book, and the narrator constantly talks about the "wroter" of the book? Or, about elephants and the narrator calls them "efalants". Or, about television and the narrator says "telovision".
This show deserves a re-dub, to take out the constant bad language of the narrator, Gina McKee.
Otherwise, it scores 8-9.
McKee has at least as big a bad language problem as George W. Bush. Neither Bush nor McKee can say "nuclear": Both say "nucular". And, if anyone tells you that is not bad language then do not believe them.
For an actor, or journalist, or what ever McKee is, a single word mispronounced in a show might be forgiven. However, this is bad constantly. The narrator can not avoid it, especially as the subject is about the prospect of "nuclear" war so the word comes up constantly.
However, after the Producer (Henry Chancellor) and Executive Producers (Taylor Downing and Sam Organ) and/or almost anyone else involved had spoken to McKee about the project, and done nothing, then they become equally responsible for the bad language.
What if a show is about writing a book, and the narrator constantly talks about the "wroter" of the book? Or, about elephants and the narrator calls them "efalants". Or, about television and the narrator says "telovision".
This show deserves a re-dub, to take out the constant bad language of the narrator, Gina McKee.
Otherwise, it scores 8-9.
serious inaccuracy
jimbo20066 March 2013
While this story is interesting, early on, the narrator makes the claim that President Reagan spent over a $trillion every year on the military buildup. The entire Reagan military building was about one trillion dollars, the entire national budget was not even one trillion at that point, and it was during Reagan that the national (accumulated) debt passed that mark. Between 1980 and 1985, the number of dollars devoted each year to defense more than doubled, from $142.6 billion to $286.8 billion. The Navy increased its force from 479 combat ships to 525, while the Army bought thousands of the new Abrams tanks and Bradley Fighting Vehicles. An Army attack helicopter called the Apache, a key weapon in both gulf wars, made its debut.
Hundreds of attack aircraft, from the Navy's F-14 Tomcat to the Air Force's F-15 Eagle, took to the skies, while the Pentagon rapidly modernized its nuclear force with the Peacekeeper intercontinental ballistic missile, the Trident submarine and the B-1B bomber, wrote James Kitfield in his book Prodigal Soldiers, which chronicled the military's buildup in the 1980s.
Hundreds of attack aircraft, from the Navy's F-14 Tomcat to the Air Force's F-15 Eagle, took to the skies, while the Pentagon rapidly modernized its nuclear force with the Peacekeeper intercontinental ballistic missile, the Trident submarine and the B-1B bomber, wrote James Kitfield in his book Prodigal Soldiers, which chronicled the military's buildup in the 1980s.
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
