How sad is this?

A Disappointing Continuation

It's the kind of movie you'll want to see a second time with someone who hasn't seen it yet, to remember what it was like to watch it for the first time.

The storyline feels a little thin and moth-eaten in parts but this sequel is plenty of fun.

This documentary aptly illuminates the epidemic of single-mindedness within our society -- extremists on both sides of every major issue making decisions based not on facts but on deeply entrenched emotional convictions. It seems the vast majority of contributors to the nuclear power and global warming debates are more interested in tailoring facts to fit their views than they are in matching their views to the facts. Indeed many will go so far as to manufacture their own "facts" while suppressing or discrediting contradictory data in order to push an agenda. Attempting to find objective data on these issues is a daunting task so it was refreshing for me to see such unlikely advocates of nuclear power advocating for something they once admittedly abhorred.Overall the film was well-produced and managed to make a reasonable case for nuclear power while maintaining a sense of balance by examining the arguments on both sides of the debate. I only have a couple of complaints. For starters I was frustrated and amazed, frankly, by the complete lack of captioning typically seen in a documentary. This wouldn't have been near as much an issue if relevant information such as locations, dates, and particularly the names of the contributors and their credentials were included in the film's narrative. The only other major issue I had with the film is its failure in my opinion to adequately address one of the greatest concerns about nuclear power as a global energy solution -- proliferation -- the fear being that nuclear power would give any nation the practical capability of developing nuclear weapons at some point. The film attempted to address this important concern with the following lofty and somewhat naive platitude: "We won't get rid of nuclear weapons by forgetting how to make them; We'll get rid of nuclear weapons by deciding we don't want them anymore". The problem of course is that such sentiment presupposes a hallucinatory degree of trust and benevolence shared by heads of state and dictators everywhere.In the spirit of full disclosure I generally espouse what most would consider to be conservative views but I don't like to be called a conservative. I see labels as limitations placed on thought.

This film is unfortunately very poorly edited and organized. I was really open to the basic idea this film wanted to convey but have come away not anymore convinced to be for or against nuclear power. That is because this is just not a very good film. The experts were not very compelling. They are smart, articulate, and probably nice. But, the story of their journey from being against to being for nuclear power really was fell flat. Perhaps that is the fault of the editing or perhaps they are not very compelling people. On the plus side the production values are very good. It is a pretty film to look at. I didn't like the overly dramatic shots of the experts (not speaking) looking into the camera or staring off into the distant future (or something like that). I never felt very connected to the experts as people. The music was very ominous in tone. The overall production made me feel that something very bad is waiting for us in the future. If the filmmakers want to motivate people to action in support of nuclear power - an ominous tone is probably not the best strategy.

This film interviews several environmentalists and peace campaigners who have changed their mind on nuclear, and explores the reasons why they have changed their mind from "anti" to "pro". The film doesn't gloss over the disasters at Chernobyl and Fukushima; some of the speakers visit these locations in person and acknowledge their unease in a thoughtful way, but they also press on and discuss quantitatively whether people have been poorly informed about the actual dangers. The film is a myth-buster, which gives the open-minded viewer the chance to compare polemics with facts that the viewer can verify. The film makers take a radiation dose meter around the world, showing on screen the readings in capital cities, inside a nuclear power station, in aeroplanes, on a beach in Brazil (to which people flock for its natural radiation), near Fukushima, and near Chernobyl. Viewers who like me love numbers are advised to take a sheet of paper and pen to note down the readings at the beach, near Fukushima, and near Chernobyl. No doubt the main response to this film will be a brawl between "pro" and "anti" people, most of whom have not seen the film. They all need to calm down and watch this film. Some people compare this film with An Inconvenient Truth. I think Pandora's Promise is a better documentary. Contrary to what other reviewers say, it is not "propaganda by the nuclear industry" - only a couple of the people involved in the film were ever employed by the nuclear industry; most of the people interviewed are genuinely independent thinkers, mainly environmentalists, with no hidden agenda, who have taken the trouble to look at facts and data, and who have been willing to imagine that their opinions might be wrong. This is a trait to be admired. See the film, study the facts, then decide. (And, incidentally, I should say the film's photography is great!)

Stone's earliest documentary used declassified footage acquired through the Freedom of Information Act to tell the story of the Bikini islanders and American servicemen affected by nuclear weapons testing. Pandora's Promise shows he remains a dedicated researcher twenty five years later. With captivating images of energy production from all over the world, Stone explores the contradictions of science and ideology related to climate change, urbanization, and nuclear power. The personal narratives of the people featured in the film provide an unapologetic point of view on disruption in the historic environmental narrative. Beautifully shot, enjoyable to watch, the film's highlighting of counter intuitive information will present inconvenient truths that inspire conversation after the credits roll.