arglebargle-47893 I found this on Amazon and pulled it up to watch based on the IMDb rating of 6.5 (at the time I'm writing this). If I like the film genre, I generally find I can spend a pleasant 90 minutes or so doing other things and watching any film on the tube in the 5.5-7.5 range. Better than that and I want to concentrate on the film a little better.As to the movie itself, there are no special effects. No twisted plot (although this film has a decent one). There is one cliché jerk, and it was confined the local redneck. And we also have a lunatic (can't have a thriller without one). What improves this film is what it lacks. What we don't have is military personnel that don't act military. There is no politician who has no people skills. There are no bull-headed advisers who can't acknowledge compromise. There's no loose-cannon army general. No security guards that were either constantly jerks or couldn't be trusted watch the White House dog.I really get hating films like this when professionals get reduced to caricatures created by ignorant screenwriters. Bogus behavior to create tension just stinks. In "Deterrence" the characters remained realistic and competent. The situation and moral dilemmas were in place to create the tension. That's the nature of good drama. The actors weren't spectacular, but everyone turns in a professional performance.Final note: the live news felt much better for this film than any other I've seen. The reporter tripping over his words saying "White house" and then correcting to "house of representatives" smacked beautifully of a reporter under fire. Live news has goofs. There were elements of this low-budget thriller that would do well to be added to the big budget films.

American_Delight Far from being an irrelevant glimpse of an alternate history that never materialized, the fictional re-invasion of Kuwait by Iraq in "Deterrence" provides a highly relevant alternative to the U.S. approach to rogue states in the world today. With the U.S. fighting two wars and the budget looking grim, it crosses the mind of even the most hawkish among us whether feckless air wars and costly ground wars are worthwhile. The alternative is simple, elegant, and ghastly: a promise to drop a nuclear bomb on our enemy if they do not meet U.S. demands. Imagine if Afghanistan or Pakistan had been told in September 2001 to turn over Bin Laden and Mullah Omar or face the imminent nuclear annihilation of Kabul and Islamabad. Would Bin Laden not have been swinging from the end of a noose ten years ago? It's a compelling and stark bit of realpolitik, suitable for discussions at the café among political intellectuals. But it works well as drama too as we watch Kevin Pollak's character, Walter Emerson, grow in the movie from a mousy, underwhelming "second banana" into a steely, decisive leader. Director Rod Lurie says that ultimately, Pres. Emerson is a villain for making such a heinous threat. Viewers can make up their own minds. Some of the scenes involving the local customers in the diner border on cheesy, awkward, or artificial; but the tension, surprising decisions, and political intrigues played out in this film make it a must-see national security drama.

Theo Robertson Often you have to suspend disbelief in order for a cinematic story to work and I think I'm right in saying all screen writing gurus agree you're allowed to get away with one implausibility/coincidence in your story . In DETTERENCE this would probably mean that the Iraqis would be able to mobilize their entire armed forces without the Americans noticing , allowing the president to trapped in a diner during a snowstorm . I'd be the first to admit that this takes some swallowing but if you watch a film too closely then very few films you see will ever work so let's ignore the unlikeliness of it Unfortunately what happens next is that the audience become more and more aware of factual errors and implausibilities throughout the running time . We're told that Iraq " has sent three divisions ...half a million men into Kuwait " I'm fairly certain that in military circles a division is composed of 8,000 to 10,000 troops not 133,000 as stated here . The President decides to nuke Iraq but since Iraq also has nuclear weapons there's a danger of a nuclear counterstrike . This is the main stumbling block with DETERRENCE because it's impossible to believe the Iraqi regime would ever be allowed to posses such an arsenal . And if that leaves you scratching your head wait till it's revealed at the end that America and France were responsible for supplying the Iraqis with the bomb " so that Iraq wouldn't be able to manufacture its own nuclear deterrent " ! Let me think , America and France will supply Iraq with nuclear warheads and a delivery system so that the Iraqis won't manufacture their own weapons of mass destruction . When you've got something as ridiculously illogical as that in your screenplay then it's easy to miss other factual errors like a B-2 bomber being confused with a F-111 , Baghdad having a population of 12 million people or stock footage of Baghdad being in the center of the Pacific ocean as it's destroyed by a 100 megaton bomb I'm sure writer/director Rod Lurie originally conceived this story for the stage . It's impossible to watch this thinking it's a cinematic movie and alas Lurie has written his characters as stereotypes such as the hick redneck , the angry blackman etc . It's not helped either that the cast give far from compelling performances . Hutton may be excused for slapping his head too often because that's how I reacted to the unconvincing dialogue while Kevin Pollack doesn't come across as being very presidential but that is the point - his character isn't supposed to be presidential at all . But there's far better , more realistic movies similar to this like FAIL SAFE which was made during the cold war where the premise was so compelling because it was frighteningly realistic . Realistic isn't an adjective I can use for DETERRENCE

Maryann King Okay. I saw this listed on the Scream network last night (Thursday Thriller) and the plot sounded pretty good, so I checked it out. The cast was great. I thought maybe this was a play originally, because the whole movie takes place in the diner. The plot is basically that the V.P. has been acting president for several months after the death of the president. He is on the campaign trail, and he has won an important primary. A debilitating snowstorm lands him in a little isolated country greasy spoon diner, where several otherlocals and customers are stranded. All hell breaks loose when the TV announces that Saddam Hussain's son Uday has invaded Kuwait. This one has actually held up fairly well as a post 9/11 alternate history. Shawn Astin plays a local redneck. There is a couple in the diner waiting out the storm by squabbling and playing chess; the president offers an opinion on the board setup. I suspect that most world leaders are pretty good at chess or they don't last long in office.The cast of characters was pretty representative of the American sentiments. The part I disbelieve the most is the fact that a nuclear bomb blasting away a whole city of innocents could be taken so lightly by a president. In real life, I doubt if he would get away with his decision in these times... since we are now all too painfully aware of how united the Arabs can be; the movie would have an epilogue entitled 'Retaliation'.Ask me now if I mind that Uday is not around to follow in his father's footsteps... not likely.