FeistyUpper If you don't like this, we can't be friends.

MusicChat It's complicated... I really like the directing, acting and writing but, there are issues with the way it's shot that I just can't deny. As much as I love the storytelling and the fantastic performance but, there are also certain scenes that didn't need to exist.

Janae Milner Easily the biggest piece of Right wing non sense propaganda I ever saw.

Kamila Bell This is a coming of age storyline that you've seen in one form or another for decades. It takes a truly unique voice to make yet another one worth watching.

Cyniphile The good: It's good to see a film that advocates science and reason for the purpose of spreading an important message that is far overdue. I think the interviewees were well selected from pools of both scientific experts and relate-able, intelligent, concerned citizens who all present the overwhelming and long-known evidence for nuclear power's safety and use. The bad: A 45-60 min version could have been equally informative. There's a lot of bad editing and poor documentary style, sometimes laughably so, and the narrative thread gets rather weak as it's stretched to meet minimum feature length. Many poor pro-nuclear arguments and some inflammatory material is thrown in the mix which diminishes film's documentary integrity.

MartinHafer "Pandora's Promise" is a challenging and engaging documentary about nuclear power. However, instead of it being promoted by the usual sources, this film is about LIBERALS pushing for nuclear power. This shows a divide between them and the old fashioned anti-nuke liberals. However, this film does NOT mean that it represents this group joining in with the Conservatives here in America because much of the basis for their new-found love of radioactivity is their fear of global warming. In essence, it is as if they are now saying 'we were wrong about nuclear power...we're sorry...but believe us now about global warming'--an argument that is bound to alienate many.So is this a bad film? No. While I think it is inconsistent in some ways, it IS thought-provoking and interesting from start to finish. But, occasionally it made me question some of their facts and conclusions--such as saying that 3,000,000 folks a year die as a result of fossil fuels! Where did they get that figure from and why does the film also mock the fantastic death figures thrown about by the anti-nuke movement. I BOTH are way overstating their cases in order to make their points. As for me, I'd like to see more about this subject but also from different sources.

miffedone Well, with a title like "Not at all convincing", it will surprise some readers to know that I am a supporter of nuclear power. Unfortunately, this film is polemic, one sided, and so entirely slanted that it works against its own purpose.Anti-nuke protesters are shown, but only the most extreme ("1,000,000 deaths in Chernobyl!") and holes are so wide you could drive a nuclear submarine through them ("Look! Chernobyl! Almost radiation free!")The reality is that Chernobyl is a decaying mess, and it is the failure of the nuclear plant that caused it. Even if not directly, *it doesn't matter!* When the nuke plant blows up, nobody is going to stick around because some filmmaker found 27 souls who moved back to Chernobyl 10 years later and they're OK.The problem of nuclear waste is real. It doesn't matter whether we've poured $30 billion into Yucca Mountain or not, the people of Nevada are unmistakably against it (nearly 75%!) so pretending it's a problem that will somehow go away is akin to howling at the moon.Solar (and other renewables) are dismissed with "You can't do everything with solar power." Well, I don't know of anyone outside a few oddball extremists who ever thought that. Pretending that's a legitimate argument may allow you to demolish it, but then what have you accomplished? You've demonstrated that you can mount an effective argument against a lie? Good show.I happen to be one who believes that humans have a limitless appetite for energy. I am sure that nuclear has to be part of that, and probably a BIG part of that. But reducing opponents' arguments to caricature and showing lopsided and occasionally irrelevant factoids is not the way to convince anyone.Here's the question: do you want people to say "Yes, the industry should only use government approved designs, or should the 'free market' be allowed to produce anything it wants" flies in the face of the ideology of most of the supporters of nuclear power. Do you think anyone, anywhere wants the nuclear waste in their backyard? No? Why not? (I know, I know, everybody's irrational except you.) What would happen In New York City if that happy little nuclear power station on Long Island went up in smoke, as Fukushima did (which we were assured could never happen, of course.)These are the questions I hoped the documentary would answer, for the good of the industry, global warming, the nation and the planet. Unfortunately this film is more of an infomercial for the nuclear industry, as phony as the chicken that come so perfectly baked (every time!) from that stove-top rotisserie grill you can buy for only 3 easy payments of $39.99.

Alex Cannara Should awaken folks like my fellow Sierra Club members, NRDC & Greenpeace contributers, etc. to the folly of their organizations' uninformed, anti-nuclear stances.The myths around radiation from nuclear plants are exposed clearly, as is the extreme variation in normal (background) radiation around the world, up in the air, etc. The director is innovative in how these facts are exposed to the viewer.The movie also does an excellent job of deflating myths and downright lies about Chernobyl's effects, and the exploitation of that event by irresponsible people like Helen Caldicott who choose to spread fear and sell books rather than discuss the facts. The movie shows Ukrainians who never left their homes & church in the exclusion zone. To complement this, www.youtube.com/watch?v=U1Z5__IkaCs -- Chernobyl's radioactive wolves is an excellent documentary.