The Peacemaker (1997)

The Peacemaker (1997): Dir: Mimi Leder / Cast: George Clooney, Nicole Kidman, Marcel Iures, Armin Mueller-Stahl, Goran Visnjic: First film produced by Dreamworks and it isn't a promising start. Title is wayward because nobody pauses long enough to figure out what peace means. Plot regards six nuclear bombs that a terrorist wishes to set off on American ground. George Clooney enters as a Special Forces Colonel who joins forces with a nuclear scientist played by Nicole Kidman. They manage to uncover all of the bombs save for one, which the terrorist possesses. Standard plot sidelined by action sequences that serve no other purpose other than to demonstrate production. Director Mimi Leder handles the action with great skill yet only Marcel Iures as a terrorist is the one broad role. He had lost his wife to the violence surrounding the area and he blames America. Clooney and Kidman are billed as names only. They begin with promising roles but soon enough they are on the run and narrowly avoiding death. Armin Mueller-Stahl makes an appearance before he is abruptly killed off. The characters are sidelined in favor of big budget explosions that basically make a lot of noise. The production is solid but the screenplay serves only action lovers and has little regard for the subject at hand. It is a forgettable film that serves mainly as a test object for Dreamworks. Score: 3 ½ / 10

This movie is being advertised almost everywhere. Buses go past with it plastered all over the side, but is it as good as they are trying to make it out to be. In a word no. I found the movie quite dry and boring, and I slept through a part of it (okay, I had had a restless previous two nights travelling between Adelaide, Melbourne, and Sydney, but if the movie was good I would not have fallen asleep). This movie did not grip me, moreover I was waiting for it to end so I could go home and sleep.The plot is pretty basic. A renegade Russian General steals some nuclear warheads because he is upset that the communist reigime has ended. Who the Russian General actually was was a little unclear. I assumed that he was killed just before they detonated the warhead, but it seemed that it was the guy who killed the Russian General. Rather confusing I'd say.Then they bring in the war between Bosnia and Serbia and things become even more confusing. They try to tie it up in the end but the threads seemed to have been to obscure to begin with. And then there is the thing about a nuclear bomb only blowing up a few blocks in New York City. Okay, that is possible as the bomb they were referring to was the detonator for a fusion bomb, but once again it was a little unclear (though I could have been asleep when this happened).Now, Nicole Kidman's character is one that I find interesting. She begins acting as if she is a woman that is strong and is able to command men. Moreso, she acts as if she will not let a man walk all over her. Then George Clooney enters and walks all over her. That type of character is interesting, but I think they did not develop it properly. I went in thinking that she was supposed to be a strong woman and when it turn out that she wasn't really that strong, I was somewhat disappointed. Yet she does have some strong points as she is able to hold George Clooney back from entering Russia.George Clooney, well, all I can say about his character was that it was very uninteresting, even quite dry. Typical special forces commander that knows everything and can do everything by himself and the only reason Kidman is in the movie is to put a pretty face beside him. Honesty, one can give this movie a miss.

This movie would have been just as good if it was a plot for a James Bond movie. US military and civilian are tasked to find a stolen nuclear bomb. Cliff hanger of course is its detonation time, and how the two will find the bomb.I seriously think that this is one of the best role George Clooney played. He looks so real as the military officer. His chemistry with Nichole Kidman is really good too.The movie is hard to rate in that it's really well put together, but acting is bit weak, and this takes away from the tension. There's not enough character in George Clooney's role to make him interesting. Like many others who likes this movie, I like it for the story, and the quality of the production. It's an intriguing story, and is worth a watch for its story alone.

I was particularly interested in this film because I was curious how Hollywood would treat this type of scenario, and of course, anything with Nicole Kidman in it has to be at least somewhat entertaining. I actually worked for DOE, in the national labs at Berkeley and also Los Alomos, a number of years ago, and a consequence of such have become quite familiar with nuclear ordnance in its myriad forms, including the so-called "suitcase nukes" that both the former Soviet Union & the USA have developed.Make no mistake, these types of miniaturized nuclear devices do exist, including from decommissioned MRV ballistic missiles and the like. The concept of nuclear warheads, slipping into the wrong hands does very much exist, although in current times this may more likely come from Pakistan, or any variety of "rogue" states who could acquire such through third party brokers. As a side note, any of these types of nuclear devices do require periodic "refurbishing", the details of which I won't elaborate on, but after a certain length of time, the capacity for thermo-nuclear detonation does diminish.Having said all that, does the film realistically portray any of this actually translating into a potential situation? Well . . . not exactly, but I think it's interesting that at least the concept was presented in a not overly ridiculous fashion. Sadly, with tremendous irony, I noted the twin trade towers in several of the background scenes. How odd it is that history often unfolds in the least expected ways. It was, after all, not a miniaturized nuke that was the greatest act of terrorism and evil ever perpetrated on US citizens, but rather planes filled with people . . . and boxcutters as the weaponry of terror.Was the film entertaining? Yes. Could it have been done better? Not sure if I have a qualified answer, but it certainly could have been done much worse.A bit dated? Perhaps . . . but I still think it's worth the time to watch, and contemplate.