Pandora's Promise

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.

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.

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!)

I saw a showing of this film at MIT, paired with a discussion by the director, Shellenberger, and a nuclear scientist. The audience was probably an unusual crowd, and they laughed at parts that other folks likely won't.

One of the researchers at MIT pointed out that most of this information is not new to anyone--that the facts and issues are really the same as scientists have known. But there was great appreciation that someone has chosen to try to tell the story to the general public. And to accomplish this in part with interviews from folks who had been opposed to nuclear power, and who consider themselves to be environmentalists, was effective and interesting.

It was also helpful to have the historical context--how the fear of weapons became entirely tangled in the idea of the technology for non-military uses. But it also laid out the facts about how our craving for power has led us to burning fossil fuels that have harmed far more people than nuclear power ever has. And how France's reliance on nuclear means their carbon footprint is dramatically lower than that of the Germans, who think they are more environmentally friendly.

It could open some minds. It could start some conversations. It's worth your time if you care about the atmosphere.

This film is much better than what people rank it. Not a surprise, as these reviewers are by far liberals who could not accept the message. I watched it on CNN. It was a very interesting film in many ways. I found most interesting the education of two of the old leading environmentalists. Who blatantly admit they were closed minded in their view of how energy production could be made feasibly. They slowly educated themselves to understand that wind and solar were not realistic options for producing the massive amount of energy that is needed globally and that it would be impossible for the globe to solve it's energy needs with just them. They admit feeling lied to and stupid for believing that wind and solar were going to solve the worlds problems. As someone who didn't need a video to state the obvious, I am left wondering how people can really believe those blatant lies. With out spoiling the doc and getting into specifics. This guy does a good job at taking a hard look at things. He does not say we should never use solar or wind. Simply it will never be enough and they use a natural gas when to keep the plants running when their is no wind or it's cloudy. And he's right. Nuclear is his better than the rest of the other options solution. As someone who personally thinks clean coal is a better option, I will say he makes a strong argument. My only, concern with his theory, is that he never talks about what to do with the spent fuel. These critics of the film are hell bent on 2 arguments. Conservation and solar. Conservation isn't put much into the video, but he clearly states in interviews that we will never conserve enough and we will always use more. Which studies and both common sense prove to be true. But he never address that fissile fuels can be made to burn cleaner. 1 thing he definitely got right. It's not just the US. The emerging world that is starting to use more and more energy is going to massively increase pollution. Which there is no fix. I am waiting for the day we start having the Chinese global debate for 1 child.