Back in October 1997 I was not too impressed by The Peacemaker. As the debut picture of then-new Dreamworks SKG it came across as a rather flat and forgettable combination of Jack Ryan and James Bond. Both Clooney and Kidman are horribly miscast and don't have much chemistry, though are not completely unwatchable. This was back in Clooney's head-lolling days when he thought that having a floppy neck made him look debonaire and charming.The opening to the movie is very well done and atmospheric. A steam locomotive charging through remote Russian darkness is hijacked by a second train sneaking up in its wake and a cargo of nine nuclear warheads are stolen with a tenth warhead detonated to cover the tracks (pun intended). Col. Tom Devoe (Clooney,sans-vertebrae) knows just about everyone in Russia and is given the mission of proving the nukes went missing and finding them before a terrorist strike can take place.As a pre-9/11 post-Bosnia movie it still feels quite topical and Marcel Iures is especially good as a broken man overcome by grief who will do anything to share his sadness with the world. It always stood out as a bold move and a powerful antagonist, it's just a shame that the film surrounding it is fairly bland for the most part.There's an amazing scene on a bridge and a tough car chase in Vienna, Mimi Leder doesn't shy away from blood and violence, and commits a fair amount of muscle to some scenes, but the movie just fizzles with the two leads failing to create any spark between them. Kidman could be replaced with a chest of drawers and it would have more charisma. A decent timewaster, but void of anything that would make it a classic.

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.

An American army officer and a nuclear scientist, or something of the like, try to gain control of stolen nuclear bombs, all this in the context of the ex-Yougoslavian conflicts. There are a few good things about this film but they are outweighed by the flaws. First of all, this film is stuck between a good action-thriller (think Tony Scott stuff) and a silly film to amuse 10 year olds. Its problem lies in the fact that it could have been a nice "serious", fast-paced, well-directed action movie but turns out to be a diluted version of one (though well directed, I must admit). Where one might expect a little more violence or a rougher edge, you get Clooney cracking jokes and when you would like a little more gravitas given to the baddies, you get one-liners such as "I hate them because they are poor" (talking about middle-eastern refugees). Another element I did not care for in this film is Nicole Kidmann. She is pretty but never convincing, never funny, always out of place and always too theatrical. All in all, this film is light, Clooney is pretty cool but it remains a bit of a waist of time and will not make you laugh nor hold your breath.