Great story, amazing characters, superb action, enthralling cinematography. Yes, this is something I am glad I spent money on.

The story, direction, characters, and writing/dialogue is akin to taking a tranquilizer shot to the neck, but everything else was so well done.

The movie really just wants to entertain people.

It is encouraging that the film ends so strongly.Otherwise, it wouldn't have been a particularly memorable film

This was the worst TV movie I had ever seen. The visuals were so dang choppy it made me dizzy. I hated the constant zoom in and zoom out, and the frequent Black and White to Color switch. I also thought that The story didn't make any sense what so ever, and it was another clichéd Action Movie, with a hero a bad guy, and a few hostages. I could make a better movie than that with my own camera, why? I can hold it steady, something the director couldn't do. Over all truly the worst I have ever seen, you thought Disney was bad? I didn't even bother to watch the whole thing because I'm sure I could guess the outcome, and the visual were the worst I have ever seen.

While not as bad as some movies (like the horrible "Atomic Twister"), "Meltdown" still relies upon common misconceptions and inaccuracies about the nuclear power industry to advance its plot. I am currently studying Nuclear Engineering in the pursuit of a Masters Degree, and it was easy to point out flaws that would be obvious to anyone involved with the industry.Riding the false fear that a Chernobyl style meltdown could happen in an American plant, the movie states that any meltdown (even partial, according to one of the guest commentators in the movie) would mean disaster for the area. In fact, a partial meltdown in an American plant, while destroying the core, would not pose any risk to the surrounding area. Three Mile Island experienced a partial meltdown and no radioactive material was released into the environment at all, thanks to the natural stability of the fuel and core design used in this country paired with substantial containment. The security steps shown in the movie were perhaps the part of the movie furthest from the truth. At any important strategic location -- be it power plant, chemical plant, military base, anything -- you will never see personnel responding to an alarm by milling around talking as if it were an unannounced drill. This is especially true at a nuclear plant, where, upon the sounding of the alarm, the reactors would be SCRAMed immediately, shutting them off. SCRAMing can be done with the push of a button in the control room (you do not need to put the core in "shutdown mode" like depicted in the movie), and the chemistry of nuclear fission prevents a core from being brought back up to power within about 9 hours of a SCRAM. So if this scenario played out in real life, the assailants would not be able to cause a significant meltdown. In theory, they could still cause a partial one due to residual heat if they exposed the core immediately, but that would be almost impossible given the numerous backup systems present in a plant -- there are many more than the single backup pumps they speak of in the movie.As for the spent fuel pools, it may be possible to turn the pools into a dirty bomb by blowing them up, but this is far more difficult than simply parking a truck full of explosives near the pools. The fuel is under (approximately) 18 feet of highly purified water. The water cannot become radioactive (no radioactive steam like they speak of in the movie). Particles dissolved in water can, but the water itself cannot; thus the reason for very thorough purification. So the only way to turn a fuel pool into a dirty bomb is to get the fuel out of the water. This is no easy task as water is very heavy, and the pools are below ground with very thick concrete walls. The explosives would have to be in the pool below the fuel (which is securely fastened). And there would have to be a heck of a lot of explosives, as water is *very* hard to move through an explosion. Even if this were to occur, spent fuel is not extremely radioactive, and the explosion would not cause nearly as high a death toll as mentioned in the movie, especially given the small amount of radioactive material that would be spread. From a basic movie standpoint, I grew somewhat tired of the style used. The constant fading in and out, use of gritty black and white, and fast tracking and panning looked amateurish. The characters were one-dimensional, especially those in the US government. I have some problems with the twist thrown in the movie, but will not discuss it as it would be a major spoiler.Overall, 3/10

This film was not all that bad as the story went but the camera work is what makes it difficult to watch. I just don't like that so-called "realistic" camera work that is being done nowadays; you know the type- jumping off center, panning around, etc. What got me particularly irritated about this film though was the new thing that they threw into the mix by shooting a few frames in black and white in each scene. I believe that the film would have been much better if the camera work was shot in the much more conventional way because as it was I couldn't concentrate on it and found myself analyzing the camera work instead. Maybe if more people express dissatisfaction with camera work like this the filmmakers will finally get the hint.

The editing in this movie was rather unusual. They kept fading in and fading out. The hand held camera work didn't really work for me, too much made me dizzy. And the choice to go black and white at times was uncalled for, at first I thought it was for the "terrorists" to gather information but then out of nowhere it would just go because. The main terrorist has been in The Mummy and Darkman now he's playing another bad guy. The character of Shea is rather over the top I'm not sure if someone like that would really be in the FBI, and he's the senator in Rules of Engagement. Also the actions of the anti terrorist team were rather harsh, you'd think they'd be a little more controlled. Over all it was enjoyable watching.