LMCane said:

---

Teslag said:

---

DO NOT WATCH THIS MOVIE

It literally has the worst ending in an any movie ever. You've been warned

---

ridiculous.

the ending was fine. you don't even know WHAT the ending is!

---

Hard agree.

The movie was about having a conversation on the decision process for responding...not what we'd do.

Phenomenal movie...

K2-HMFIC said:

---

LMCane said:

---

Teslag said:

---

DO NOT WATCH THIS MOVIE

It literally has the worst ending in an any movie ever. You've been warned

---

ridiculous.

the ending was fine. you don't even know WHAT the ending is!

---

Hard agree.

The movie was about having a conversation on the decision process for responding...not what we'd do.

Phenomenal movie...

---

Short conversation. And not that interesting without a payoff. Literally had to repeat it three times to make it long enough to be a movie.

You want an interesting conversation about the impacts of nuclear decisions - watch Oppenheimer.

This was a waste of time. Tense in the first 20 minutes. Otherwise meh.

one safe place said:

---

LMCane said:

---

but overall very realistic portrayal of what happens when an ICBM is launched at CONUS

---

Since an ICBM has never been launched at CONUS, how can it be a realistic portrayal?

---

OMG you can't be serious.

maybe because for SEVENTY YEARS the Air Force and military planned and practiced exercises for that eventuality?!

K2-HMFIC said:

---

LMCane said:

---

Teslag said:

---

DO NOT WATCH THIS MOVIE

It literally has the worst ending in an any movie ever. You've been warned

---

ridiculous.

the ending was fine. you don't even know WHAT the ending is!

---

Hard agree.

The movie was about having a conversation on the decision process for responding...not what we'd do.

Phenomenal movie...

---

1) I put this topic in the F16 not to discuss the cinematography or endings of a Hollywood movie but to discuss the ISSUES RAISED IN THE MOVIE

2) amongst these issues were National Command Authority,

the role of the military in homeland defense,

how members of the military and civilian decision makers would respond,

the appropriate national security doctrine for dealing with nuclear attacks,

and the appropriate responses to launch of missiles at the USA

as well as the attributes of a President to deal with this scenario, and how to leverage that to ensure a leftist weasel never is in that position.

I can't see how anyone can complain about an ending where the ending is up to every individual to decide!

98Ag99Grad said:

---

Posted this on the entertainment thread about the movie but this movie was made in the 90's- its called By Dawns Early Light and starred Powers Booth, Rebecca De Morney, and James Earl Jones. It also has an actual ending. While agree the ending of this left much to be desired, the stress and conflict in the first 2 acts was good IMO. I was definitely interested.

---

That ending was good. For once you had someone present do what you would hope do that wasn't normally in position to do so. Identified with them utterly.

You want a downer ending, watch the made for TV "World War III" of spring 1981.

Teslag said:

---

DO NOT WATCH THIS MOVIE

It literally has the worst ending in an any movie ever. You've been warned

---

My wife of 20 years almost left me over getting her to watch Arlington Road. Is it worse than that?

Quote:

---

What do we do in a nuclear attack

---

Bend over kiss ass goodbye.

There I could have saved NetFlix $$$$$.

LMCane said:

---

K2-HMFIC said:

---

LMCane said:

---

Teslag said:

---

DO NOT WATCH THIS MOVIE

It literally has the worst ending in an any movie ever. You've been warned

---

ridiculous.

the ending was fine. you don't even know WHAT the ending is!

---

Hard agree.

The movie was about having a conversation on the decision process for responding...not what we'd do.

Phenomenal movie...

---

1) I put this topic in the F16 not to discuss the cinematography or endings of a Hollywood movie but to discuss the ISSUES RAISED IN THE MOVIE

2) amongst these issues were National Command Authority,

the role of the military in homeland defense,

how members of the military and civilian decision makers would respond,

the appropriate national security doctrine for dealing with nuclear attacks,

and the appropriate responses to launch of missiles at the USA

as well as the attributes of a President to deal with this scenario, and how to leverage that to ensure a leftist weasel never is in that position.

I can't see how anyone can complain about an ending where the ending is up to every individual to decide!

---

It's hard to use the movie as a basis for political ramifications when the movie is so wildly inaccurate and fantasy. It would be like trying to discuss whether Democrats and Republicans would agree on the make up of fellowship to melt a dark lord's ring.

LMCane said:

---

K2-HMFIC said:

---

LMCane said:

---

Teslag said:

---

DO NOT WATCH THIS MOVIE

It literally has the worst ending in an any movie ever. You've been warned

---

ridiculous.

the ending was fine. you don't even know WHAT the ending is!

---

Hard agree.

The movie was about having a conversation on the decision process for responding...not what we'd do.

Phenomenal movie...

---

1) I put this topic in the F16 not to discuss the cinematography or endings of a Hollywood movie but to discuss the ISSUES RAISED IN THE MOVIE

2) amongst these issues were National Command Authority,

the role of the military in homeland defense,

how members of the military and civilian decision makers would respond,

the appropriate national security doctrine for dealing with nuclear attacks,

and the appropriate responses to launch of missiles at the USA

as well as the attributes of a President to deal with this scenario, and how to leverage that to ensure a leftist weasel never is in that position.

I can't see how anyone can complain about an ending where the ending is up to every individual to decide!

---

Seriously. No. That's terrible which is why 99.9999% of movies don't leave it up to the viewer.

At least Dr. Strangelove had the balls to blow it all the hell up. Thank you Stanley Kubrick.

Imagine if you will....

Jaws - with the shark coming right at Roy Scheider and as he is about to pull the trigger.... end of movie

Star Wars - Luke is bearing down through the alley and shoots into the tube and.. end of movie

Godfather - Michael is at the baptism and you see all his henchmen setting up for their kills and .... end of movie


An effective ending like that to me (which many others don't like ) is The Sopranos but if you realize that scene is told from Tony's perspective then you do know what happened. And I don't care what Chase said later.

Inception is of course left up to the viewer as well but you are supposed to question the entire thing.

2001 is ambiguous too in another way I suppose - and another Kubrick - but again you are supposed to ponder much more than just the movie and the entire thing is a thought exercise.

But this movie was not that kind of movie to me. I'm not left pondering anything except why they made this movie.

Zombie Jon Snow said:

---

LMCane said:

---

K2-HMFIC said:

---

LMCane said:

---

Teslag said:

---

DO NOT WATCH THIS MOVIE

It literally has the worst ending in an any movie ever. You've been warned

---

ridiculous.

the ending was fine. you don't even know WHAT the ending is!

---

Hard agree.

The movie was about having a conversation on the decision process for responding...not what we'd do.

Phenomenal movie...

---

1) I put this topic in the F16 not to discuss the cinematography or endings of a Hollywood movie but to discuss the ISSUES RAISED IN THE MOVIE

2) amongst these issues were National Command Authority,

the role of the military in homeland defense,

how members of the military and civilian decision makers would respond,

the appropriate national security doctrine for dealing with nuclear attacks,

and the appropriate responses to launch of missiles at the USA

as well as the attributes of a President to deal with this scenario, and how to leverage that to ensure a leftist weasel never is in that position.

I can't see how anyone can complain about an ending where the ending is up to every individual to decide!

---

Seriously. No. That's terrible which is why 99.9999% of movies don't leave it up to the viewer.

At least Dr. Strangelove had the balls to blow it all the hell up. Thank you Stanley Kubrick.

Imagine if you will....

Jaws - with the shark coming right at Roy Scheider and as he is about to pull the trigger.... end of movie

Star Wars - Luke is bearing down through the alley and shoots into the tube and.. end of movie

Godfather - Michael is at the baptism and you see all his henchmen setting up for their kills and .... end of movie


An effective ending like that to me (which many others don't like ) is The Sopranos but if you realize that scene is told from Tony's perspective then you do know what happened. And I don't care what Chase said later.

Inception is of course left up to the viewer as well but you are supposed to question the entire thing.

2001 is ambiguous too in another way I suppose - and another Kubrick - but again you are supposed to ponder much more than just the movie and the entire thing is a thought exercise.

But this movie was not that kind of movie to me. I'm not left pondering anything except why they made this movie.

---

Endings like that in Jaws and Star Wars would be awful. They have their place, and guess it works in Sopranos.

But some flicks are honest adventure enjoyment rides -- not about showing a post modernist non or downer ending.

Not disagreeing with you -- just saying it isn't necessarily edgy or bold to have a non ending. It can be wildly out of place.

"Eyes Wide Shut" -- another Kubrick movie -- goes kind of between. You are left not 100% sure of what you just watched and what was happening.

Another example of that kind -- Basic Instinct.

Zombie Jon Snow said:

---

K2-HMFIC said:

---

LMCane said:

---

Teslag said:

---

DO NOT WATCH THIS MOVIE

It literally has the worst ending in an any movie ever. You've been warned

---

ridiculous.

the ending was fine. you don't even know WHAT the ending is!

---

Hard agree.

The movie was about having a conversation on the decision process for responding...not what we'd do.

Phenomenal movie...

---

Short conversation. And not that interesting without a payoff. Literally had to repeat it three times to make it long enough to be a movie.

You want an interesting conversation about the impacts of nuclear decisions - watch Oppenheimer.

This was a waste of time. Tense in the first 20 minutes. Otherwise meh.

---

Again…it's not about what…but HOW…

Teslag said:

---

DO NOT WATCH THIS MOVIE

It literally has the worst ending in an any movie ever. You've been warned

---

This.

I read the writer or director made it that way intentionally, but after watching what was one of the best movies of the year, only to have that kind of ending was frustrating.

K2-HMFIC said:

---

Zombie Jon Snow said:

---

K2-HMFIC said:

---

LMCane said:

---

Teslag said:

---

DO NOT WATCH THIS MOVIE

It literally has the worst ending in an any movie ever. You've been warned

---

ridiculous.

the ending was fine. you don't even know WHAT the ending is!

---

Hard agree.

The movie was about having a conversation on the decision process for responding...not what we'd do.

Phenomenal movie...

---

Short conversation. And not that interesting without a payoff. Literally had to repeat it three times to make it long enough to be a movie.

You want an interesting conversation about the impacts of nuclear decisions - watch Oppenheimer.

This was a waste of time. Tense in the first 20 minutes. Otherwise meh.

---

Again…it's not about what…but HOW…

---

From that perspective it was mildly interesting at best - the first time through. Not the the second or third.

And I will point out that in this thread the OP literally framed it as "WHAT do we do...". Not How.

This felt like the kind of movie you watch at HR training on sexual harassment or something. You watch the movie from Bob's perspective, then Janie's perspective and finally their boss's perspective. Then, when you expect to watch the conclusion and resolution, it stops so the HR director can talk about your company's policy.

PlanoAg79 said:

---

It was a great movie up until the end. It wasn't that It was a bad ending. It had no ending.

But the scenario is fascinating. What do you do if you don't know who launched the missile at you? Have to hope our intelligence and intercept capability is better than the movie suggested.

Gotta get that golden dome built pronto.

---

If its NYC, LA or Chicago do we really need to intercept it?

If y'all are interested in this scenario, I cannot speak highly enough of Annie Jacobsen's book "Nuclear War: A Scenario"

She outlines the events leading up to a nuclear attack on the US, our response, and ultimately all the different ways we get to die.

Her other books are also worth a read. (or listen, because I prefer audio books on flights and driving)

PlanoAg79 said:

---

It was a great movie up until the end. It wasn't that It was a bad ending. It had no ending.

But the scenario is fascinating. What do you do if you don't know who launched the missile at you? Have to hope our intelligence and intercept capability is better than the movie suggested.

Gotta get that golden dome built pronto.

---

What do you do if you don't know who launched the missile at you? Have to hope our intelligence and intercept capability is better than the movie suggested.

and isn't this the EXACT strategy Iran or North Korea or China or the Russkies would use?!

they won't just fire a dozen ICBMS from their own territory.

it will be from a freighter docking in NYC to drop off Hyundais.

Urban Ag said:

---

I think Op's point is that dems are simply not serious people.

The last dem of consequence that was a serious person was Hillary. Much more so than her "husband".

AOC? Mamdani? Jeffries? Tlaib? Omar? Crockett?

None of these people are actually serious people and will get us all killed.

---

Hilary was serious? She blamed a preacher burning a Koran for Benghazi, rather than admitting her bad judgment was to blame for not protecting an American Ambassador. She was never serious.

I came to say the same thing. It was reasonably interesting for a bit but it kept getting worse and worse and then an open ended finish. Total waste of time in retrospect.

something no one has discussed in the country is this-

Bigelow had to have been filming this movie at the beginning of the summer of 2025. There are B-2s which are in the movie and pilots (young guys when the real pilots are old guys)

then WHAM!

Trump deploys half the B-2s to strike the Iranian nuclear reactors and facilities at Fordow and Isfahan and Tabriz.

how crazy is the timing in that?!?!

I wonder if she was still literally filming scenes then the B-2s were destroying Iranian nuke sites- that's crazy!

Complete and utter waste of two hours.

98Ag99Grad said:

---

Posted this on the entertainment thread about the movie but this movie was made in the 90's- its called By Dawns Early Light and starred Powers Booth, Rebecca De Morney, and James Earl Jones. It also has an actual ending. While agree the ending of this left much to be desired, the stress and conflict in the first 2 acts was good IMO. I was definitely interested.

---

this is EXACTLY what I was thinking about last night watching the Netflix movie

because it was very much based around the premise of Dawns Early Light

some of you don't remember, but after the Russkies invaded Ukraine and started to threaten nuclear war, we were posting this movie and movies like "The Day After" and a British movie about what happens after nuclear exchange.

anyone remember the name of that one?

if EVERY American was forced to watch this movie- we would never have a AOC as President of the United States!

Threads is the British movie you're thinking of

25Lighters said:

---

If you want a story that is ACHUALLY good and will scare the crap out of you then read this:

One Second After

---

Interesting how people's opinions can differ so much. I read this book a couple of years ago and thought it was terrible. Not from a plot standpoint, but from a writing perspective. It was like a high school kid wrote it - so much cringe. One of those books where you can tell the author has pictured everything in his head, so he gives irrelvant detailed descriptions of people's facial expressions, where they move to in a room - it's more like a screenplay.

I remember being shocked that Newt Gingrich associated himself with it by writing the foreword. It's BAD (in my opinion).

From my foxhole it's fascinating to see how leaders at different levels deal with challenges.

It goes tactical-operational-strategic. From a mil perspective it's riveting.

Teslag said:

---

DO NOT WATCH THIS MOVIE

It literally has the worst ending in an any movie ever. You've been warned

---

Worse than finding out the Alien super intelligent life form that has been communicating through mathematics to Earth is just Jodie Foster's dad? Must be awful.

The best depiction of the aftermath of nuke strikes is the novel "On The Beach". I read it as a teenager. I saw the film adaptation years later but it didn't fully capture the human toll like the novel

Also, reading and watching short films about the nuke attacks on Japan has made me not want to watch anything like that again.

What kind of ending was that? Made me think this was going to be a series…but nope, that's how the movie ends.

Could have a been a 5-star movie. Ending made it only 3-stars.

I wouldn't worry about it unless it happens before 2035, or around that time.

Believe me, by that time, our debt will be, at least, $60 trillion and we won't be able to pay it. In order to achieve the one-world government the Dems want so badly, they HAVE to get rid of the US first. The best way to do that is the Cloward-Piven method of drowning us in debt. We've gone from $37 trillion to $38 trillion in approximately five months, so we're on our way now.

This is, by far, the best way to destroy our constitution. If the above happens, there will be endless sirens from the communists to "update the constitution", thereby getting rid of the first ten amendments, which apparently, most Democrats hate (unless the "new rights apply to them only")

OTOH, the 5:30 AM call to prayer might be an issue by that time so you might have something else to be concerned about.

LMCane said:

---

this is a fantastic movie.

of course the obligatory DEI Obama like President (and @#$@# Angel Reese!) but overall very realistic portrayal of what happens when an ICBM is launched at CONUS

especially the way it would go with the Air Force, STRATCOM, and getting out to the bunker in Pennsylvania / Camp David.

excellent portrayal- and EVERY American should be forced to watch this

and then decide if Alexandra Occasio Cortez is who you want deciding on the US military response to nuclear attack

---

The ending is pretty much universally hated because it just ends, with no resolution or conclusion. I warn people about this, because for me, the movie was actually much more enjoyable knowing this. Whereas people who did not know it, were raging pissed.

It would be an incredible movie if it had an ending.

25Lighters said:

---

If you want a story that is ACHUALLY good and will scare the crap out of you then read this:

One Second After

---

Fantastic but absolutely terrifying read.

I had to stop watching when the president goes to an Angel Reese basketball camp ... where, presumably, the attendees learn how to shoot 46 percent from the floor and jab opponents with their nails.

Too much sports going on for me but I do appreciate threads like this so when I have time to watch a movie, it helps me decide. The fact that the hood rat wnba player has a cameo, im out.

Wish I would've read this before watching…agree completely