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.

"Pandora's Promise" is a challenging and engaging documentary about nuclear power. However, instead of it being promoted by the usual sources, this film is about LIBERALS pushing for nuclear power. This shows a divide between them and the old fashioned anti-nuke liberals. However, this film does NOT mean that it represents this group joining in with the Conservatives here in America because much of the basis for their new-found love of radioactivity is their fear of global warming. In essence, it is as if they are now saying 'we were wrong about nuclear power...we're sorry...but believe us now about global warming'--an argument that is bound to alienate many.

So is this a bad film? No. While I think it is inconsistent in some ways, it IS thought-provoking and interesting from start to finish. But, occasionally it made me question some of their facts and conclusions--such as saying that 3,000,000 folks a year die as a result of fossil fuels! Where did they get that figure from and why does the film also mock the fantastic death figures thrown about by the anti-nuke movement. I BOTH are way overstating their cases in order to make their points. As for me, I'd like to see more about this subject but also from different sources.

This really was quite a disappointing film. It states it's going to look at the issue but then hardly manages to hide it's agenda at all. Anti nukes are portrayed as nutters as they select the mad woman who can't back up their stories and pro nukes are all chin stroking intellectuals who used to be anti but have come to realise the error of their ways. All problems with nuke power was played down, and the safety can't melt down new reactors were hyped big time, accidents can't happen they explained, but see, they kind of did, just a couple of years ago, and they still haven't figured out how to deal with it, or if that can, and that is the key problem with Nuclear power. They start a fire that no one has figure out how to put out yet. I'm actually pro nuclear power, it makes sense, we've got massive amounts of it and the universe is filled with this stuff going down, BUT we can not and should not use it routinely until we figure out how to control it, and we have not done that yet. The fukushima meltdowns are unsolvable,and that will always be a risk for these accident proof facilities. Get back to us when you've got that one solved. Thanks for the propaganda though. nice to see it so we can practice identifying it in daily life.