原子力爆弾の恐怖を訴えたドキュメンタリー映画だ。
この映画が説くことは、昔は原子力爆弾を持つことが戦争回避に繋がったが、今や世界の名だたる国が保有し、どこでも簡単に作れる時代になったが為に、戦争手段やテロリストの手に渡れば簡単に世界破滅につながってしまうと警告する。
また原子力爆弾の元となる高濃度ウランを作ることは非常に困難ではあるが、既に完成されているものは裏ルートでロシアなどから世界に輸出されているらしい。
それとこの高濃度ウラン状態では放射能は非常に低く、放射能探知機でも見つけることは困難らしいし、高濃度ウランを入手さえすれば、今ではいとも簡単に原子力爆弾が作れてしまうそうだ。
まあ、ほんとに恐ろしい話で、普段日本のTVなんかでは報道されないこういった内容を観るのは、平和ボケしている僕なんかには有難い。
プライム無料体験をお試しいただけます
プライム無料体験で、この注文から無料配送特典をご利用いただけます。
非会員 | プライム会員 | |
---|---|---|
通常配送 | ¥410 - ¥450* | 無料 |
お急ぎ便 | ¥510 - ¥550 | |
お届け日時指定便 | ¥510 - ¥650 |
*Amazon.co.jp発送商品の注文額 ¥3,500以上は非会員も無料
無料体験はいつでもキャンセルできます。30日のプライム無料体験をぜひお試しください。
カウントダウンZERO [DVD]
{"desktop_buybox_group_1":[{"displayPrice":"¥3,856","priceAmount":3856.00,"currencySymbol":"¥","integerValue":"3,856","decimalSeparator":null,"fractionalValue":null,"symbolPosition":"left","hasSpace":false,"showFractionalPartIfEmpty":true,"offerListingId":"PCCW%2F5zWfWJZ3qTCWvHmIXD%2BQp25pt46R5SN%2F%2BkaWK2NR3SXwH2dBI1RiGSdlHM2BR3VnL0UECVBeX%2FSLY%2BMrap2iOLJfjoYWCTVtWdYc7AfbGlR04oPhEo2YQP4FijKIHBrGiSpjaQ%3D","locale":"ja-JP","buyingOptionType":"NEW","aapiBuyingOptionIndex":0}]}
購入オプションとあわせ買い
フォーマット | 色, ワイドスクリーン, 字幕付き |
コントリビュータ | ジミー・カーター, トニー・ブレア, パルヴェーズ・ムシャラフ, ルーシー・ウォーカー, ミハイル・ゴルバチョフ |
言語 | 英語 |
稼働時間 | 1 時間 29 分 |
商品の説明
第84回アカデミー賞短編ドキュメンタリー賞部門ノミネート作品「津波そして桜」のルーシー・ウォーカー監督と『不都合な真実』のスタッフが警告する、今そこにある地球の危機!
ゼロになるのは<核>か、それとも<人類>か――
●2011年アカデミー賞長編ドキュメンタリー部門にもノミネートされた社会派ドキュメンタリーの実力派、ウォーカー監督と『不都合な真実』のスタッフが明らかにするアブノーマルな核の実態。
●各国首脳が今だから明かす、核と政府のアブナイ関係。
ミハイル・ゴルバチョフ (元ソ連共産党書記長)
ジミー・カーター (元アメリカ合衆国大統領)
トニー・ブレア (元イギリス首相)
アメリカ歴代大統領の名演説映像も登場! ジョン・F・ケネディ 他
【ストーリー】
テロリストによる大量破壊兵器の売買や、人為的ミスによる放射能事故など、“今そこにある核の実態"を告発するサスペンスタッチのドキュメンタリー。
各国の元首脳や、元CIA工作員、核売買関係者らの証言をつぶさに聞き出し、世界への警告がひとつひとつ明らかにされていく。
※ジャケット写真、商品仕様、その他、予告なく変更となる場合がございますのでご了承ください。
登録情報
- アスペクト比 : 1.78:1
- 言語 : 英語
- 製品サイズ : 25 x 2.2 x 18 cm; 83 g
- EAN : 4988113826693
- 監督 : ルーシー・ウォーカー
- メディア形式 : 色, ワイドスクリーン, 字幕付き
- 時間 : 1 時間 29 分
- 発売日 : 2012/3/9
- 出演 : ミハイル・ゴルバチョフ, ジミー・カーター, トニー・ブレア, パルヴェーズ・ムシャラフ
- 字幕: : 日本語
- 販売元 : パラマウント ホーム エンタテインメント ジャパン
- ASIN : B005MH1KBY
- 原産国 : 日本
- ディスク枚数 : 1
- Amazon 売れ筋ランキング: - 230,448位DVD (DVDの売れ筋ランキングを見る)
- - 2,212位外国のドキュメンタリー映画
- - 5,747位ドキュメンタリー (DVD)
- カスタマーレビュー:
-
トップレビュー
上位レビュー、対象国: 日本
レビューのフィルタリング中に問題が発生しました。後でもう一度試してください。
2011年12月11日に日本でレビュー済み
核兵器に対する世界が抱えている不安を描き出しているのがこのドキュメンタリー作品です。
冷戦時代は核抑止力の下の平和という時代でしたが、今はテロリズムが核武装するという恐怖はより見えづらくなっています。
核兵器という地球の命運を握って欲望を実現しようとした時代はまだ終わっていません。
現代人にとって、知らなければならない情報だと思います。
オバマ大統領がノーベル平和賞を受賞したのは、これが背景になっています。
日本のマスメディアだけに接していると世界の動きを見逃している場合がありますので、こういう海外ドキュメンタリーで補則する必要があるでしょう。
冷戦時代は核抑止力の下の平和という時代でしたが、今はテロリズムが核武装するという恐怖はより見えづらくなっています。
核兵器という地球の命運を握って欲望を実現しようとした時代はまだ終わっていません。
現代人にとって、知らなければならない情報だと思います。
オバマ大統領がノーベル平和賞を受賞したのは、これが背景になっています。
日本のマスメディアだけに接していると世界の動きを見逃している場合がありますので、こういう海外ドキュメンタリーで補則する必要があるでしょう。
2012年6月18日に日本でレビュー済み
スペイン南部上空でB52と空中給油機が衝突!核爆弾が投下されてしまった。(爆発はしなかったが・・・)
実際にこんなことがおこっていたとは・・・
怖すぎです。ホラー映画なんかより1万倍怖い。
東側の例はでてこないですが、似たようなもんでしょう。
劇場で観たときは、失禁しそうになりました。(トイレをがまんしていたことも多少はあるが)
実際にこんなことがおこっていたとは・・・
怖すぎです。ホラー映画なんかより1万倍怖い。
東側の例はでてこないですが、似たようなもんでしょう。
劇場で観たときは、失禁しそうになりました。(トイレをがまんしていたことも多少はあるが)
他の国からのトップレビュー
A. Rose
5つ星のうち5.0
Brilliant Documentary
2012年11月17日に英国でレビュー済みAmazonで購入
This is a fantastic documentary. The contribution of academics, former world leaders and former heads and members of various organisations such as the CIA give this documentary a level of detail and information that makes it fascinating. Yes, it does have an end game about how nuclear weapons should be gotten rid of, however this is only addressed in a propaganda like manner in the last 10 minutes. The rest of the film is spent looking at the risks of a nuclear fall out. Using the 'nuclear sword of Damacles' quote by JFK it looks at the three great threats of nuclear war; a mistake, war, and terrorism. It is fast passed and intriguing, using footage of nuclear weapons inter shot with commentary by the a fore mentioned experts and people involved with nuclear weapons. It doesn't insult the intelligence of those watching, explaining elements of nuclear war if it is needed, but not in a patronising manner, but with a level of respect for those watching which seems to be rare in documentaries, especially American ones. All in all, I would heartily recommend this DVD to anyone who is interested in the history of the nuclear threat.
Mcdonaldpeacock
5つ星のうち5.0
Disconcerting.
2020年8月9日に英国でレビュー済みAmazonで購入
A balanced and nuanced account of the risks to world security posed by nuclear weapons with contributions from Tony Blair, Mikhail Gorbachev, Jimmy Carter amongst others central to the development of nuclear policy.
Andreas König
5つ星のうち2.0
Es gibt bessere Reportagen...
2016年2月23日にドイツでレビュー済みAmazonで購入
und diese sind gratis im Free-TV zu sehen. Dafür braucht man das Potential und den Preis einer Bluray nicht zu bemühen!
A.S
5つ星のうち5.0
great documentary
2012年12月25日にアメリカ合衆国でレビュー済みAmazonで購入
this movie is fantastic and the message is very scary but it is the reality of the world that we live in. as much as you hear people say why don't we nuke so and so. this movie illustrates that we as humans share one earth and regardless of cultural beliefs. if nuclear war were to happen humanity would pay the price not by race or by culture but as a whole species as human beings.
Gregory J. Casteel
5つ星のうち4.0
A good film; but far from perfect
2012年8月12日にアメリカ合衆国でレビュー済みAmazonで購入
In the summer of 2010 I taught a course on national security policy regarding weapons of mass destruction, with a particular emphasis on nuclear weapons. While doing research in preparation for the course, I was delighted to discover that a new documentary film had just been made about nuclear nonproliferation and disarmament; and I thought it might be something that my students would benefit from watching. Unfortunately, I also discovered that it was not yet available on video, that it would not be released in theaters until about a week after I gave the final exam for the course, and that it was only getting a limited theatrical release, and would not be shown anywhere within at least a hundred miles of our campus. So that pretty much dashed my hopes of having my students see the film in conjunction with the WMD course. But eventually the documentary did come out on DVD; and I finally got to see it. I'm not sure that my students missed out on much by not seeing the film, since it didn't really cover anything that we hadn't already covered in more detail in class. But it still would have been nice if my students had gotten a chance to watch it, if for no other reason than to reinforce some of the things they learned in the course. If I ever teach the WMD course again, I don't think I would actually show this documentary in class; but I might encourage my students to watch it on their own. And I would also recommend it to anyone who wants to learn about nukes, but who doesn't have the opportunity to take a college course on the subject. It's not a perfect film; but it does do a fairly decent job of presenting the basics of what every citizen needs to know about nuclear weapons.
I enjoyed watching this film. It was well made. I especially liked the fact that it featured interviews with a number of experts on nuclear weapons issues, including Jimmy Carter, Mikhail Gorbachev, Tony Blair, Pervez Musharraf, F.W. de Klerk, Robert S. McNamara (interviewed shortly before his death), Zbigniew Brzezinski, James Baker, Valerie Plame Wilson, Graham Allison, and Joseph Cirincione, among others. I thought the film did a pretty good job of explaining certain things that are not really all that well understood by the general public, but that everyone needs to be aware of, such as how easy it would be to build a Hiroshima-type bomb if you could get your hands on enough highly enriched uranium (HEU), how easy it is to smuggle nuclear materials (and how hard it is to detect them), and how close we've come in the past to nuclear catastrophe due to accidents and misunderstandings. If you don't really know all that much about nuclear weapons -- and, let's face it, most people don't -- then you will definitely learn something by watching this documentary. So I would encourage you to do so. But I do want to caution you to please be aware that watching this film will not make you an expert on the subject; and it might even leave you with the wrong impression about a few things.
Like most contemporary documentary films made for theatrical release, this is really not the sort of dry, fact-filled "educational video" you used to watch back in school on those days when the teacher was too lazy to lecture. No, this is a modern piece of filmmaking, designed to appeal to today's moviegoer -- someone with too short of an attention span to sit through an hour-and-a-half lecture on nuclear proliferation -- and thus tries to keep the audience entertained with lots of cool visual images, a rocking soundtrack, and the use of lots of short segments edited together in quick succession so that the audience never has a chance to get bored with any single topic, visual image, or interviewee. Of course, there's nothing wrong with a filmmaker trying to make a documentary that is entertaining as well as informative -- the best documentary filmmakers (e.g. Ken Burns, Errol Morris, Adam Curtis) always manage to do both -- but sometimes, when watching a documentary like this one, you can't help but get the feeling that the director was more concerned with style than with substance. Now, while I wouldn't go so far as to call this documentary shallow or superficial, I would say that it's not quite as in-depth or as nuanced in its presentation of the facts as it could have been. It glosses over certain things in a way that might leave a misleading impression on the uninformed viewer. For example, it completely fails to discuss the fundamental differences between fission and fusion weapons (i.e. between "A-bombs" like those dropped on Japan at the end of World War II, and the much more powerful "H-bombs" that threatened to destroy modern civilization during the Cold War), or between "gun-type" and "implosion" A-bombs (i.e. between Hiroshima-type bombs and Nagasaki-type bombs), or between highly enriched uranium (HEU) and plutonium. Understanding these differences is essential to being able to properly evaluate the true nature and scope of the threat posed by nuclear proliferation. The film also neglects to properly qualify some of its statements, which may cause some viewers to get the wrong idea about certain things. For example, it mentions that Israel has nuclear weapons, but fails to note that Israel refuses to acknowledge the existence of its nuclear arsenal, and that much of what is publicly "known" about Israel's nuclear capabilities is based on educated guesswork. The film also mentions that North Korea has conducted nuclear tests; but it fails to note that many experts believe that at least one, and perhaps both, of its two tests "fizzled" (i.e. the nuclear material failed to detonate properly, resulting in a much smaller explosion than the bomb was designed to produce). It claims that Iran is enriching uranium in an effort to develop nuclear weapons, but neglects to mention that there is still considerable debate within the intelligence and nonproliferation communities about Iran's true intentions. It notes that North Korea, Pakistan, and Iran have developed missiles that are (theoretically) capable of carrying nuclear warheads; but it fails to point out that these are all short- and medium-range missiles (with a maximum effective range of less than 1,000 miles), and that North Korea and Iran have been trying for decades to develop longer-range missiles, but have had very little success thus far. I was also a bit disappointed that the film fails to include a discussion of nuclear deterrence, apart from making the highly debatable assertion that deterrence is no longer relevant, and nuclear weapons no longer have a legitimate role to play in safeguarding our national security, in the post-Cold War era.
I guess most of my complaints about this documentary really boil down to the fact that this film clearly has an agenda: It was made in order to promote nonproliferation and nuclear disarmament. The people behind this film are completely open and honest about this agenda. They're not simply trying to educate people about nuclear weapons; they're trying to encourage people to step up and demand that their political leaders take action to halt the spread of nuclear weapons, and to negotiate reductions in the world's nuclear stockpiles. I can certainly sympathize with this agenda, at least up to a point -- I strongly support arms control and nonproliferation efforts designed to reduce the risk of nuclear war and nuclear terrorism; but I don't think it would be practical to completely eliminate nuclear weapons anytime in the foreseeable future. However, I really don't like the idea of agenda-driven documentaries, because they almost always paint a somewhat distorted portrait of the subject, whether the filmmaker intends to do so or not. An agenda-driven film will inevitably reflect the implicit assumptions, presuppositions, and biases of the filmmaker, no matter how objective he or she tries to be. Here, the filmmaker decided to gloss over certain nuances and caveats that I believe ought to have been discussed. Why did she do this? I can't say for certain; but I have to assume that she didn't consider them relevant to the point the film was trying to make. And that, in my view, was the problem: This film was trying to make a point about the dangers of nuclear weapons and the need to get rid of them; so it just didn't bother discussing anything that wouldn't help make this point. I really don't think the filmmaker was deliberately trying to mislead anyone. But it is possible to leave a misleading impression without ever intending to do so, simply by leaving out information that doesn't quite fit into your chosen narrative.
But I don't want to be too harsh in my criticism. This was not a bad film -- not by a long shot. I really enjoyed watching it. I think many people would benefit from watching it. If you don't already know much about nuclear weapons, you'll learn a lot from it. Just be aware that it doesn't present the whole story. If you want to learn about nuclear weapons and nuclear proliferation, this documentary is a good place to begin. But it's not a good place to end. Should you watch this film? Yes, definitely. But you should also seek out additional information on the subject to make up for what this documentary leaves out.
As for the DVD release, it contains the movie, which runs for about an hour-and-a-half, along with a number of special features, including deleted scenes, extended interviews, three old documentary shorts from the 1950s about nuclear weapons, and a PSA for the Ploughshares Fund -- an organization headed by Joseph Cirincione which promotes nuclear nonproliferation and disarmament. I thought that these special features were a valuable addition to the film.
Bottom line: I would recommend this film; but it's a qualified recommendation.
I enjoyed watching this film. It was well made. I especially liked the fact that it featured interviews with a number of experts on nuclear weapons issues, including Jimmy Carter, Mikhail Gorbachev, Tony Blair, Pervez Musharraf, F.W. de Klerk, Robert S. McNamara (interviewed shortly before his death), Zbigniew Brzezinski, James Baker, Valerie Plame Wilson, Graham Allison, and Joseph Cirincione, among others. I thought the film did a pretty good job of explaining certain things that are not really all that well understood by the general public, but that everyone needs to be aware of, such as how easy it would be to build a Hiroshima-type bomb if you could get your hands on enough highly enriched uranium (HEU), how easy it is to smuggle nuclear materials (and how hard it is to detect them), and how close we've come in the past to nuclear catastrophe due to accidents and misunderstandings. If you don't really know all that much about nuclear weapons -- and, let's face it, most people don't -- then you will definitely learn something by watching this documentary. So I would encourage you to do so. But I do want to caution you to please be aware that watching this film will not make you an expert on the subject; and it might even leave you with the wrong impression about a few things.
Like most contemporary documentary films made for theatrical release, this is really not the sort of dry, fact-filled "educational video" you used to watch back in school on those days when the teacher was too lazy to lecture. No, this is a modern piece of filmmaking, designed to appeal to today's moviegoer -- someone with too short of an attention span to sit through an hour-and-a-half lecture on nuclear proliferation -- and thus tries to keep the audience entertained with lots of cool visual images, a rocking soundtrack, and the use of lots of short segments edited together in quick succession so that the audience never has a chance to get bored with any single topic, visual image, or interviewee. Of course, there's nothing wrong with a filmmaker trying to make a documentary that is entertaining as well as informative -- the best documentary filmmakers (e.g. Ken Burns, Errol Morris, Adam Curtis) always manage to do both -- but sometimes, when watching a documentary like this one, you can't help but get the feeling that the director was more concerned with style than with substance. Now, while I wouldn't go so far as to call this documentary shallow or superficial, I would say that it's not quite as in-depth or as nuanced in its presentation of the facts as it could have been. It glosses over certain things in a way that might leave a misleading impression on the uninformed viewer. For example, it completely fails to discuss the fundamental differences between fission and fusion weapons (i.e. between "A-bombs" like those dropped on Japan at the end of World War II, and the much more powerful "H-bombs" that threatened to destroy modern civilization during the Cold War), or between "gun-type" and "implosion" A-bombs (i.e. between Hiroshima-type bombs and Nagasaki-type bombs), or between highly enriched uranium (HEU) and plutonium. Understanding these differences is essential to being able to properly evaluate the true nature and scope of the threat posed by nuclear proliferation. The film also neglects to properly qualify some of its statements, which may cause some viewers to get the wrong idea about certain things. For example, it mentions that Israel has nuclear weapons, but fails to note that Israel refuses to acknowledge the existence of its nuclear arsenal, and that much of what is publicly "known" about Israel's nuclear capabilities is based on educated guesswork. The film also mentions that North Korea has conducted nuclear tests; but it fails to note that many experts believe that at least one, and perhaps both, of its two tests "fizzled" (i.e. the nuclear material failed to detonate properly, resulting in a much smaller explosion than the bomb was designed to produce). It claims that Iran is enriching uranium in an effort to develop nuclear weapons, but neglects to mention that there is still considerable debate within the intelligence and nonproliferation communities about Iran's true intentions. It notes that North Korea, Pakistan, and Iran have developed missiles that are (theoretically) capable of carrying nuclear warheads; but it fails to point out that these are all short- and medium-range missiles (with a maximum effective range of less than 1,000 miles), and that North Korea and Iran have been trying for decades to develop longer-range missiles, but have had very little success thus far. I was also a bit disappointed that the film fails to include a discussion of nuclear deterrence, apart from making the highly debatable assertion that deterrence is no longer relevant, and nuclear weapons no longer have a legitimate role to play in safeguarding our national security, in the post-Cold War era.
I guess most of my complaints about this documentary really boil down to the fact that this film clearly has an agenda: It was made in order to promote nonproliferation and nuclear disarmament. The people behind this film are completely open and honest about this agenda. They're not simply trying to educate people about nuclear weapons; they're trying to encourage people to step up and demand that their political leaders take action to halt the spread of nuclear weapons, and to negotiate reductions in the world's nuclear stockpiles. I can certainly sympathize with this agenda, at least up to a point -- I strongly support arms control and nonproliferation efforts designed to reduce the risk of nuclear war and nuclear terrorism; but I don't think it would be practical to completely eliminate nuclear weapons anytime in the foreseeable future. However, I really don't like the idea of agenda-driven documentaries, because they almost always paint a somewhat distorted portrait of the subject, whether the filmmaker intends to do so or not. An agenda-driven film will inevitably reflect the implicit assumptions, presuppositions, and biases of the filmmaker, no matter how objective he or she tries to be. Here, the filmmaker decided to gloss over certain nuances and caveats that I believe ought to have been discussed. Why did she do this? I can't say for certain; but I have to assume that she didn't consider them relevant to the point the film was trying to make. And that, in my view, was the problem: This film was trying to make a point about the dangers of nuclear weapons and the need to get rid of them; so it just didn't bother discussing anything that wouldn't help make this point. I really don't think the filmmaker was deliberately trying to mislead anyone. But it is possible to leave a misleading impression without ever intending to do so, simply by leaving out information that doesn't quite fit into your chosen narrative.
But I don't want to be too harsh in my criticism. This was not a bad film -- not by a long shot. I really enjoyed watching it. I think many people would benefit from watching it. If you don't already know much about nuclear weapons, you'll learn a lot from it. Just be aware that it doesn't present the whole story. If you want to learn about nuclear weapons and nuclear proliferation, this documentary is a good place to begin. But it's not a good place to end. Should you watch this film? Yes, definitely. But you should also seek out additional information on the subject to make up for what this documentary leaves out.
As for the DVD release, it contains the movie, which runs for about an hour-and-a-half, along with a number of special features, including deleted scenes, extended interviews, three old documentary shorts from the 1950s about nuclear weapons, and a PSA for the Ploughshares Fund -- an organization headed by Joseph Cirincione which promotes nuclear nonproliferation and disarmament. I thought that these special features were a valuable addition to the film.
Bottom line: I would recommend this film; but it's a qualified recommendation.