Title DossierScience-Fiction

Deep Burial

Science-FictionThriller

In the near future, when communications go offline at a remote nuclear power plant isolated in the desert, a young safety inspector, Abby Dixon, is forced to fly out to bring them back online. Once inside the facility, mysterious clues and strange behaviors cause Abby to have doubts about the sanity, and perhaps identities, of the two employees onsite.

Année

2017

Durée

1h 21m

IMDb

4.2

Regarder maintenant

Poster Feed

Casting

Tom Sizemore

Zek

Sarah Habel

Abby

Dominic Monaghan

Robinson

Casting

Tom Sizemore

Zek

Sarah Habel

Abby

Dominic Monaghan

Robinson

Phil Austin

Rhine

Tony Doupe

Father

Hahn Cho

David

Jennifer Spriggs

Margot

Sarah-Eve Gazitt

Young Abby

Bande-annonce

Suggestions mises en avant

Envie de plus de divertissement ? Découvrez notre plateforme de jeux recommandée et notre destination de mini-dramas.

Jeux instantanés

Gamixo

Jouez à des jeux de navigateur casual avec puzzles, cartes, sport et défis rapides en quelques secondes.

Mini-dramas

VSKIT Drama

Regardez des mini-séries tendance, des romances et de nouveaux short dramas avec des mises à jour rapides.

Commentaires

10 commentaires

penny.giftyMar 24, 2025

10 out of 10 is to combat to false lower rating ,this is obviously not an oscar movie.But 4 its a lie. This movie should have its place along other underrated titles like Equilibrium ,Sunshine ,Moon 2009.Seeing is believing.

Olley TaalMar 24, 2025

People have tried to replicate the success of Moon with various other titles, like Air and Passengers, but they always seem to miss the point that a film with just a few characters needs something more, not less, than a movie with a lot of people in it. Unfortunately, that is the case of Atomica/Deep Burial. There are three characters in total, with one of them secondary to the story. And before the big reveal, 20 minutes before the end, nothing much happens than two people talking to each other in a climate of rising suspicion. The acting is good, the psychological aspect of the thriller is pretty good, but the story is completely empty, as is the message in the end. And the funny thing is that the science fiction part of the movie is completely superfluous. They could have easily done the same scenario in the real world, with more of an impact. As such, with a future world that feels remote and with characters that have no backstory or much character development, the film is just slow and hard to endure, with no real payback in the end, since no one cared what happens in the first place.

abhikumarMar 23, 2025

Or I could be wrong, cause I don't know how much it actually cost to turn a cyclist clothing and gear into a futuristic Hazmat suit. But I'm starting off giving the movie a bad rap. It's not the best story I have come across. The lead character, Abby has an important position as some head engineer whose more theory than practice, assigned to fix one of the big nuclear reactors that is supplying power to the whole world, but after meeting the two men who operate the station she finds the problem bigger than expected. What I really liked about the movie is the art direction. The cycle riding turned Hazmat suit was actually pretty cool, and it does not hurt that the lead actress was wearing it well. I really like the set that the film takes place on. I don't know if they made it or found a place but it looked like the greatest Sci-fi ever, and was a main character on it's own that made the movie worth looking at. It's one of those small movies with only three people that included Dominic Monaghan and Tom Sizemore who I must admit were not really worth mentioning in a story that's OK and done OK, that moves fast enough not to bore you and has a great set that almost makes up for a lot of it's short comings.

makuayi🍫Mar 22, 2025

It's set in the future, but misogyny and condescension are still in full swing. Great. Technology progresses but men don't. Nothing against the actress, but a model thin actress, with an unsure, hesitant voice and speech pattern, is supposed to be a highly trained tech. Really? This is really annoying. If misogyny is this prevalent in her time and field, she'd be more confident, and aggressive, not more passive. And, she'd probably be pissed off or fed up with the condescending attitude of the men around her. Not to mention way more leery of characters that seem to be completely out of wack with reality. They should have chosen an actress that looks and sounds like she could actually survive the work or job she's been assigned. Intelligence, education, and training increases confidence in one's ability and that should show in female characters. Male characters usually have plenty of arrogance and confidence, often without the education, intelligence, or ability to back it up. Just being male seems to be enough in some movies, and in real life. It may sell, but in the end, it underestimates men as well. Makes them seem very one dimensional, and shallow, which they aren't. This film had potential, but frittered it away. Wasted two good actors, by trapping them in typical male roles. (Sizemore and Monaghan) Maybe the writers could actually talk with women who work in STEM, before writing their next screenplay. If they did confer with strong women before writing this.... maybe next time they could listen.

user9585433821270Mar 22, 2025

Atomica is a basic budget sci fi, that works..... The styling and design of this film, is what really stands out. Its futuristic elements are well rendered and stylish for a film that does not have a big dollar value associated with it. The story line is alright too if not exceptional. Its a somewhat slow moving but it has enough going on, to keep your interest for the most part. Lastly, the actors do hand in reasonable performances, that keep your interested enough to keep watching and try to unravel the mystery that's presented. Not great but by no means awful either. Six out of ten from me.

khelly Mar 15, 2025

I so rarely write reviews, despite watching an awful lot of movies. This one was poor enough that I was motivated to pop down a warning for any who might think 'Ah, I'll give it a go' I don't mind a low budget approach to SciFi, I can look past less than perfect FX and CGI, I don't even consider bad science a deal-breaker. Bad writing, bad acting, insanely obvious 'twist' and lack of satisfying dismount, however - that's enough to get me to put finger to keyboard and declare this a real dud. The actress playing Abby was awful, bless her. Though, to be fair, the script was pretty sub-par so she didn't have a lot to work with. Dominic did his best but the shot choices, off-pace editing and, again, poor source material meant his efforts simply came across as hammy. With better direction on all areas, he at least could have salvaged some dignity. Tom Sizemore was barely in it and had little to do. The premise of the film is not the worst, and in more capable hands could have been at least an entertaining diversion. However, the actual final result looks like a rushed, b-grade (at best) made for TV gap filler for when the decent shows are on hiatus. SyFy has shown what they are capable of with The Expanse (among others). This was simply not a good movie on any level.

Kãlãwï😈Mar 15, 2025

The film takes place about a century in the future. A company (Oxzilla?) has created a tri-fission reactor (whatever that is) that works on converting radioactive waste into atomic energy to power the world (nuclear physics says not possible, you really need a neutron source, but I just went with it). The opening talks about a site where they had three atomic accidents, however there were tri-fisson reactors around the world on waste sites. So I am guessing this was the accident site. Abbey Dixon (Sarah Habel) a young engineer without much field experience gets the short straw when a remote location loses contact and has to go out there wearing a form fitting personal "radiation" suit. Suits are for contamination and not radiation, but I let that one go as Hollywood and the general public don't know the difference and interchange the words, liking "radiation" to describe everything radioactive. When she arrives she is greeted by a half-wit with a bad cough named Robinson (Dominic Monaghan). For the next hour or so we watch her run tests on the facility as Robinson watches her. She is attempting to locate Dr. Zek not knowing the type of character Tom Sizemore plays in films. Eventually the drama plays out. First off if an area gets contaminated, they pave over it and don't let it breath to the atmosphere. If you drive into the parking lot of a nuclear facility that has eight inches deep of paving, turn around. Another issue is that Abbey claimed the Becquerel level had increased. Becquerel is a unit for contamination. I doubt that is what she meant. It sounds scientific, but Gray or Sievert would have been the correct phrases. It she had said, "The Gray level has increased" that would not have worked. Sievert or milliSievert would have been the best. If you have radiation sickness, you don't walk around like you have a sore throat. If you are not hurling chunks or sitting on the bowl, you will have no energy to be active. PLOT SPOILER CLUES: The film was shot In Washington State, downwind of Hanford. In 1949 Hanford did a "Green Run" experiment where they released a few dozen curies of I-131. They studied the plume and the animals within the plume. The public found out in the 1980's. The sites for government nuclear facilities and bomb test sites are located, according to government documents, where the down winders are a "limited use" (expendable) segment of the population. I am sure the anti-nuclear crowd had the Green Run in mind when they made this film which unfortunately demonstrated they knew nothing about reactors or radiation. But hey, it is the thought that counts. Guide: No swearing or sex. Dominic Monaghan looks at Sarah Habel in the shower. We get to see all of him and the back of her head.

Nargi$ohelMar 12, 2025

Worth a one time watch. (Spoiler) The idea of "Clean Energy" while getting rid of Radiation Contamination, as explained in the intro Commercial, is not new. In reality, the idea of the Thorium Nuclear Reactor; and or Generation III Nuclear Power with Radioactive Waste Recycling. (Spoiler) The idea of a Human Designed "Fan" NEVER Failing, No "Chief Engineer" (Abby) would ever believe that. (Spoiler) Guess Abby never heard about "Duck and Cover" at the end. Which brings up the question; how did this even "Leak Out" since all those that would have Leaked the Information Out died, and the information was put into a box at the end.

Arf YldrımMar 12, 2025

I had to create an account for Atomica. What we have here is an amazing 9/10 sci-fi movie rated 4.1 by users and 3.3 out of 10 by critics. At least I started watching this with low expectations, and they got completely blown away. The plot is original and believable, the technology bits well exposed, the tension and mystery well built. I feel terrible for the team, writer, director, actors who all did an awesome job. This is the most unfairly received movie I've ever had the chance to discover.

♡Mar 9, 2025

This film was enjoyable Dominic Monaghan stole the show. The acting was above par and Tom Sizemore was in about 20% of it towards the end. It definitely could of been worse on this budget but the writing and storyline held up. Some of Ms.Habel's scenes were a little out of sorts at times I felt I was watching a soft * flick... NOT THAT I'M COMPLAINING. But on a budget that was minimal this film held it's own and I can say it was a pretty good film.. Sci-fi fans who don't have sticks up their butt will enjoy.