This along with Testament (1983) and Threads (1984) form the trilogy of (anti-)nuclear war movies that scared a generation in the height of the Cold War that greeted the world following the election of Reagan in 1980 to the White House. Kind of you made you feel nostalgic for the era of malaise under the Carter Administration. One scene that haunted me in The Day After was the wedding scene, where at the same time of the nuclear explosion in the USA, the bride and groom kissed at the ceremony, their first and last act as newlyweds. When this was screened on ABC, it pre-empted an episode of Hardcastle and McCormick, and one of the movie's actors John "Northern Exposure" Cullum, had to give an intro warning for little kids. It was a scary movie even for adults.

test

At best - I could only rank 1983's "The Day After" with just a measly 3-star rating. Yes. With this "Made-For-TV-Movie" now being close to 40 years old, I did try to cut it some slack - But, (IMO) it had way too much going against itself for it to deserve any positive recommendations from me. One of this film's biggest problems was that it tried to introduce way, way too many characters into the story. And, this, in turn - Only served to clutter up the story's escalating drama in a big-big way. Anyway - It didn't help matters much that "The Day After's" old-school visual effects were so cheesy-looking that I was prompted to laugh out loud more than just a few times.

This is one of those Important Movies (capital letters and all) that Hollywood comes out with every so often -- you know, like 'china syndrome', and 'farenheit 9/11'. Such movies are so heavy-handed that the makers might as well have just filmed themselves standing on soapboxes haranguing us at how foolish we are for one reason or another. The dialog is expository in the extreme, with characters labeled 'experts' holding forth to audience surrogates (who ask rock-headed questions); people acting in really unbelievable ways (my favorite is the little girl who has just watched her world destroyed by multi- megaton Russian bombs wrinkling her nose and complaining the the basement smells bad), to further the makers harangue-making. In sum, the Russians get greatly peeved at us, and decided to nuke the bejezus out of . . . Kansas?!? I mean there are missile silos there (but not just there - one character announces that the silos being hit are all "titan-2's, but the missiles we see launched are minuteman-3's and an occasional atlas -- launched from the suddenly-mountainous Kansas prairie), but it sure seems like the Russians have something against Kansas, and I don't think trading all of the soviet union for several square miles of Kansas is good strategy. (No offense to Kansans, by the way -- great state, great people.) Anyway, the movie just doesn't work -- either things would be not as bad as described, or much, much worse (in a real general war, for instance, there would be nobody to come to survivors aid). It's just so busy preaching, the flick doesn't tell a good story. If you want to see a movie about nuclear war that will REALLY talk straight, try and find a copy of "The War Game" (British, 1965).

I just finished watching this movie for the first time and had to give a comment. I was only 5 when this movie came out and don't remember seeing it, but growing up next to a military base, the threat of a nuclear attack, although remote was in the back of our minds. While this movie is not perfect (they should have had a couple less story lines going), this movie is the best attempt to show what was previously a very realistic scenario. While it's very toned down from what would actually happen after a nuclear attack, showing people out in the middle of nowhere trying to survive or just showing everyone die in a matter of a few days would not have had the same impact. This movie shows as graphically as could be shown on US network television a glimpse of the horror of nuclear war. The special effects and makeup are very good for a made for TV movie in 1983, impressive actually. The attack is shown is a very shocking and realistic manner (other than lessening the actual size of damage that would occur). The aftermath makes you realize that the lucky ones were those that were instantly vaporized. Although they don't show it, you realize that all of the characters that fought for so long against radition poisoning were not going to make it much longer. It shows many sides of human nature that would come to the surface under such circumstances and hints towards even worse ones that couldn't be shown. Although the cold war is behind us, these weapons are still around and there will come a time someone wants to use them. Everyone should see this movie to give them at least a small glimpse at why we can never allow that to happen.

I remember the hype surrounding THE DAY AFTER just before it was shown on British TV in 1984, it had supposedly caused a massive stir across the pond and I had seen news footage of adults openly sobbing as they viewed it. So I sat down as a 17 year old in nervous anticipation to watch " No holds barred depiction of nuclear war " My verdict: Utter garbage ! TDA is nothing more than one of those " disease of the week " TVMs except this time it involves the bomb. Where the hell`s the " No holds barred depiction of nuclear war " Everyone gets a free X-ray, some people shoot each other in the aftermath and some peoples` hair falls out ! Oh I`m scared. Is this the best American TV executives can come up with ? What about Nuclear winter and mutant babies ? , and how come most of the cast seem to survive till the final reel ? I might be wrong but I was under the impression that thermo nuclear war has a detrimental effect on peoples health, I may be wrong of course and TDA may be right in it`s portrayal in almost everyone surviving the initial attack , though somehow I think I`m right in this instance If this Hollywood garbage scared you witless then avoid at all cost THREADS and THE WAR GAME which shows up THE DAY AFTER for what it is - A very mediocre TVM disguised as something far more important than it actually deserves to be

I first reviewed this from memory a few months ago , then lo`n`behold I found myself watching TDA on the sci fi channel at the weekend after last seeing it nearly 19 years ago . I found it a very badly done nuclear holocaust drama when it was first broadcast on British television and I stick by that opinion after seeing it again . In fact TDA is even worse than I remembered it , for instance we see the missiles being fired from the USAF base in Kansas and the following minutes are taken up with people screaming as they run through the streets in a mass panic trying to make it to the nuclear shelters then when the bombs hit the city and everyone gets their free X-rays we`re shown a montage of people sitting in a cinema , attending a wedding and standing at a bus stop ! Very sloppy work on the part of the director - but the directing is as nowhere bad as the script in which the first half is taken up with some middle American characters who would seem at home in a daytime soap called DULLSVILLE. This is bad enough but after the bomb drops everything becomes ridiculous , there`s no real attempt to point out the most horrifying aspect of a nuclear war - that of a dying society where it`s everyman for himself . People are cruel by nature , people rob cheat and steal from one another , people beat , rape and murder one other , that`s a fact and that`s without thermo nuclear conflict . Dr Russell Oakes still cares for his myriad of patients but why would he ? Why would doctors and nurses continue to care for people ? because they`re doctors and nurses ? Sorry just because you work in the medical profession doesn`t mean you`re a better more compassionate person than anyone else . Worse THE DAY AFTER wants us to believe that most Americans share this caring attitude like the American airforce man befriending the refugee or the scene at the end where the man offers Dr Oakes an orange . It`s not just these " Disease of the week " sentimental scenes that make TDA unconvincing , the dialogue suffers from being too expositional and patronising ( But it`s not as patronising as THE WAR GAME ) like the scenes where the doctors discuss EMP or the fact that burning wood spreads radioactive fallout or where people discuss what Albert Einstien said about world war 4 being fought with sticks and stones . All this leads to wonder why THE DAY AFTER was made in the first place . I do take onboard what its defenders have said that no American TV network would have touched it if it was too graphic , but that`s exactly the point why I don`t like it , it just doesn`t go far enough . So why do it if it`s going to defeat its own purpose ? It struck me both then and now as an overblown TVM not helped by the fact that the main protaginist is played by a well known actor namely Jason Robards ( And seeing as many of the cast like Jobeth Williams , Steve Guttenberg and John Lithgow have become well known faces over the years this criticism of a star cast is made even worse watching it in 2002 ) . Did I like anything after rewatching it from all those years ago ? Well I do concede the make up was fairly good , probably the best aspect of the film I`d say , and it`s good for nostalgia reasons . If you were living in the early 80s then you`d remember the cold war very well and thank gawd it`s over , so I guess THE DAY AFTER`s heart was in the right place. Such a pity its Brain wasn`t One strange point: When THE DAY AFTER was released on video in Britain it carried an 18 certificate whereas when THREADS ( The British nuclear holocaust film ) was released on video it only carried a 15 certificate ! If you`ve seen both films then you`ll be extremely surprised to hear that considering THREADS is the most shocking thing in the history of television . If you were upset by TDA then please do not watch THREADS under any circumstances

This movie aired recently on the USA network and I saw it for the first time since I was ten years old. Although I did not find myself experiencing nightmares when I went to bed that night, as I did seventeen years ago, I still found the movie's message delivered clearly and with solid dramatic impact. Upon close analysis, there are flaws, both technical and on the creative end. The post-bomb world seems far too well-lit at times in light of the "nuclear winter" theory. And (as the film's disclaimer says) the actual results are much, much grimmer. Seven years ago I visited Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and the photos, accounts and newsreel footage taken of those who survived are absolutely horrifying. Some of the plot point devices and characters seem far too constructed (or perhaps outright contrived): Steve Guttenberg and his girlfriend and their tearful reunion, the dying doctor played by Jason Robards returning to the ruins of Kansas City for a final farewell to his home (and wife who died in the explosion). But the acting is strong, and Nicholas Meyer's largely low-key direction (often with no music) hammer home what is the film's message - loss. Not just the typical message that everyone loses in (nuclear) war, but illustrating what would be lost: loved ones, your home, your way of life, simple human dignity. And that it would be lost forever. For me, one of the most chilling lines is when Steve Guttenberg says to his girlfriend, "There's not going to be any phones." Haunting.

When THE DAY AFTER was released in England, I was ten, and my brother rented the videotape. I sat and watched it with one of my friends and we decided to fast-forward to the nuclear attack scene, because we'd heard how shocking and graphic it was, and how TV viewers in America jammed the switchboards for reassurance that it was only a movie, and how this was one of the most controversial films ever made. So I didn't expect the scene where the bomb drops to have all the emotional impact of being smacked in the face with a wet handkerchief. Make that a wet handkerchief with a nursery rhyme embroidered around the edges. What do we actually see? A power cut. Sorry, but growing up in England in the seventies, I was quite used to those. It's going to take a lot more than that to scare me. Then we see people and animals being evaporated in a split second. A flash of light, a brief glimpse of a skeleton, then nothing. About as scary as a ride on the ghost train. And guess what? Jason Robards, the star of the show, manages to avoid getting even singed in the blast simply by ducking behind the dashboard of his car. He even manages to keep up a supply of pristine white shirts, right to the sappy conclusion. Sorry to sound so flippant here, but given that the cold war raged for most of the eighties and the nuclear threat was not only real but a distinct possibility, when you're making a movie about what one of those atomic bomb doohickeys can do to a country, you have to go the whole hog or you'll just make the whole thing seem like an inconvenience rather than a disaster. And that's the whole problem with THE DAY AFTER - its very restraint kills it stone dead. I watched the film again a couple of days ago, and the whole thing has a flat, stilted, stagy quality about it that practically screamed "phoney". The characters, performances, dialogue and direction are bland at best and cardboard at worst. Whilst the superior British take on the potential holocaust, THREADS, benefits from a take-no-prisoners approach that forces the horror and confusion of the bomb down the viewer's throats by means of a steady diet of formation vomiting, shootings, degradation, urine, extreme poverty, civic incompetence, excrement-strewn hospitals and burning animals, THE DAY AFTER tiptoes around the unpleasantness and achieves the unthinkable - it sanitiser's the very eventuality that it purports to condemn. It's like a World War Two film daring to suggest that the concentration camps weren't that bad, or a Vietnam war film that depicts the effects of Napalm as being roughly comparable to that of itching powder down the neck. In short, if THREADS is the daddy of all disaster movies, then THE DAY AFTER is a slightly downbeat episode of M*A*S*H in comparison. It doesn't even come close.

Nuclear War is a bad thing. On this we can all agree. Other than that, this accidental comedy is divorced from any semblance of reality. Each character seems to be reading straight out of the "How to be an alarmist nut case with a bad haircut" Handbook of 1983. Folks live in Kansas to AVOID encountering silly people such as the ones portrayed. Bad writing, bad directing, and SPECTACULARLY bad acting combine to make this hooey the "Plan 9 From Outer Space" of the 1980s. It is difficult for me to believe that it's possible NOT to live up to the low, low standards of TV movies of that time. They managed to do it in spades. I originally watched this movie with my parents 1983. We all laughed out loud then, and I'm laughing out loud watching it now.