Crack in the World (1965) User Reviews

Fun sci-fi suspense.

[jckruize · 7/10 · 31 October 2001]

Reasonably intelligent, suspenseful science-fiction drama which is still worth a look despite modern science/plate tectonics theory having rendered it largely superfluous. Fine acting by Dana Andrews and Kieron Moore help elevate the proceedings.

GORGO director Eugene Lourie supervised the special effects, and there are several standout sequences of miniatures photography, along with the usual requisite stock footage, some good and some NSG. There's also a well-handled set piece of thermal-suited scientists descending into a volcanic caldera in order to place an A-bomb that generates some good suspense. (We'll overlook the subsequent post-blast scene where there is disconcertingly no shock wave.) I saw this on a double bill (it was the 2nd feature) with a Japanese giant monster flick back in the 60's; can't remember the monster (maybe Ghidrah?) but this is the picture that sticks in my mind. The denouement is audacious and thought- provoking.

A cracking thriller.

[Hey_Sweden · 7/10 · 5 August 2017]

Dana Andrews plays Dr. Stephen Sorenson, a terminally ill scientist who decides to follow through on his dream project: using a missile to break through to the planet Earths' magma layer. His associate, Dr. Ted Rampion (Kieron Moore), has been preaching that this will be dangerous, and Ted is naturally proved to be correct. However, he has no time to say "I told you so", because he, Stephen, and others must race to save the world from the resulting title disaster.

Copious stock footage mixes with pretty impressive special effects, designed by Eugene Lourie, himself the director of the classic dinosaur flick "The Beast from 20,000 Fathoms". Some viewers may be able to poke a lot of holes in the "science fact" aspect to the screenplay, but this shouldn't get in the way of enjoying what is a reasonably entertaining forerunner to the "disaster film cycle" of the 1970s. It's rather slow to get started, and does devote a fair amount of the running time to the love triangle. Ultimately, it delivers the goods if you stick with it. One thing about it that people should appreciate is the fact that it doesn't necessarily guarantee the viewer a happy ending. It keeps you hanging until its final frame. Among its other assets are the art direction (by Lourie), cinematography (by Manuel Berenguer), and music (by Johnny Douglas).

Andrews gives a typically solid performance in the lead, but most everybody here is fine. That includes the gorgeous Janette Scott as the female scientist caught between Ted and Stephen. Alexander Knox rounds out the quartet of top billed performers in the role of the pragmatic Sir Charles Eggerston.

This does offer a fair amount of fun if you're looking to discover sci-fi and disaster pictures from decades past.

Seven out of 10.

Great Saturday afternoon sci-fi adventure stuff...

[bobbyf · 7/10 · 27 December 2001]

Loved this movie as a kid, and even today, it stands up as great B-movie sci-fi stuff. Not a dull moment, and they even find time to throw in a sordid love triangle! Nothing else quite like it-except for modern Deep Impact/Armageddon stuff. Wish I could get it on video/DVD.

Flawed science, but a fun movie...

[joseph t · 10 November 2004]

Yes, let's put this to bed right away. The scientific premise is flawed. We now know that the crust of the Earth is not a solid shell, but riddled through with many cracks. Not only are these not harmful, they are an essential component and feature of a geologically active world. It is how the Earth renews itself, builds land, and promotes life. There is little mankind can do in the way of "cracking" the Earth that the Earth has not done itself, many times over, in much greater magnitude. But, that said, this is still a fun movie.

The pace of action and buildup to the spectacular climax is first-rate. I found myself just waiting for the next disaster to make itself manifest, be it an earthquake, volcano, tsunami, or all three. The underlying message is still sound: mankind should use caution in tinkering with the forces of nature. A time-worn premise, to be sure, but no less valid today. We as a species are young and have much to learn, by being aware of the hidden forces of nature and the unintended consequences of good-intentioned tinkering.

The cast is quite good. Sci-fi stalwart Dana Andrews is the featured player, of course, but the other actors do some good work. For it's time, the special effects are well-done. Like any well-paced disaster film, as the action races to a climax, we find ourselves pulling for the "good" guys against, hey, wait a minute, there are no "bad guys", just the unleashed forces of nature, knowing no good or evil, just following their natural course. It's a fun twist and makes you think.

Overall, it's hard not to recommend "Crack in the World" for a fun couple of hours' escapism and entertainment. Just suspend the disbelief a bit and go along for the ride.

Honey, I Screwed Up the Planet!

[Coventry · 7/10 · 18 August 2019]

The mighty Leonard Cohen sung: "There is a crack in everything, that's how the light gets in". But his beautiful anthem was one of hope, whereas the titular crack of this film represents the greatest disaster imaginable, and possible the end of the world as we know it! "A Crack in the World" is a disaster movie that predates the Irwin Allen era. In other words, it's not a massively budgeted epos that features a long list of Hollywood stars and thrives on special effects and set-pieces, but more of an intelligently scripted and rather talky drama with genuine suspense and plausible plot twists. Brilliant scientist Stephen Sorenson (Dana Andrews) suffers from a terminal illness, but refuses to tell anyone in order to complete his prestigious and ambitious life's work, namely providing the world with never-ending energy sources that are coming directly from magma of the earth's core. To bring the magma to the surface, his team launches a missile straight to the center of the earth, but like his much younger and more handsome colleague Ted predicted, the missile causes a crack in the world, and consequently earthquakes, volcanic eruptions, tidal waves, tsunamis and approximately 38.000 human casualties in one day! "Crack in the World" surely isn't the most exhilarating Sci-Fi/Action movie of the sixties, but the story is hugely absorbing and the scientist roles are very well-acted. After a very theoretical first hour, there's quite a lot of action. They even drop nuclear bombs into active volcanos and hundreds of poor souls fall to their deaths when a ramshackle train bridge collapses.

Where the land masses split, the oceans will be sucked in, and the colossal pressure generated by the steam will rip the Earth apart, and destroy it.

[hitchcockthelegend · 7/10 · 1 June 2012]

Crack in the World is directed by Andrew Marton and written by Jon Manchip White and Julian Halevy. It stars Dana Andrews, Janette Scott, Kieron Moore, Alexander Knox, Peter Damon and Jim Gillen. Music is scored by Johnny Douglas and cinematography by Manuel Berenguer.

Dr. Steven Sorenson (Andrews) plans to tap the energy magma source deep in the Earth's interior by exploding a nuclear device down in the core. In spite of desperate warnings by fellow scientist Ted Rampian (Moore) that it will cause a disaster, Sorenson proceeds after getting the backing of his superiors. The experiment causes a crack to form in the Earth's crust, which starts to escalate and threatens to split the Earth in two. Can the scientists come up with something to avert the catastrophe they have created?

The science might be hokey but the premise is a "cracker" in what seems to be the forgotten film of the sci-fi/disaster movie splinters. Much time is afforded to human interactions and discussions of the science involved, and of course the repercussions of man's inherent need to tamper with the world we live in. When the effects come they are excellent, aiding the drama considerably, there's even a bit of model work that nods back to a time when such a thing was a staple of genre movies. There's a tension fuelled love triangle going on between the three main protagonists, and one of them is ill, very ill, this adding spice to the human drama as the world starts to come apart. The clock ticks down and as the jeopardy rises so does the excitement, leaving us with a tense finale that rounds the film out as a more than worthy film for genre fans to enjoy. 7/10

" You failed to tell them, if you miscalculate, it could split the world in two "

[thinker1691 · 7/10 · 4 January 2009]

Many things in the world of science fiction, come from the reality of science itself. Man has always thought, if there was some way to harness the hot volcanic magma in the center of the earth, it could supply the energy needs of the entire world. In this film, a top Geo-scientist, Dr. Stephen Sorenson (Dana Andrews) plans to use a nuclear tipped missile to punch a hole into the crust of Earth's mantle and release all the energy stored therein. His colleague, a former student of his and rival for the affections of the heroine, Maggie Sorenson, (Janette Scott), is Dr. Ted Rampion (Kieron Moore) who warns emphatically that such an explosion could cause a gigantic, world-wide catastrophic 'crack' in the earth's surface which could destroy it. Alexander Knox plays Sir Charles Eggerston one of many members of the Earth's council, whom Sorenson eventually convinces of the safe feasibility of the project. The film is highlighted by magnificent explosions and dramatic action scenes which prove, this movie should have garnered more attention when it dominated the marquees of the day. All in all a great cult film for all ****

To crack the earth's crust

[bkoganbing · 7/10 · 14 July 2014]

What begins as a scientific disagreement ends with an event having importance for the solar system we live in. Drs. Dana Andrews and Kieron Moore a pair of well known physicists are working on a project that would crack the earth's crust. The idea is to have a controlled flow of magma from the center of the earth from which humankind can extract the mineral wealth it needs and have a never ending heating supply.

Andrews wants to drop a missile with an atomic warhead down a shaft. He feels it will bore a hole allowing for a controlled flow. Moore however thinks the explosion will shatter the crust because of the underground atomic testing that's been done. Guess who turns out to be right?

In addition to their scientific disagreements Andrews and Moore are romantic rivals as well. Janette Scott who is married to Andrews once was going out with Moore who still has a yen for her.

I'm not sure of the physics or the geology that we are given in Crack In The World, but this is a well done science fiction drama spiced with a little romantic rivalry. A Crack In The World does form and threatens to dismember the planet itself.

Well we're still here and if you want to see the miracle that saves the Earth then see Crack In The World. Good indication there is a ruling power out there.

An unholy threesome spawns a second moon!

[Maciste_Brother · 3/10 · 14 May 2008]

CRACK IN THE WORLD made a big impression when I saw it as a kid. It was one of those films that I always watched whenever it played on TV. Even then I knew it wasn't in the same league as WAR OF THE WORLDS or most sci-fi films of the 1950s or 60s. But I enjoyed it nonetheless. I recently saw it for the first time as an adult and I have to say that the movie is pure corn. Honestly, even my initial suspicions back then were sorta correct: aside from the truly wacky science-fiction story and the model work, there's very else to recommend. The film is basically a soap about a relationship between an Old Scientist (Dana Andrews) and a Young Hotshot Scientist (awfully played by Kieron Moore) fighting for a Hot Blond (Janette Scott). The melodrama is unpalatable, even if one looks at it as retro camp. It kills the fun aspect of the movie dead in its tracks. In the end, the only thing I got from this film as an adult is how this annoying threesome gave birth to a second moon, not the so-called crack in the world.

Also, as a kid, the scenes with the animals in peril left an indelible impression. Looking at those scenes today, I can't help but wonder if any of the squirrels or raccoons were injured or killed for the sake of the film.

Oddly enough, the more recently released THE CORE reminded me a lot of CRACK IN THE WORLD. Both films were made and released by Paramount. Both films feel like TV movies. Both films are awful. They would make a not-so-great double feature.

Surprisingly effective movie.

[milesahead1 · 7/10 · 31 May 2020]

A well-made disaster movie, featuring extremely impressive special-effects (off the top of my head, I can't recall another movie from the 60s that depicts catastrophic events as impressively). The score is above average and the performances from the lead players involved in the love triangle are strong (just a point: another reviewer mistakenly states that Scott and Moore were married in real life). Well worth watching.

Another disaster movie over-run with too much exposition.

[mark.waltz · 5/10 · 26 November 2011]

Dana Andrews plays an ailing scientist trying to find a way to use magma from the center of the earth to create a new natural energy. Kieron Moore is his assistant, a scientist out to prove that what Andrews is doing could unleash a disaster if the earth's crust begins to crack. Of course, there is the obligatory romantic subplot, and it involves Moore and Andrews' much younger wife, Janette Scott. Things don't really begin to gel until the end, but in the meantime, there is the scene of the bomb descending into the earth to break through the crust to get to the magma, a series of conversations about sudden earthquakes that break out, and finally, a visit into an actual volcano to counteract the force of the magma by scientifically blowing it out like a candle. (Didn't I see this plot on "Gilligan's Island"?) But in disaster movies where scientists are trying to play God, things always go wrong, and a crack begins to develop in the ocean's floor that begins to head totally around the world. The film is actually pretty good, and the exposition scenes are not really boring. But it doesn't really become "hot" until the last 20 minutes, which makes the overall impact of the film less than it could have been. Still, it is a lot better than two other films that actually involved volcanoes-"Krakatowa, East of Java" (filmed obviously in a mirror-Krakatowa is WEST of Java!), and the disaster master Irwin Allen's hideous "When Time Ran Out". We would have to wait until years later for "Volcano" and "Dante's Peak" to entertain us more than those disasters did.

It should be noted that Andrews looks incredibly handsome here, distinguished and gray, yet not lacking the appeal he had 20 years ago in "Laura". Alexander Knox has a bit part as an English Lord whose financing oversees the whole project.

Science is a bit dated, but a fun movie nonetheless.

[tuttt · 9/10 · 9 December 2001]

Interesting story about a dying scientist who plans to tap the geothermal energy beneath the Earth's crust, with dire consequences. Andrews, Scott and Moore, as well as Alexander Knox, all give excellent performances. Special effects are superb and very believable. I remember seeing this on TV when I was a kid, and it scared me to DEATH. Seeing it again as an adult, it is not quite as scary, but is still fast-paced and entertaining. Sadly, it is not available on video to my knowledge. Perhaps someone at Paramount will read this and take the hint.

While the science is now dated, thanks to the discovery of plate tectonics (the Earth's crust is divided into may separate "plates", and therefore already has many "cracks"), the story is still entertaining. The interaction between Dr Sorenson (Andrews), an aging scientist trying for one last victory; his young wife Maggie (Scott), a scientist in her own right; and Dr Rampion (Moore), the project's geologist and an old flame of Maggie's to boot; works very well, even if it is a bit formulaic.

All in all it is a fun movie, and definitely worth the time to see it if you can. Paramount would do well to re-release it on video and especially widescreen DVD. How about it, guys?

Better Than Average Sci-Fi - Crack in the World

[arthur_tafero · 6/10 · 19 August 2021]

No, this is not a film about drugs. That will be disappointing to some of the younger viewers. However, it is a fairly entertaining sci-fi piece that examines what would happen if the energy companies were able to drill to the magma area of the earth's core. And make no mistake, it would be the energy companies calling this tune, not international alliances. The unnecessary love triangle slows down the action, but not too badly. Andrews gives a good performance as well as the B actors, and the production values are decent. Worlh viewing on a Saturday morning.

Old Science, but great Special Effects

[Teach-8 · 5/10 · 17 June 2002]

The premise of a massive underground nuclear explosion that would create a moving rift through a supposedly solid crust was quite believable in the days before plate tectonics was generally known to the public; the special effects create an air of reality that made the whole thing seem almost a certainty. However, with a knowledge of plate tectonics, the whole premise vanishes, especially with maps of this so-called crack passing through crustal plates. I taped this movie off of AMC cable a few years back, and I show it to my earth science classes after covering plate tectonics, asking them to tell me, "What's wrong with this picture?" The kids enjoy it and still see the mistakes. Overall, an enjoyable movie, if blatant disregard for science facts doesn't bother you.

Worth a view

[nicholas.rhodes · 13 October 2001]

This film falls into one of my favourite categories, that is to say the category " Man Tampers With Nature ". Shot in Technicolor with superb picture quality, it is a feast for the eyes ( Why can't they get the same Technicolor quality in today's films ?? ) The sci-fi films of the 50s and 60s are feasts for the eyes and visual gems ( excuse the tautology ! )The story of this one is fairly limited, but the special effects are wonderful and realistic. I put the film on a par with others such as "Invaders from Mars", "Incredible Shrinking Man" etc. Obviously, the may be scientific inaccuracies, and science has advanced since 1965 but there again, this is an entertaining film and not a technically correct documentary.

Worth Watching...

[xerses13 · 6/10 · 1 June 2006]

CRACK IN THE WORLD (1965) is a fine attempt at the disaster film genre. A type of film that has been around since silents. It is a modest film but is effective due to its tight script, professional cast and more then adequate special visual effects. It balances a personal story (love triangle) within the larger context of THE END OF THE WORLD!

THE 'NUTS'...Ambitious scientist (Dana Andrews) wants to go out with one (1) last Hurrah, tapping the unlimited energy and resources of the Earth's core. Supported by loyal wife (Janette Scott) and opposed by friend scientist (Kieron Moore) who has his doubts. Things start out all right but soon head south as experiment causes a running crack along Earth's fault lines. Race against time to stop disaster from destroying the world seeded with scenes of mass destruction. Will love and science save the day? Watch the movie and find out.

The film has some dated scientific context (how moons are created) and the engineering does not make much sense. Would it not be simpler to tap the magma by drilling down in one (1) of the dozen (12) super volcanoes on the planet? We have one (1) here in the U.S.A. in YellowStone National Park and you don't have to go halfway to the core to reach magma. In Hawaii it comes up by itself 24/7 and besides creating new beach-front we have not noticed any viable energy or resource uses, though the people in IceLand seemed to have figured out how to use them. Such points could be about films today also. 'The Day After Tomorrow' is not exactly scientifically plausible but is still enjoyable watching.

A 60's sci-fantasy

[pietclausen · 6/10 · 29 December 2018]

This oldie is still watchable and has enough disaster in it to make it an enjoyable movie to give old fashioned satisfaction. The movie is rated as sci-fi, bu that is a bit of a misnomer today and should be seen as a science fantasy as the science is incorrect. Science has certainly moved on in the last 50 years!

It was pleasant to see no cellphones, no computers to speak of and no handy calculators. In a way it reminded me of the early James Bond movies which used similar equipment.

Probably not a movie for today's youth, but the older generation can still get a kick out of it! It qualifies for a solid rating of 6.

CRACK IN THE WORLD (Andrew Marton, 1965) **1/2

[Bunuel1976 · 6/10 · 8 March 2007]

This is another popular sci-fi outing – which follows a world crisis pattern established by the superior THE DAY THE EARTH CAUGHT FIRE (1961) – that I had only previously read about in books; I finally watched it via a DivX made from a P&S TV broadcast on AMC (unfortunately, my enjoyment was slightly hampered by recurring lip-synch problems).

Anyway, the film itself – initially slow-going and talky but becoming persuasive and fairly gripping once the disasters start – is good-looking and features remarkable special effects, while the principal actors are all adept at this sort of thing (an ageing and quite moving Dana Andrews as the dying scientist, Janette Scott and Kieron Moore – both from THE DAY OF THE TRIFFIDS [1962] – and Alexander Knox from THESE ARE THE DAMNED [1963]); besides, unlike many films of its ilk, the characters' personal dilemmas actually contribute to the tension.

While not exactly a milestone of the genre and ultimately forgettable, the film ought to get a decent DVD release (if it weren't problematic, I guess I could have lived with my current copy); however, being a Paramount production, it can't be much of a priority (seeing how they've reportedly leased one of their more desirable properties – ROBINSON CRUSOE ON MARS [1964] – to Criterion, thus burdening fans with a much more expensive edition!)

Ambitious for its time

[ctomvelu1 · 6/10 · 28 August 2012]

Somebody decided to spend a little money on this British sci-fi disaster quickie from the 1960s. The special effects are impressive for the time, and the movie's in color! An aged Dana Andrews plays a dying scientist determined to unleash magma from the Earth's core to create an endless source of energy. To do so, he decides to drop an atomic bomb down the shaft he's dug. Guess what happens next. This mad scientist, nicely underplayed by Andrews, has a wife half his age who is hoping to have his baby, not knowing he is dying. She is played by an obscure actress of the time who is probably the sexiest female I have ever seen in one of these kiddie afternoon matinée jobs. She wants to make love and he can't. Their scenes make for a nice subplot. The scientist also has an old partner, played by rugged-looking, thickly accented Irish actor Kieron Moore, who opposes Andrews' plan. Moore is an old beau of the scientist's wife and still very fond of her, which makes for some interesting moments. This is one case where I welcomed a romantic subplot in a sci-fi movie clearly made for young boys. The wife is that much of a looker, even with her '60s bouffant hairdo and stage makeup. Anyhow, the end gives us something of an Adam and Eve conclusion, a frequent theme in Twilight Zone and Star Trek episodes. Guess which two survive for the fadeout. Here's a hint: he can definitely make babies.

Freud Meets the Ecologists

[aktatmot · 5/10 · 16 December 2006]

Metaphors, metaphors, metaphors. Ach, what the "scientists" are doing to the earth! Let's see, a giant missile is aimed down into a big crack in the earth. Hmm. They shoot the missile into the earth and it explodes. Hmm. Then the earth moves. Hmm. Then all heck breaks loose. Hmm. What's that four letter word for this sort of thing? I think that is what the scientists are doing to the earth. Hmm. It's really difficult to either stop this comment or to abbreviate it. Hmm. It's hard to stop this comment or cut it short. Hmm. I don't think that this was Dana Andrews at his best. After all of this metaphorical action, the sky catches fire. "Mother" earth is really angry. Yes, this movie was ahead of its time. Hmm. Was it good for you? Hmm.

Concept like jules Verne

[mohibh · 7/10 · 4 March 2019]

It's the concept that glued world audience to Hollywood and no wonder they would only improve and now have seen many such movies like core, 2012, so ONN goes the list.

Why did I waste my time watching this?

[RapdudeX3 · 1/10 · 10 June 2005]

I saw this film when i was but a lad, and I must say It has scarred me for life.

Check out this fantastic plot: A group of scientists, eager to harness the geothermal energy from the earth's mantle, adopt an ingenious, if albeit rather overboard method of doing so. They launch a nuclear missile deep into the earth's crust. Unfortunately this somehow manages to rupture the crust and cause a huge rift which starts to spread across the globe. "Oh no what a terrible catastrophe!" the scientists cry, "how ever shall we remedy this terrible problem?" I know, let's stop the rift by firing more nuclear missiles into the earth's crust ahead of it. This creates more devastation and subsequently rips of a large chunk of the earth, creating a new moon and leaving the hero and a sexy lady alive, standing triumphantly on a hill while the earth burns. And then the words "The End" What kind of ending is that? whoever thought up this ridiculous plot and tormented me as a child should be fired into the earths crust along with any trace of this movie.

60's Sci-Fi apocalypse flick still screens well due to good acting and great script!

[cjhora · 10/10 · 9 September 2002]

This movie was an anachronism when it was made in 1965--It was WAY above the level that audience sophistication demanded in those days. Although science has moved forward since then(plate tectonics,etc.), it does not detract from the essential viability of this film. For a Sci-Fi movie involving the apocalypse, this story hangs together well and requires relatively little "suspension of disbelief." The plot builds suspense very nicely and at an increasingly ominous and break-neck pace. Typical of British films, the script is rather well written, and Andrews, Moore and Scott(the latter two were married in real life), as well as the usual cast of Britishers do a wonderful acting job. Special effects are excellent and include many convincing shots of real volcanic events. The scene in which the fissures converge is awe-inspiring, though the final massive event could benefit from modern CGI effects. The science--I should know--is not all that bad! The musical score is first-rate, and adds greatly to the movie's charm, building suspense beautifully. Fire up the microwave, get the popcorn, settle down and watch this one--IF you can find a copy!!!

A Real Trip!

[firebird-90589 · 7/10 · 15 June 2022]

As a child, I loved the older sci-fi movies, and this one is no different. Flawed science or not, these forerunners of today's "Disaster Movies" are still lots of fun to watch! The one thing that sets this movie apart from its contemporaries or even today is the "what if" factor. What if man actually tried this with an atomic or even nuclear bomb - if he were capable? What would happen? I thought that adding in a man who has fooled around with this idea so long he had cancer, and had no problem dying with his project, yet was married only a year, was a bit much. If the idea of a chunk of Earth flying off into space creating another moon wasn't enough, because Sorensen was too busy playing mad scientist, let's add her former boyfriend into the mix. Despite this silliness, the movie is a fun ride and a real trip! Like many classic older movies, any form of remake would not come close to the original fun of this one. If one likes any form of disaster movie, one just cannot get enough of these old science fiction movies like Crack in the World.

Absurd and ridiculous but entertaining

[ft62 · 2/10 · 3 January 2002]

This movie must rank as one of the most absurd ever. SPOILER PLOT SUMMARY: setting off a nuclear weapon to poke a hole in the MOHO layer to release thermal energy of the mantle for use in generating power. A crack is formed which starts to spread. They attempt to stop it by setting off another nuclear weapon in a volcano. This causes the crack to loop back to the starting point at which time the "pressure" of the mantle blows the piece of the crust out into orbit forming a new moon. 1. There is no MOHO layer. Even so, volcanoes pierce the "layer" and do and do not cause "cracks". 2. No one can drill to the mantle on a continent. The ocean floor is much thinner - and it's still too thick for a hole to remain open. 3. The creation of a new moon from the crust of the earth would be a catastrophe that would destroy life on the planet - and the heroes watch this from a couple of hundred yards away! Ridiculous, but fun, if you have a lobotomy first.