IMDb > The Day After (1983) (TV) > Reviews & Ratings - IMDb
The Day After
Quicklinks
Top Links
trailers and videosfull cast and crewtriviaofficial sitesmemorable quotes
Overview
main detailscombined detailsfull cast and crewcompany credits
Awards & Reviews
user reviewsexternal reviewsawardsuser ratingsparents guidemessage board
Plot & Quotes
plot summarysynopsisplot keywordsmemorable quotes
Did You Know?
triviagoofssoundtrack listingcrazy creditsalternate versionsmovie connectionsFAQ
Other Info
box office/businessrelease datesfilming locationstechnical specsliterature listingsNewsDesk
Promotional
taglines trailers and videos posters photo gallery
External Links
showtimesofficial sitesmiscellaneousphotographssound clipsvideo clips

Reviews & Ratings for
The Day After (TV) More at IMDbPro »

Filter: Hide Spoilers:
Page 9 of 16: [Prev][4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [Next]
Index 153 reviews in total 

1 out of 1 people found the following review useful:

Close to home

9/10
Author: ragingmom from Canada
22 January 2006

I was a kid in Atlanta during the Cuban Missile Crisis, and I was sure we were all doomed. When this film came on TV, I had three children, none of whom was old enough to watch it (though my oldest tells me now he sneaked out of bed and saw some of it). The next day I told my oldest boy (age 10) that, if he ever heard the bombs were coming, to go to his little brother's classroom (his little brother was six) and stay with him so they wouldn't die alone. I figured I'd be home with my two-year-old, so the two of us would be together. Ironically, almost 20 years later, my two-year-old was a university student who called me in tears the morning of 9/11, sure the world was going to end. Her brother was in the air force in the same city (preparing for drills to get them ready for action in Afghanistan, as I later learned). I called him but I only got his answering machine. But I told him, "Call your sister as soon as you can and convince her everything is going to be all right. I don't know if it really is or not, but convince her that it will be." In short, raising children in these modern times seems as much planning for death as it is planning for life, and this movie really hit close to home.

Was the above review useful to you?

1 out of 1 people found the following review useful:

Realistic in certain ways

7/10
Author: medic249a2 from Langley, Canada
23 August 2005

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

I didn't see 'The Day After' until I was about 18 because my parents wouldn't let me see it when it first ran on TV (I was about 13 at that time). In between, I saw the other, far more graphic 'nuclear' movie - Threads - in the UK, and while that one was largely superior to 'The Day After' in terms of stark realism, 'The Day After' still has a lot of positives to be said about it. There are actually quite a few similarities to 'Threads'.

'The Day After' begins in Lawrence, KS, on the border with Kansas City, Missouri and the state line. Lawrence is home to the U of Kansas, while Kansas City also has a USAF base nearby and more than 125 ICBM missile silos extending along the state border southward. The movie follows primarily one family - the Dahlbergs, whose oldest daughter, Denise, is preparing for her upcoming wedding. This was not unlike 'Threads' which also followed two characters who were about to be married, and both their families. However, in 'The Day After' we only see Denise's fiancé a few times; no mention is made of his family. The other character this movie follows is Dr. Oakes (Jason Robards), chief of surgery at the small U of Kansas hospital, along with RN Nancy Bauer (JoBeth Williams of 'Poltergeist').

Similar to the storyline of 'Threads', problems begin when the aggressive USSR sends tanks & troops to the border of West Berlin. The Russians then decide to march right into West Germany, and at one point they deploy a nuclear missile against a West German city. This is followed by the apparent evacuation of Moscow (likely planning that NATO will counterattack with nuclear weapons?). Most of the characters go about their lives not paying much attention to the overseas trouble, but some, like the Dahlbergs, start constructing makeshift fallout shelters in their basements. Others start hitchhiking out of town. Things quickly escalate when Russian ships strike an American one in the Persian Gulf. The Americans strike back by sinking a Russian ship, and then air burst a series of low-yield nuclear weapons over advancing Soviet troops in West Germany. Now the B-52 bombers are deployed, and the U.S. President quickly starts direct communication with the Soviet Premier. However, the Russian ploy to buy time is revealed when a Soviet ICBM hits NATO regional military headquarters in western Europe. Then the order to launch the ICBMs at the USSR comes, and one at a time, the missile silos along the state line unleash their deadly weaponry. Civilians who see the missiles don't think much of it until senior officers of the USAF, from a command aircraft, track more than 300 Soviet ICBMs headed for the United States! The air-raid sirens sound around Kansas City & Lawrence, and panic breaks out! People are clawing & trampling each other in their fight for survival. Minutes later the electromagnetic pulse knocks out electrical systems - from car batteries & clocks to lighting in an O.R during closure of a patient. Dr. Oakes is on the freeway when he sees the bright flash of the first ICBM hit Kansas City, and then the horrible mushroom cloud rising over the downtown area - 'as if the sun exploded'. People close to the blast site die immediately, but others are subjected to the deadly threat of radioactive fallout, long after the fires are out. Now, the Dahlbergs, Dr. Oakes, and others must try to survive in a world of radioactivity, scant electricity, disease, and an extreme shortage of safe food and water.

Considering that the filmmakers had to use their own special effects for some of the attack footage, they did reasonably well. The 2 mushroom clouds appearing over Kansas City appeared fairly realistic, and the explosions & waves of fire - some of which appears to be Defense Department footage - were also quite realistic. While I considered the attack scenes of 'Threads' to be more realistic, the filmmakers have done a respectable job here. Director Nicholas Meyer (Star Trek 2: The Wrath of Khan and Star Trek 6: The Undiscovered Country) has kept things fairly well-paced. It moves at a pace comparable to 'Threads' and the crisis that prompted the attack - Soviet invasion of western Europe - was not entirely far-fetched, given the behavior of some former Soviet leaders.

The only thing I was disappointed in was that it did not extend the story even a year later - when one might expect to see the results of a nuclear winter. Although there is a hint of the future for Denise - after she exposes herself to a probably lethal dose of radioactive fallout - she is seen in a gym being used as a hospital, minus most of her hair, skin deteriorating, and apparently ill with leukemia. A hint of the future appears again, right at the end, as a man calls into a radio, 'This is Lawrence, Kansas. Is anybody there?'. This was something covered quite well in 'Threads', extending 13 years into the future.

This one gets a 7/10 for doing a reasonable job with somewhat limited resources. It was unquestionably a scenario that had to be told, to be explained to the public just exactly WHAT the true horrific effects of a full nuclear strike against the United States would be. The filmmakers wisely emphasized at the end that the events shown in the film would in fact be less severe than an actual full nuclear strike. So far, we have managed to avoid a 'Day After'-type scenario. However, with the threat of fanatical terrorists, this threat is raising its ugly head once again. While the storyline may be somewhat dated, the events it portrays are not.

Was the above review useful to you?

1 out of 1 people found the following review useful:

Current history

8/10
Author: johnnieljenkinsiii from United States
30 June 2005

Tonight I saw this movie again on TVLand. I remember watching the movie in the 8th grade. We had to get permission slips signed by our parents to watch it in our own homes. Seems kind of funny now. I really did not like it when I watched it the first time. I think as a young child I did not appreciate it. Now as I look at it, the movie has moments that are not exactly quality moments. I also think the movie over played the fact that if a nuclear attack occurs people revert to a caveman state void of language skills. In recent times we have learned that in difficult times people usually perform at their best. Back, to the movie. I really think it is a good reminder of how much we need to prepare for disasters. Back then the threats was nuclear now the fear is biological. I hope the movie never comes true but it does give me lots to think about.

Was the above review useful to you?

1 out of 1 people found the following review useful:

Powerful, Acting Flaws

8/10
Author: bryan729 from Helena, Montana
30 June 2005

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

I also watched this during the premiere on ABC in November 1983. I also have the DVD. And it's still just as riveting as it was in it's first showing. I live 80 miles south of the #2 target in the country. Minuteman silos outside of Great Falls. Which had the ABC station that showed the film. So I know how terrifying the possibility of nuclear war was at the time. The film itself is still riveting in it's story. How one town is affected by a nuclear attack. It's only flaw is the use of made-for-TV characters. And dialogue that would make you think this is 'Plot Advancement Playhouse'. Albeit the news broadcasts do make this more suspenseful. As for the attack itself, pretty good. Considering that they used red ink squeezed up into a fish tank with a syringe to create the mushroom clouds. I won't criticize the depiction of mass vaporizations, since it would have been too fast to be seen in real time. Nor the use of test footage. I just wished the shots they used matched up a little better. But still a very intense experience more than 20 years later.

Was the above review useful to you?

1 out of 1 people found the following review useful:

I couldn't watch this when I was a child

8/10
Author: artfuldodger-6
22 June 2005

I remember when this movie came out on television when I was a child. It was the early 80's. Like 1983. I remember seeing the commercials for it and it scared the hell out of me. I would close my eyes, and hold my breath. I didn't want to look at it. Suffice to say I never watched it. But the images in those commercials were so powerful. What I saw of them at least. They stayed with me, FOREVER. I had always wondered about that movie. What I had missed, experienced, could have learned. It became like a looming ghost floating in the back of my mind.

Really, that is how powerful, and scary those images were to me. So I'm in a retail store yesterday that sells DVDs, low and behold there is The Day After for like 10 dollars. I held the DVD in my hand looking down at the cover with the big nuclear mushroom cloud. I could feel that same feeling in the pit of my stomach as I had as a child. Amazing how something could have such an impact on you when you've never even seen it. I looked from side to side like I was holding something taboo. I thought to myself I'm grown up now I can watch, don't be a baby! So I clenched it in my hands, walked to the register, and purchased it. Oh my God...!

I am so glad I did not watch this movie when I was kid. Honestly I think it would have screwed me up psychologically. It is probably one the most real made for TV movies I've ever seen. The special effects while by todays standards are, eh. But a nuclear explosion is a nuclear explosion. You pretty much get the gist regardless of how much the effects cost to produce. Worked for me! A little too well I'd say. This is a gut wrenching, sad movie that makes you think on so many levels. It makes you think how we take so many things for granted.

The frightening reality is we live in a world that actually does harbor these weapons that are pretty much controlled by madmen. It shows that we are all pretty much sitting ducks. That is scary! Unless we start to do something, such as taking back our control of the Govt, and our world. We will always be in that position. I think this is a very poignant film for our times, and needs to be revisited once again. I think every high school teacher should show this film to their classes. I will never forget this movie. It was unbelievable, and has changed my life...FOREVER!

Was the above review useful to you?

1 out of 1 people found the following review useful:

Disturbing, but necessary

8/10
Author: sunbeam-4 from United States
7 June 2005

Yes, this movie was indeed disturbing, but needed to be made during the age when Russia was still a threat. Of course, the main event in the movie must never happen, and now with terrorists the enemy instead of Russia, the threat still is there, so the movie still has value, even though the "Cold War" technically is over with the Soviet Union. Now we have such wonderful adversaries as North Korea and China, that have taken Russia's place. Not to mention the terrorist network who can go out and buy a suitcase bomb. So, unfortunately, the nuclear threat still exists (thankfully to a lesser extent) but the American public shouldn't be too complacent when there are people in the world who would destroy us if they could using means similar to what was presented in the movie. The first time I watched this movie, it bothered me for a few days after. Quite powerful, but necessary.

Was the above review useful to you?

1 out of 1 people found the following review useful:

It was an effective movie for it's time in history.

Author: Polar_Bear89 from Springfield, Missouri
20 November 2004

All and all, I don't think this is a bad movie. But I don't think the producers were able to fully seize the potential they had to make a profound statement about the dangers of a full scale nuclear war in the midst of the Cold War. I first saw this as a teenager while living in southeast Missouri, just 45 miles from the 97th Bombardment Wing (B-52s) at Eaker Air Force Base in Blytheville, Arkansas. After noticing the close proximity of some characters in the story to Whiteman AFB in Sedalia, MO, it really had my attention. I have had opportunities to see the movie a time or two since it first aired in 1983. Each time I see it, I'm left with the same impression. The make up and the special effects are excellent when considering the technology available at the time the movie was made! In fact, I think it's the best part of the movie. The unfortunate thing, however, is the movie's message was marginalized by scenes written into the story line. A good example was when Dr. Oakes was speaking with a colleague while washing his hands in the scrub room of a hospital. As both men approached the camera, he wonders if man were truly capable of nuclear war, they'd be "eating hearts in caves" instead of fixing them. The point could have been more effectively made had the producers simply presented the subject matter through the storyline and allowed the viewers to ask that question of themselves. The producers of "Threads" were able to do this and I think that's why "Threads" is the better of the two movies.

Was the above review useful to you?

1 out of 1 people found the following review useful:

Works well as a disaster movie, but.....

Author: Daniel Gibson from Lansing, MI
19 July 2001

"The Day After" is an interesting film, that could have been so much better. As a disaster film, it works pretty well, and has pretty good sfx considering it was made for TV in the early 80's. However, as a film about nuclear war, it falls down. The main problem is what it holds back, and what you don't see. It is certainly not as graphic is it could/should be. I would have to say that as nuke films go, this is inferior to "Threads". A film which, while not having the sfx that "The Day After" has, is much more true to life on the horrors of WWIII. Both films have much to recommend them though.

Was the above review useful to you?

1 out of 1 people found the following review useful:

Nuclear Holocaust and Jason Robards

Author: blazer010
4 December 1999

This film is the definitive Nuclear Holocaust film. I have a copy of it, and watch it every now and then. I don't suggest anyone under 14 should see it, as it a a very dark film. Excellent writing, and acting, but the Nuclear detonations could have been done better even back then. Ever hear of a blue screen shot? I guess this is the closest to "Alas Babylon" we will ever get. I wonder if they will do a 20th thingy for the film?

Awaiting the next Nuke movie...

Was the above review useful to you?

1 out of 1 people found the following review useful:

One of 100 million viewers that tuned in

Author: az1 from Newington, CT
15 November 1999

I remember tuning in as one of the reportedly 100 million viewers to watch this apocalyptic nuclear holocaust "enactment." I was 11 years old and can remember how scared I was because the US Embassy had just been obliterated by terrorists in Beruit and we had just staged that war in Grenada and I had no idea what was going on. I though it was all "them" (the Russians, whoever had those missiles pointed at us) and that this, as an actuality, was right around the corner. But, hey, i got spooked by the commercials for Red Dawn.

Was the above review useful to you?


Page 9 of 16: [Prev][4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [Next]

Add another review


Related Links

Plot summary Plot synopsis Ratings
Awards External reviews Parents Guide
Plot keywords Main details Your user reviews
Your vote history