Add a Review

  • "The Day After" is a film of historical value. It shows a good slice of life in middle America during the Cold War. And, of course, its message about war and disaster in the nuclear age is clear. The visuals are excellent. The acting, cinematography, makeup, direction and all technical aspects of the film are very good.

    It was just six years after this movie came out that the Berlin Wall came down at the start of the collapse of the Soviet Union. By 1983, when this film was made, the Soviets had greatly built up their military armament under Leonid Brezhnev. But even his reign at the head of the USSR (1964-1982) was after the worst scares and threats of nuclear war. The most dangerous time of the Cold War was from its start at the end of WWII – under Josef Stalin, through Nikita Kruschev in October, 1964. Kruschev sent Russian tanks to put down the Hungarian Revolution in November 1956. He was at the helm of the USSR during the Cuban Missile Crisis in October, 1962. And it was during his rule that the Berlin Wall went up, beginning on Aug. 13, 1961.

    The placing of this movie in the U.S. heartland was significant. It was here that the U.S. had two major defense systems that it hoped would be the greatest deterrents to nuclear war. The first was the Strategic Air Command (SAC) headquartered at Offutt Air Force Base south of Omaha. As the movie noted, that was about 190 miles north of Kansas City. SAC was established in 1946 and was deactivated in 1992, after the fall of the Soviet Union. SAC had several bases around the U.S. with long-range bombers equipped to deliver nuclear bombs to the USSR.

    And, from 1961 until its end, SAC operated an Airborne Command Post out of Offutt. For the next 30 years, an airborne command center would be aloft over the central U.S. at all times. The first aircraft fitted and used for such duty was the EC-135. By the 1970s, the Air Force acquired B-747s for this task. The airborne command rotated so that the active command aircraft would never be caught on the ground or in the air near any U.S. site that might be a target for Soviet missiles.

    The second defense system was the installation of some 1,000 Minuteman missiles. These were housed in underground silos across several states – from Montana to Missouri. "The Day After" shows this aspect very well. The Minuteman Missile program began in 1961 and has had three upgrades of replacement missiles. Many of the original sites were abandoned and turned back to landowners after strategic arms reductions. But a decade into the 21st century, the remaining U.S. missile defense force included some 450 third generation Minuteman missiles.

    Besides these aspects, this film is also of interest to me for personal experiences. After attending college one year, I worked on a survey crew in the summer of 1961 to lay the cable for missile silos in southeast Nebraska. These were Atlas missile sites to protect one of the SAC bases – at Lincoln. That base, since closed, then had 120 long-range bombers. Then, by early 1962, I was a paratrooper stationed in West Germany. The U.S. and NATO were replenishing their military forces that had been allowed to decline after WWII occupation ended in 1957. The rebuilding was triggered when East Germany began putting up the Berlin Wall in 1961. At the same time, the Soviets were increasing their forces along the Czech border. In this movie, that's where the Russians invaded West Germany through the Fulda Gap. In my first months in Germany, we took part in combined military maneuvers and war games along that border. Our units had border guard duty and we laid land mines. We also had the then-secret Davy Crockett tactical nuclear weapons. The movie script has an account of three nuclear devices exploding over Russian troops that had invaded West Germany.

    It may be hard for people born in the last few decades to grasp the time and circumstances of the Cold War. But, besides our experiences growing up under the very real threat of nuclear war in the 1950s and 1960s, many of us have met people who lived under Soviet oppression. Should we not trust their words and take their warnings to heart about such tyrannies?

    While serving in Germany, I met another paratrooper who was from Hungary. He had been a student in Budapest during the Hungarian Revolution in the fall of 1956. He had tossed Molotov cocktails at Russian tanks, and later escaped to the West where he joined the U.S. Army. He became a friend and later flew to the U.S. to take his citizenship test, and be sworn in as an American. Calmer, wiser leaders have been the rule among the world's military powers the past few decades. But now we have smaller countries with nuclear capabilities. Pray that reason will continue to outweigh radical ideology so that we never have a nuclear disaster like that in "The Day After."
  • seltzer26 August 2000
    I, like many of my age, saw this when it originally aired as a class assignment. It had a great impact on me, as the cold war was still going strong and the threat of a nuclear war was something that people still thought about. The movie may not be the greatest ever made, but the acting is more than adequate, especially from Jason Robards, and the script was far better than any other movies made for television at that time. I recommend it to anyone, even those with a low tolerance for grossness (radiation sickness is shown in progressive stages, and it is not pretty). It's dark, depressing, and if you get into it you will definitely need to follow it up with a musical or cartoons just to lift your spirits again. Still, the subject matter is not something that can be portrayed positively even at a tv-movie level of realism.
  • This film originally aired as a TV movie back in 1983 in the United States. It depicts the effects of nuclear war on the citizens of the Kansas City area. In the film, during the actual attacks, a lot of raw footage of nuclear blasts and explosions is used, but no computer enhanced special effects were needed in this film to get the point across. The point, being of course, that nuclear war is horrible. The movie was aired to show leaders of nations in the world what would happen if nuclear war was ever waged. When this film was first aired, Cold War tensions were high and the fear of nuclear war was very imminent. Though the events in the film are very powerful, a disclaimer at the end of the movie even tells the viewers that the events depicted in the film are far less worse then what would actually take place in a real nuclear war.

    I feel that the plot was created well. The film shows what happens before the attacks, the actual attacks and then what happens after the attacks. The attacks were not shown too soon after the movie began but well into the movie and built up enough to show a lot of drama. The acting is very good, in my opinion. The late Jason Robards plays the lead role and a few other familiar faces take part as well (Steve Guttenburg, John Lithgow). The writing is fair, but not bad for a made-for-TV movie.

    Overall, the movie is very excellent and places itself very positively in my book. It was a very controversial film for its time and it did scare the hell out of many people (truthfully, it did shake me up a little the first time I saw it). It's really not for the kids, even though it was a TV movie, because the scenes of the nuclear blasts and radiation sickness aren't very light.
  • Scrolling through the comments, I was impressed with the number of people from the USA, who said that this movie really scared them, when they first saw it. In fact it is not surprising. Well, I am Russian, yet it scared me too.

    But first, a little preface. I was in the second grade (appr. 1982), when I first heard about the nuclear war. We had a number of lectures on it - of course the information was adapted so that 8-9 year old kids could understand it. We were impressed, but childhood has a wonderful gift that lets you quickly forget what was bad. So during the only false alarm that was held in our school the whole lot of students and tutors were brought out into the schoolyard, and we all stood in lines and through snowballs at each other imitating air bombing, and there was a feeling of excitement everywhere. The fact is, that many of us treated the threat as something so-far-away-that-it's-not-worth-worrying-about.

    The movie was shown on out TV once only (with all the necessary precautions like "don't let nervous people see it"). Well, to say that I was terrified is to say nothing. For what it did, was that it made the threat so ordinary - and so real. Though for me it happened on the other side of the planet, you could easily imagine that the same thing would happen in my own country - and no fools - it would be absolutely THE SAME.

    For some period thereafter I became slightly phobic ("Ma, what's that roar over our house, it's too low for a plane heading to the nearest airport"). But now I regard it as a good experience, because it made me think. I got a clear understanding that this COULD happen. I guess there was quite a big number of people in our country with the same understanding, and together with the threatened people from other countries they prevented the whole thing from happening right then. Hope the plain old common sense will help prevent the nuclear apocalypse in future.

    P.S. Recently I saw the movie one more time, and it stirred the same emotions, as it did in my childhood. A great movie, that's all I can say...
  • Oh, how wonderful it is to see a disaster film without CGI at every turn, and actually being shot on location and not in a studio! Now, this was REAL film making.

    In the build-up to the war, it's interesting that we never actually see what is happening. We learn the events as the story unfolds on TV or radio. This lends more realism to the story, as we know just as much as the characters, and hear what's going on as they do.

    The film is obviously dated by today's standard, but it is still an interesting watch and rather exciting, too. This must have been incredible at the time of release. 'The Day After' is ultimately a very sad film, and rightfully so, as it warns us of the effects of a nuclear disaster. Indeed a very thought provoking film.
  • cosmic_quest6 January 2008
    I saw a glimpse of this film when I was about eight or nine and it left me with nightmares for quite a few days after (especially since I live in a viable British target for a bomb) and, even now, I have a fear about nuclear attacks. And no matter how many times I see 'The Day After', it still leaves me with the chills and contemplating how easily the world can be destroyed on the whim of arrogant politicians. The film is set in Kansas, circa the early Eighties, against the backdrop of growing aggression between the US, UK and West Germany against the USSR and East Germany, normal people go about their daily lives. But when the Soviet attack the US and are hit with a counter-attack, we follow various characters as they cope with nuclear attack and the bleak aftermath of a world changed forever.

    Actors like Jason Robards, John Lithgow, Steve Guttenberg, John Cullum, Bibi Besch, William Allen Young, etc all rise to the occasion in roles as various characters caught in a desperate, dire situation with their own ways of coping. The ones which stick out most were Robards as the doctor who knows his family are very likely dead yet continues to do his best to help his patients and Besch as the housewife who initially is in denial in the face of the nuclear attack then descends temporarily into hysteria because she is aware of the reality of the dark future ahead for her family.

    Some people do complain this film lacks the bleak realism of the British nuclear film 'Threads', I think it still succeeds in depicting normal, everyday folk and their plight as they are left floundering in the wake of an attack. I was too young to be aware of the very real fear of attack the Cold War evoked in the early Eighties but am now more than old enough to see how it is all too easy for diplomacy to fail and for politicians with too much power to allow the world descend into a holocaust where it will be ordinary people who suffer while the rich and those in high up positions will safely be cocooned in nuclear shelters. This is why this film is so horrifying, especially at the moment when relations between the UK and Russia are not at their best in a disagreement that has nothing to do with the needs and wants of normal civilians.

    This film is as powerful now as I imagine it was in 1983 and should be compulsory viewing for everyone on the planet past primary school age as a reminder of why nuclear weapons have no place in the world.
  • Warning: Spoilers
    The Day After was unfortunately a TV film. Had they had the budget and special effects and another half hour or so onto it they would have made an incredible, powerful, film presence that would have gotten across their message so strongly. For what they had to work with on Television and the time it was made the film is powerful in it's own right and leaves an extreme lasting impression.

    As with most disaster films the layout is much the same. We are introduced to several of the main characters and their "normal" lives, their future plans, where they are going and what their doing. During all this the world is in a state of possible panic as The Soviet Union threatens to invade Germany and attack the United States. The US has created a blockade to Germany but the Soviets are threatening to cross it. Basically they are recreating another Cuban Missle Crisis. The soviets do cross it and at some point both countries ready their nuclear missiles. Without ever known who fires first both nations fire on each other. The film focus's mostly on one small area in Kansas where there are missile silo's which are targeted by the Soviet missiles. Three nuclear bombs release in enormous mushroom clouds causing devastation and complete and utter destruction. Our main characters are separated from anyone they knew or loved and the world they knew is gone forever. Now they must survive the best way they know how until survival is not an option.

    The cast of the film is quite weak. It's quite typical of a TV movie to take the TV actors who might not necessarily fit the roles right. Jason Robards has done so much Television it's overwhelming but his performance in this film was sub standard until the end. I must admit that towards the end of the film he really showed some skill. John Lithgow who is an incredible actor especially during this time as he had his amazing performance in the world according to Garp under his built, he is completely underused in this movie. He is barely a presence and I think he would have done better to play the lead character over Robards. Two of the stand out performances in the film is from John Cullum and Steve Guttenberg. Although due to the amount of characters in the film they don't get a lot of storyline time but both these guys give a powerful sad performance and really make us feel it.

    The devastating, horrifying part of the movie is the actual explosion of the nukes. Done on short budget I am sure they manage to make a disturbing imagery of total utter destruction and everything it would take in it's path. It almost brought me to tears watching it. The real key to this film, the powerful part of it is the fact that it makes it feel so damn real. It's like you're there with each of these people and in a short amount of time you feel the horror for them and the scenery is breathtaking in a completely other kind of way. The movie right from square one is perfectly believable and that's really where it's power comes from...this COULD happen!! I think a remake of this film would do very well and until then I think anyone should check this film out just to support the anti war movement when it comes to Nuclear weapons. One of the great lines in the movie is quoting Albert Einstein, "I don't know how WW III will be fought but I know how WW IV will be...with sticks and stones..." Watch this film! 7.5/10
  • sparks4019 February 2005
    I was a naval aviator deployed aboard the USS Ranger (CV-61) when I first saw this film. The show had aired back in the States some time before the film reels (this was before video tape decks were commonplace) were flown out to our Battle Group, so we knew that the telecast had had a big impact on the American public before we had the chance to view it.

    That didn't matter. The film had as great, and possibly even more of, an impact on those of us out on the "tip of the spear" as it did on those back home. The military characters seen in the film were not actors -- they were contemporaries of ours, some even familiar faces -- so we felt a true connection to the story. The tension between the US and the Soviet Union was real and nobody knew better than we how nasty things could get in a short period of time. Even as we watched the film over the ship's closed circuit television system, Soviet military units were intent on locating and targeting our Battle Group. Our job, our daily routine, was part of the story, which emphasised the point that we were responsible for keeping the peace and to not allow events to escalate as we all feared could happen.

    The reaction I remember most from this film was worry for family back home. -SPOILER- The one airman who left the silo area to reach his family before the missiles arrived displayed a sentiment that we all felt. No one aboard our ship would shirk his duty, but we all understood the sentiment that once duty is done, family is foremost in mind.

    The argument could be made that the film was rife with error, but I maintain that it ultimately succeeded in what it was designed to do...make people seriously consider the consequences of nuclear war. That point was not lost on those of us aboard the Ranger at the time. While I watched the film again just recently (21 years after the first viewing), the lesson was still not lost. We may or may not be vulnerable to such a massive strike as what was feared back in the 1980s, but nuclear terror is still a very real possibility. It is as imperative now, as it was then, that we ensure that this type of calamity is never visited upon anyone, especially those about whom we love and care.

    Yes, better special effects would make from some jaw-dropping images, but would that improve upon the film's message? In my opinion, no.
  • A graphic, disturbing film about the effects of a devastating nuclear holocaust on small-town residents of eastern Kansas.

    Although the film might be slightly dated today (2017), I would stress only slightly. The overall theme and message are unchanged. The real-life horror that would occur, even in the middle of America, with a full nuclear assault is still something that could occur.

    While categorized as "science fiction", this is really pretty spot on. People do not gain mutant powers and America does not invent some new device to nullify nuclear weapons. This is a very realistic what-if scenario.
  • safenoe21 November 2016
    Warning: Spoilers
    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.
  • Warning: Spoilers
    The Day After gives a slice of 80 Americana of Missouri, and Kansas, with families, doctors, workers, and military. During the everyday life the viewer is given the en pending attacks in Europe by news alerts of the Warsaw pack armies attacking West Germany. West Germany is falling and World War Three is escalating. The viewer develops a character rapport with The Day After characters as the Third World War un folds. The nuclear attack and after effects are quite bleak, but a made for T V version tone down the gore for T V audiences. What bothers me the most is not the nuclear attack but the after effects of the bomb for The Day After. The church scene, the roch scene, radiation poisonings of the characters, and the ending of the doctor coming home is depressing, nihilism of nuclear war make one feel no one would past 3 years from the fall out! Effective movie, but hard to stomach! 7 stars.
  • If you think this movie's theme is outdated, think again. The Doomsday Clock has moved ahead three times since the end of the Cold War. From a press release: "Chicago, February 27, 2002: Today, the Board of Directors of the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists moves the minute hand of the `Doomsday Clock,' the symbol of nuclear danger, from nine to seven minutes to midnight, the same setting at which the clock debuted 55 years ago. Since the end of the Cold War in 1991, this is the third time the hand has moved forward."

    I watched this movie again a few weeks ago, after seeing it on TV as a ten-year-old kid. While some of the story-lines were painful (e.g. the soon-to-be-wed farmer's daughter whining when dad caught her sneaking off to have sex) this was a well-done movie showing the effects of nuclear war on middle america.

    While maybe you can knock this for it's dramatic quality, I think it holds together as an honest story. Some of the criticisms I've read below don't hold together. The story *is* clear about the effects that happen at different distances from ground-zero. The Russians nailed Kansas because of the missile silos there. And it is honest about human nature: in the aftermath lots of people help, like the doctor, but others kill for food or land and there's plenty of panic and anger to go around.

    This movie made an impression on me when I saw it as a kid and also now as an adult. And for those out there knocking it--remember this: The Day After made the people of the United States realize what kind of horrible toys their leaders are dealing with. It sparked the movement against nukes. We need a similar movement today--because people have forgotten, or don't think nuclear weapons are a threat. But the United States is now researching new, tactical nukes which, if smaller, will still result in fallout poisoning people unlucky to be in the neighborhood. Just like the kids in Iraq that get to breath the Uranium dust from our tank-busting weapons.

    I wish we had more movies like this, and like _Traffic_, that bring painful realities to life and make people think.
  • Prismark1011 December 2018
    Before it was broadcast by ITV in Britain. The Day After made headline news for its record breaking viewing audiences in America.

    Jason Robards was the main star who plays a Doctor caught up in a Kansas city community after a nuclear attack.

    We are introduced to a myriad of characters before the attack, the nuclear bombs going off and then the aftermath. The fabric of society starts to fall apart and people are affected by radiation sickness.

    The opening is very much a soap opera melodrama and rather slow to get going. The special effects of the nuclear explosions look rather cheesy.

    There is nothing cheesy about the aftermath. It is grim and dark.

    I remembered being disturbed when watching it, especially to see the characters poisoned by radiation.

    After the movie was broadcast, the BBC announced that they were going to show their own version called Threads in 1984. It was no contest, Threads was bleak as nuclear black rain.
  • The first half of the movie is way too long. All it establishes is that eastern Kansas has normal folks living their daily lives there. It is all quite well done, but contributes nothing. Most of it could have been shortened. Having been in the Army in 1961 when access to Berlin was closed by the Russians, this movie had some significance to me, but they overstated and belabored the issues. There was way too much of a soap opera taking up valuable screen time. Even when a plot, or at least a story line developed, things took way too long and there was way too much melodrama. This movie has very little content and only one message which took way too long to deliver.
  • Warning: Spoilers
    Like many of the viewers here, I watched this movie when it first aired on TV, I was in junior high school. I remember the TV stations and media warning people not to watch it alone, and to not let little kids watch. I remember the little 'discussion groups' about it at school the next day. The main image that was left in my mind was almost everyone being vaporized when the bomb hits, and their skeletons showing through for a moment (especially the couple on their wedding day- that must have been kind of a drag).

    I was home from work sick a few months ago, and had nothing to watch. The movie hadn't started too long ago, and I figured what the heck, it would probably be interesting to see how 'dated' it looked, and how it wasn't even remotely scary anymore (especially since I wasn't 14 and impressionable, and one of the least of my worries as an adult is a nuclear war-I remember being scared it would happen on a regular basis for weeks after seeing the movie as a kid). I remember thinking that all the warnings to viewers were just really good publicity stunts by the networks to get people to watch. Maybe it would even be 'campy', right? Ha-ha! No.

    I watched the movie with only mild interest at first, but got more and more upset as it went on. This movie has not lost any of its impact, but actually disturbed me much more as an adult. Maybe its because I am now grown up, married, know how short life really is, and have more of a realistic idea about how horrible life would really be 'the day after'. I was actually shocked at how graphic and scary the movie was, especially to have been shown on prime time TV in the early 80's, even when watching in the middle of the day. There's a truly chilling scene when a main character has been in a bomb shelter too long and completely loses it, to bolt outside. She's so far gone that she just twirls around happily, as if she came out and the land they lived on looked exactly the same. Instead, the sky is grey, ash covers every surface, every single bit of plant life is dead, and the family dog and all the livestock lie flyblown and rotting (there is dead silence, expect for the sound of flies surrounding the bodies)...in another scene set in a hospital, there was a huge jump that made me hit the ceiling and left me muttering, "Jesus Christ!" afterwards.

    There are other images that I couldn't get out of my head for a long time, such as one of the last scenes where a man visits his ex-girlfriend in some sort of shelter for the radiation victims. They both end up sobbing, and the camera keeps pulling back until you see the other dead and dying people surrounding them number probably closer to the thousands than the 50 or so you thought were in the shelter at the beginning of the scene. It just keeps getting more and more depressing, grim, and scary, until the last incredibly depressing scene, which is made even sadder and more emotional because you see a character obviously insane and dying who you thought might be one of the ones to make it. Afterwards, I think I ended up having to watch "Hairspray" or something equally cheerful to cheer myself up and get my mind off it before I could take a nap.

    I always heard how "Threads" made "The Day After" look like an after school special, and had been looking for a copy for a long time (since when I hear that a movie is shocking and upsetting, it usually makes me want to see if it can live up to the buzz). I finally found a store that carries it, but you know what? After getting nightmares after seeing "The Day After" as an adult, I think I'll just pass on "Threads"...
  • The Day After is a movie that I had trouble getting out of my mind. It's full of realistic nightmarish images that chilled me to the bone. This is NOT a pleasant film. This is about devastation and nuclear destruction, and it's not very fun to watch. It doesn't have the budget to pull off stuff like many disaster movie do, but this one doesn't need it. I was scared enough as it was. That is one of my biggest fears in life, a nuclear holocaust. I was first exposed to this movie when I was younger, and it scared the living wits out of me. Even after multiple viewings, it's still an extremely harrowing experience which is tough to endure. Jason Robards is excellent as the lead. He did a really good job as the every day man. Steve Guttenberg & Jobeth Williams do well in their respective roles and add great depth to the proceedings. My only real complaint is that sometimes the pacing is a tad off, but I get why they did it. They wanted to augment the feeling of dread

    Final Thoughts: it's hard to write a review for this one without spoiling it, but this is a powerful film for a movie made for Television. If you can find it, seek it out. It'll stick with you

    7.4/10
  • madahab25 June 2022
    "I don't know how World War Three will be fought," famously said Albert Einstein , "but I do know that World War Four will be fought with sticks and stones."

    the Day After was a television event in 1983 and we watched as the effects of a nuclear war would have a devastating impact on humanity that it is unlikely to recover from for a very long time. It's a little slow to get started as we are introduced to the various characters, but once those bombs detonate it becomes a nightmare, especially when we witness being vaporized where they stood-they are the lucky ones. For those who survive the initial attack it is a hellish world where survival surpasses all other impulses. The film might have been more effective had it not cast so many familiar actors-it becomes very distracting after a while. A year after this film was released came the British version of the same story but it is vastly more frightening. I watched it recently and will never watch it again-that's how freaked out I was and it took days to get over it. The Day After suffers for its big names, big budget, and big effects. But it still has many good aspects and tries to show a world following these events.
  • Warning: 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.
  • OlliBLN11 January 2004
    Kansas City and the small town Lawrence in Kansas. A day like everyday else, during the early Cold war 80s. Soviet troops and troops from GDR are attacking West-Berlin, later on West-Germany. Beginning of 3rd Worldwar. After using nuclear bombs in Europe, the both super nations USA and USSR made a cruel decision, nuclear strikes against each other.

    The story shows the life of an average american town before, during and after the strike. As supermarkets are run over, people try to get save in their homes, parents try to reach their children on camp holidays or keep on discussing and up to the strike, still don´t believe, that it really happens.

    The strike, the death of Kansas City.

    The day after, people in poisoned, radioactive enviroment, people, try to save themselves in their homes against radio activity, a hospital, unable to help the people, which are looking for help.

    The special effects are blamed as old fashioned, but they are not the main actors here.

    What may be unluckily, that many different persons and their stories are told in a movie of not even 2 hours. A little bit to much characters or less time, to develop them, to give them space to let their story live.

    But still a disturbing movie about the results of a nuclear war, that nobody can survive.

    After watching this movie nobody really can tell, that he didn´t know anything!
  • Warning: Spoilers
    I don't know not with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones. Why because nuclear war is just horrible destruction. The Day After is a graphic, disturbing film made to TV movie aired on ABC in the 1980's that show the effects of a devastating nuclear holocaust on small-town residents of eastern Kansas when World War III break out between the Soviet Union and the United States. It's well-made TV movie (the most watched in US history) about a full nuclear attack on the USA. Directed by Nicolas Meyers, the attacks come quick, and sudden so there isn't much action in the film itself. This movie does a pretty good job at depicting what an aerial blast might look and feel like. I could imagine that's what one seen from far off would be like. Anti-climatic, almost, sorta just a crack and a rumble as it developed. The whole bombing scene, was nearly 5 minutes long and before that point, nearly an hour to establish the characters and plot. So if you looking for action, this isn't your film. The rest of the film mostly focuses on the residents of Lawrence, Kansas, and Kansas City, Missouri, as well as several family farms situated next to nuclear missile silos in the aftermath. These characters are pretty interesting characters both before and after the blast. There is a who's who of 1980's actors portraying them. There is Dr. Russell Oakes (Jason Robards) and Nurse Bauer (JoBeth Williams) who works in the hospitals in Kansas City and in Lawerence. There is Joe Huxley (John Lithgow), a science professor that helps explain more of the fall out causes such as losing hair. Last character worth noting is University of Kansas student Stephen Klein play by Steve Guttenberg. While, the acting is mediocre at best, as less the characters had little bit of depth. While the story provides no specifics about other cities, it strongly suggests that America's cities, military, and industrial base are heavily damaged or destroy. The film was written by Edward Hume. Allegedly, the US Department of Defense would only co-operate with the movie makers if it was made clear that the Soviets fired first. Sounds about right, even if that caveat seems to have been ignored. I know Nicholas Meyer wanted to leave the "who shot first," but the first mention of nuclear weapons is the US firing on advancing Soviet troops with a Soviet nuclear response. The idea of making a TV movie showing the true effects of nuclear war on average American citizens stir up controversy. Not many people know that ABC Censors cut more than 2 1/2 hours of the film and change huge chunks of the script to make it more sanctified for public consumption. A real nuclear war would be far more dangerous and disturbing than what is betrayed here. So the movie lost a lot of steam needed to make this more realism. The movie had so much so controversial that children's entertainer Mr. Rogers dedicated five episodes of his television program to talk to young children who had seen the movie on television. While, the explosion look amazing, but if you look closer at it, you can see the film using a lot of stock footage of nuclear blast test videos. Further stock footage was taken from news events such as fires and explosions. I think the worst part was when the film use the 1979 theatrical film Meteor in one scenes, such as a bridge collapsing and the destruction of a tall office building. Brief scenes of stampeding crowds were also borrowed from the disaster film Two-Minute Warning (1976). Other footage had been previously used in theatrical films such as 1977's Damnation Alley and 1978's Superman. It felt like a rip-off, or a lazy job. This movie did indeed changed the course of history. It commanded record-number viewers the night it was broadcast in the US. The USSR allowed it to be broadcast in the Soviet Union and shown on movie theater screens for those who didn't have TV's. Afterwards, in the US, President Reagan said he "never felt so depressed." In the USSR, stunned citizens came out of their homes and theaters with candles. Reagan and Gorbechav called each other. The rest of the outcome is history. The Cold War ended, as less for now. Overall: The movie was nowhere near as good as BBC Channel's 1984 nuclear holocaust TV movie 'Threads', but 'The Day After' overall, reach a bigger audience. The day after feels all the same like a poor take on threads- to the point where as an afterthought the makers of it feel the need to inform us that truth is bound to be more severe. Threads does precisely this: it portrays all the inexplicable dismal grimness to ensue. Threads is pure horror, the worst nightmare coming true, how nuclear devastation will really not only look, but feel like. Here it's like a PG-13 horror movie, while Threads is Rated R version, and more like if it really happens. Still, check it out, and understand why there should never ever be a Nuclear War.
  • I never got to see this film when it was first aired in the Uk, and it was only recenlty on the sc-fi channel did I get to see it. To be honest the time it was on suprised me after watching it, this is not one for young viewers and can understand why it give many viewers nightmares but worth keeping to show your grand children what could have happen in the Nuclear age.

    If you are after big effects, this is not for you. If you are after a feel good film, this is not for you.

    A very dark film with a very serious message
  • Warning: Spoilers
    Dealing with the aftermath of a nuclear war was not a new theme at the time this movie came out. This was, however, one of the first films to deal with it in such a graphic manner. Consequently, it made for a most disturbing film.

    The movie is really divided into three parts. The first part, the "day before" as it were, sets up the situation of a rapidly deteriorating diplomatic situation between the USA and the Soviet Union. While that is happening, we are introduced to the main characters of the movie. Dr. Russell Oakes (Jason Robards) is chief surgeon at a hospital in Lawrence, Kansas. His wife, Helen (Georgann Johnson), worries aloud as to whether or not the Soviet Union will bomb the USA. Meanwhile, on a farm outside of Lawrence, the Dahlbergs, Jim (John Cullum) and Eve (Bibi Besch) are preparing for the wedding of their daughter, Denise (Lori Lethin). And a soldier tries to prepare his wife for the worst, should it happen. The second part, the "day of" starts with the silos actually launching nuclear weapons at the Soviet Union. Panic ensues in Lawrence as the population realizes that the Soviet bombs are on their way. And then the bombs hit, and we watch destruction of many kinds on a massive scale. The third part, the actual "day after" takes place in the aftermath of the bombing. Society as we know it has been obliterated. Power, food, and clean water are unavailable. Dr. Oakes finds his way to the hospital eventually, only to become sick with both radiation and exhaustion trying to treat people in the aftermath of the bombing. The Dahlbergs hide in their basement, are stumbled upon by a survivor named Stephen Klein (Steve Guttenberg), who eventually takes Denise and her brother, Danny (Doug Scott) to the hospital when they are in need of medical attention. However, as the movie progresses it is clear that there is little that can be done for them. The rules of society dissolve under the pressure to survive and by the end it is kill or be killed. In the final scene, Dr. Oakes returns to the rubble that once was his house, and finds his wife's watch. Crying, "Helen!" he breaks down, showing the ultimate realization that his old life is gone for good.

    This was a disturbing film, and no effort was made to sugar coat it. If anything, it underplayed the severity of such a happening. Still, it presents a grim portrait of what could happen if we're not careful, and as such, that is commendable. My only real complaint is that John Dahlberg's behavior seems out of character when he comes upon the squatters on his land. It seems more likely he would have fired the first shot, rather than try to reason with them and allow himself to be killed. Otherwise, there's not much to find fault with. This is a grim subject, and it was handled with appropriate starkness.

    The acting in the movie was fairly good. Robards was always a talented performer, and he gives the same commitment to his role in this film. JoBeth Williams also turns in a fine performance on one of her last films before she became a well known star. The rest of the performances tend to be a little more bland, but then the cautionary tale of what could happen was more important in this movie, hence the lack of well known star power.

    The depiction of the bombing was dazzling - a series of images, each more disturbing than the one before, coming at you without a break in between, without dialogue, without stop until the silence after the last bomb has fallen. Chillingly effective.

    This was a movie that wanted to catch the collective conscience of the American public, and at the time, I think it did just that. It is perhaps not the best movie ever made, but it is certainly one of the most important.
  • A lot of negative ink has been given over the years to "The Day After". People say it is either too harsh, or too soft. People say it is too "sentimental" and is just a soap opera hiding behind a disaster film front. They say it is "unrealistic".

    While everyone is entitled to their opinion, I frankly feel that the vast majority of such comments are unfair. This film's producers, especially director Nicholas Meyer, were attempting to show something that had really never been shown before: an honest, realistic depiction of an actual nuclear attack, presenting both the immediate horror of the moment of impact, and also the devastating aftermath, as the survivors try to live normal lives that can never again exist. Before this film, most references to nuclear war in popular film was limited to how such a war would create mutant monsters.

    I feel strongly that "The Day After" succeeds in the two goals of the producers described above. The "ground zero" scenes are unforgettable. I am reminded of the first time I saw the film. During its initial airing in 1983, I was not allowed to watch it (I was only 7 at the time), though I did get to see it when it was re-aired in 1988. I was not fully aware of what really happened in nuclear warfare; I just thought that the bomb produced a hell of an explosion, and that was it. Needless to say, I was shocked to see people being incinerated in the blink of an eye, and being consumed by rolling walls of flame. Trust me, once you see these scenes you will NEVER forget them. And as for one of the chief criticisms of the film - that some of the "bomb footage" is actually taken from 1950's government films of nuclear tests, well, what do you expect? Nuclear holocausts are not an everyday occurrence. Granted, an even better depiction of nuclear destruction is seen in "Terminator 2", but "The Day After" was made for TV almost a full decade before "T2", and had neither that film's technology nor budget. And the notion that these scenes do not show enough is to me simply ridiculous. I saw MORE than enough in this film to convince me that nuclear war is the worst invention man ever came up with.

    Furthermore, the aftermath depicted in the film also gets the point across. Life after such a disaster would not be worth living. As in Stephen King's "The Stand", the persons killed in the disaster are the lucky ones, not the survivors. Those who live through the explosion try to keep life going, but they soon either succumb to radiation sickness, or, as depicted by the farmers trying to figure out how to grow crops in hopelessly contaminated soil, realize that life will be limited to however long you can live on canned food.

    One final note I wish to respond to is the criticism that the film is like a "disease-of-the-week" film, because it centers around regular-joe characters. Those who make comments like these are missing the point. The filmmakers were trying to say that, while it is the politicians and military leaders who call the shots, it is the regular people who will suffer the consequences of their governments' decisions. Take the scene where the President gives a radio address. The President, who is at least partially responsible for this mess, is safe, secure and comfortable in a bunker somewhere; the lowly commoners he was supposed to "protect" listen to him speak in a shattered land, their lives, their property, everything around them eternally ruined. Anyone who wishes to see anything crueller than this must be sadist in my opinion.

    That said, the film is not perfect, either. It tries to present too many characters and thus carries too many subplots. Also, while it is understandable that the story should be set up before the bomb drops, the film takes a bit too long to get going.

    In closing, "The Day After" has a message. Some people may not agree with the message, others (like myself) think it is one of the most important messages that can be sent in a world where none of us seem able to get along with our fellow man. View the film for yourself and see what you think.
  • Please excuse the short nature of this review, I am attempting to be concise.

    I spent my teenage years in the 80s in North Dakota, not far from Minot Air Force Base (a major facility for launching B-52s over the North Pole to attack the USSR.) Nuclear war was a very real threat back then and I had a lot of nightmares about it.

    When this movie was aired on ABC in the early-to-mid 80s, it was ALL that my classmates talked about for damn-near a month. It scared the excrement out of all of us, a visceral reaction which I recall to this day.

    I purchased this movie on DVD quite a while ago, but have never watched it. However, I saw it again tonight on the SciFi channel and I'll admit that it still gives me chills. 20+ years have not taken the fright of the destruction of (two) civilizations. Yes, it uses a lot of stock footage (there aren't many nuclear silos that will launch their missiles for the benefit of a movie)...and yes, it uses a lot of unknown actors (some of which you *will* recognize...like Arliss Howard ('Cowboy' from 'Full Metal Jacket)) and some well-known actors. Despite the imperfect delivery, it still conveys the outright terror that grips an advanced society at the precipice of destruction. After that, it conveys the utter despair after the collapse of said advanced society.

    We're not talking about 'Citizen Kane' here, but it still is an effective piece of cinema from a troubled era (well, all eras seem to be troubled...the 80s had their own troubles, as evidenced in this film.) Please watch it and think for yourself. Thank you for reading this review.
  • smokie23125 November 2006
    I was working as a Police Dispatcher when this movie first aired. Our Police Teletype system, for about 2 weeks prior to the showing of this movie, printed out a teletypes advising us that on the night this movie aired we (Dispatch Centers) might start receiving numerous calls that the United States was under attack. I happened to work the night that this movie aired and didn't receive a single call.

    I watched the movie again Nov 24, 2006 when it aired on SciFi and I was not impressed then nor have I changed my mind since the first time I watched it. It was interesting but not that believable.

    Would I recommend it? I don't know. I did like the beginning were SAC scrambled and our missiles launched.
An error has occured. Please try again.