Good old-fashioned, black & white Science Fiction/disaster-movie classic that effectively emerges two giant contemporary fears at once, namely the Cold War and the rapidly evolving nuclear science. Whereas most other 60's Sci-Fi movies used the versatile side-effects of nuclear testings for grotesque apocalypse stories, involving mutated animals or even people, the premise of "The Day the Earth Caught Fire" is much more realistic and genuinely disturbing. A duo of Daily Express reporters discover, with the help of a weather girl, that the earth has been tilted off its axis because both the Russians and the Americans ignited their H-bombs simultaneously. The unusually high temperatures in Londen, as well as other inexplicable weather phenomenons, indicate that our planet is moving towards the sun very fast. Despite an obvious lack budget, director Val Guest (creator of other genre milestones such as "The Quatermass Experiment" and "The Abominable Snowman") did everything possible to make this film look like a captivating and paranoid drama. The images of a dying Londen, enshrouded in fog and heat, are truly atmospheric and there also are some very intelligent extra elements added, like new epidemics as a result of water shortness. Surprisingly enough, there's even room for an honest (and credible, for once) love-story between the cynical reporter and the overly-emotional weather-girl. Personally, I didn't really like the ending but it does typify 60's cinema greatly. The acting performances are splendid, with Leo McKern ("X-the Unknown"), Edward Judd ("Island of Terror") and the adorable Janet Munro (former child star of "Swiss Family Robinson"). The Day the Earth Caught Fire is a vastly underrated Sci-Fi gem, probably because it wasn't a Hammer production, and genre fans should urgently re-discover it. Highly recommended!
105 Reviews
The Day The Earth Caught Fire (Val Guest, 1961) ***1/2
Bunuel197611 September 2006
Surely one of the best - and most realistic - sci-fi dramas ever made: sober, unflinching and totally absorbing (at the time, I'm sure it must have also been quite scary) - yet the script, delivered at breakneck speed as befits its journalistic milieu, is extremely witty (in an obviously darkish tone). While the film has garnered a cult reputation along the years, it hasn't been given its due in my estimation and seems mainly to be appreciated by connoisseurs - though when released it was certainly well-received, copping as it did the BAFTA award for the year's Best Screenplay!
Director Guest had already dabbled in sci-fi and even then, despite the fanciful plots concerned, he gave it a ring of truth by approaching the genre more or less as semi-documentary; this time, however, with paranoia about nuclear obliteration at its highest during the early 60s, it seemed more feasible than ever before and that anything was possible! The opening and closing moments are orange-tinted (the rest of the story is told in monochromatic flashback) in order to convey the tremendous heatwave which has enveloped Planet Earth - caused to spin off its axis by a number of simultaneous nuclear blasts! - on its way towards the Sun.
The film also incorporates the human element in the form of a blossoming romance (but given the appropriate tension by making it a love/hate relationship!) between maverick reporter Edward Judd (undergoing divorce proceedings from wife Renee' Asherson, who turns up for a 30-second bit!) and spirited meteorological employee Janet Munro; while both actors proved charismatic leads here, playing very well off each other, their careers faltered pretty quickly - Judd seemed to be typecast in sci-fi roles and was also something of a hellraiser, while Munro unfortunately fell prey to alcoholism and died quite young!
Leo Mc Kern is simply marvelous as the burly yet dynamic Science Correspondent of the "Daily Express" who sees his pragmatic theories about Armageddon (which he still admits to being largely guesswork on his part) realized to their most horrific extent and Arthur Christiansen (Editior-in-Chief for many years of the real newspaper featured here), actually brought in as technical adviser, was persuaded to appear in it more or less as himself - which further adds to the film's striving for complete authenticity (extending also to the meticulous recreation of Fleet Street - London's famous newspaper sector - on a studio set, though some of it was shot on actual locations). All of this, then, is superbly captured by Harry Waxman's stark cinematography; also, though no official score for the film was composed, sparse use is made of appropriately ominous library cues chosen by Stanley Black (with the beat-nik rhythms of one particular scene provided by Monty Norman, who immediately afterwards became world-famous for composing the James Bond theme!). The film, too, manages some very effective crowd scenes (one featuring a pre-stardom Michael Caine as a copper!) - as are the various manifestations of catastrophe the world over (despite relying heavily, in the latter case, on the use of stock footage).
Even if I was perfectly happy with Anchor Bay's R1 SE DVD - apart from the bland cover art, that is - I decided to purchase Network's R2 disc (though not before its price-tag had reasonably scaled down) due to an additional 8-minute interview with Leo McKern (recorded shortly before his death)...and a wonderful little extra it turned out to be too which, circumstances as they were, gave it added poignancy (and since then, even Val Guest himself has gone - who, of course, recorded an enthusiastic full-length Audio Commentary for the film moderated by Ted Newsom); that said, I miss the typically exhaustively-researched talent bios supplied by Anchor Bay - the biography section on the Network DVD is actually a misnomer, as it only provides filmographies for the director and the major cast members!
Director Guest had already dabbled in sci-fi and even then, despite the fanciful plots concerned, he gave it a ring of truth by approaching the genre more or less as semi-documentary; this time, however, with paranoia about nuclear obliteration at its highest during the early 60s, it seemed more feasible than ever before and that anything was possible! The opening and closing moments are orange-tinted (the rest of the story is told in monochromatic flashback) in order to convey the tremendous heatwave which has enveloped Planet Earth - caused to spin off its axis by a number of simultaneous nuclear blasts! - on its way towards the Sun.
The film also incorporates the human element in the form of a blossoming romance (but given the appropriate tension by making it a love/hate relationship!) between maverick reporter Edward Judd (undergoing divorce proceedings from wife Renee' Asherson, who turns up for a 30-second bit!) and spirited meteorological employee Janet Munro; while both actors proved charismatic leads here, playing very well off each other, their careers faltered pretty quickly - Judd seemed to be typecast in sci-fi roles and was also something of a hellraiser, while Munro unfortunately fell prey to alcoholism and died quite young!
Leo Mc Kern is simply marvelous as the burly yet dynamic Science Correspondent of the "Daily Express" who sees his pragmatic theories about Armageddon (which he still admits to being largely guesswork on his part) realized to their most horrific extent and Arthur Christiansen (Editior-in-Chief for many years of the real newspaper featured here), actually brought in as technical adviser, was persuaded to appear in it more or less as himself - which further adds to the film's striving for complete authenticity (extending also to the meticulous recreation of Fleet Street - London's famous newspaper sector - on a studio set, though some of it was shot on actual locations). All of this, then, is superbly captured by Harry Waxman's stark cinematography; also, though no official score for the film was composed, sparse use is made of appropriately ominous library cues chosen by Stanley Black (with the beat-nik rhythms of one particular scene provided by Monty Norman, who immediately afterwards became world-famous for composing the James Bond theme!). The film, too, manages some very effective crowd scenes (one featuring a pre-stardom Michael Caine as a copper!) - as are the various manifestations of catastrophe the world over (despite relying heavily, in the latter case, on the use of stock footage).
Even if I was perfectly happy with Anchor Bay's R1 SE DVD - apart from the bland cover art, that is - I decided to purchase Network's R2 disc (though not before its price-tag had reasonably scaled down) due to an additional 8-minute interview with Leo McKern (recorded shortly before his death)...and a wonderful little extra it turned out to be too which, circumstances as they were, gave it added poignancy (and since then, even Val Guest himself has gone - who, of course, recorded an enthusiastic full-length Audio Commentary for the film moderated by Ted Newsom); that said, I miss the typically exhaustively-researched talent bios supplied by Anchor Bay - the biography section on the Network DVD is actually a misnomer, as it only provides filmographies for the director and the major cast members!
Well worth a viewing
TheOtherFool14 August 2004
Warning: Spoilers
One of those crazy movies from the nuclear age, with the earth 'blasted' onto another course, which will lead it to the sun! Now the only thing that can save mankind is yet another blast to change back the change in course...
We follow the events from a newspaper editorial room where the reporters find out something fishy is going on after it's getting hotter, and hotter, and so on. In the middle is Peter Stenning, a heavy drinker and divorced father of one, and his newly found love Jeanny.
What makes the movie extra special and likable are the incredible, fast-paced dialogues that occur. It's like you're reliving Bringing Up Baby all over again!
Loved the ending as well, with both front-covers World Doomed and World Saved ready to print...
7/10.
We follow the events from a newspaper editorial room where the reporters find out something fishy is going on after it's getting hotter, and hotter, and so on. In the middle is Peter Stenning, a heavy drinker and divorced father of one, and his newly found love Jeanny.
What makes the movie extra special and likable are the incredible, fast-paced dialogues that occur. It's like you're reliving Bringing Up Baby all over again!
Loved the ending as well, with both front-covers World Doomed and World Saved ready to print...
7/10.
Low-tech but high-quality film-making.
Fromac126 March 2004
Warning: Spoilers
What a pleasure to return, by chance, to an age of cinema when visual trickery, emaciated plot and stereotypical non-characters were not the norm! Scanning the shelves at the local video store recently, I was beginning to get that insidious, defeated, feeling that I had seen everything of value these racks had to offer. Preposterous of course, but you know that feeling I'm sure. All the covers begin to look the same. A scantily clad woman is superimposed about the gleaming barrel of a pistol or dead in a bathtub or held at knife point by a blood thirsty attacker who must surely deserve the disembowelling our hero has in store for him.
I retreated into the Science Fiction area and found her again; superimposed on the shiny barrel of a ray gun or , her space suit torn strategically to reveal sufficient flesh to attract the slobbering, horned alien, whose previous victim is still hanging in tatters from his blood stained fangs. Video viewers despair!, I thought. We're finished. But wait! What's this? The Day The Earth Caught Fire. No monsters, no murderers, no aliens and no semi-nude victim. Hurray!
I had seen this film on television twenty years ago, when I could not really appreciate it, but finding it on video started a nagging sensation at the back of my brain and I felt compelled to give it another, adult, viewing.
The basic situation of the story, the most improbable element of the film, is that two nations have simultaneously detonated nuclear bombs in their Cold War induced weapons testing hysteria, and have shifted the axis and orbit of the Earth with the result that the planet is headed for collision with the Sun. This premise unfolds gradually. Today, we would be shown, during opening credits, a slick computer generated graphic of mushroom clouds and the Earth from space, sailing through the cosmos toward destruction.
It is of little significance that no such technology was available to this particular film maker in 1961. He would have had no use for it, anyway. The film so cleverly acknowledges its limitations and adapts to them, that it rises above its shortfalls and still delivers one of the most gripping, and accessible science fiction stories on film.
In his first leading role, Edward Judd plays Peter Stenning, a world weary , disenchanted newspaper reporter. Peter's once promising career is fading and he must be frequently rescued from dismissal by his older colleague, Bill Maguire; played with characteristic quality by veteran Leo McKern. Maguire, like the custodial older brother, often does double duty, writing Stenning's articles for him while Peter dries out from a binge or rolls in late from an all night assignation with a young woman. At first, these characters play as stereotypical and shallow. Peter smokes and drinks too much. Maguire is bored with his work and avoids his wife. But they are delivered so well and with such consistency by the actors and the dialogue that they quickly become familiar and tangible. This is aided further by the gradual unfolding of the narrative that they populate. We regard them as real people before we are invited to share in their crises.
In a film whose resources are limited, or whose writer/director is really using their talents to the fullest, the narrative must be treated as the most important element. We all crave story. No matter if we watch film to see the special effects or our favourite actors, if the story is poor, we feel it. How often do we enter a theatre with a feeling of nervous expectation and leave it with a vague undefinable yearning for something more?
Val Guest produced, directed and co-wrote The Day The Earth Caught Fire. His single strongest effort here was in finding its point of view. It can not have been by accident that the main characters work for a newspaper. In 1961, newspapers were still the most widely used method of delivering current information. Like this film, the most effective news story is not about actual events, but the effects of each event on people. Guest recognised that The Day the Earth Caught Fire would be much more interesting as a story about the characters than one of atomic bombs or the mathematics of gravitational dynamics.
Ironically, narrowing the view to one newspaper office, broadens the reach of the film. As it becomes known, gradually, that the Earth is not only leaning over at a greater angle than before, but that it is also slipping out of its orbit around the sun, the reporters and editors of the paper begin to show the stresses they share with the rest of the world. Their personal concerns begin to compete with their professional ones. We are hooked by our human connection to the characters and they keep us in the world of the film through their commitment to deliver to a news hungry public.
With a sound film maker's instinct, Guest places the camera and characters where drama is served best. The motif of limited access is one which builds tension toward the climax. Doorways seem forever blocked or locked. Characters are kept apart by walls, doors or obstructions. Stenning frequently calls a broken elevator. Panicked crowds of weekend picnickers are turned away from a subway entrance by a police officer as thick fog envelopes England (a side effect of violently changing global weather). In a fit of decorum, while taking refuge at her flat during the fog, Peter sleeps apart from Jeannie, the object of his affections, separated from her by a bathroom door. Guest keeps his characters, and his audience, deliciously unaware of critical information with the same instinct for suspense that characterises the films of Alfred Hitchcock or John Frankenheimer.
The climax of The Day the Earth Caught Fire, is one of its weaker components. Here Val Guest returned to the original flaw. He based the resolution of the story on the initial, and improbable (even to those with only a limited grasp of physics) premise; that Earth could be shifted in space by bombs detonated on its surface. But again, he knows his strength. The film gives its attention to the stresses felt by the small group of familiar characters.
Tensions grow as fresh reports of severe climatic changes and public distress filter in to the newspaper office. Finally, and ironically, Earth's only hope rests with the strategic detonation of further bombs to correct the orientation and orbit of the planet. Here, again, our distance from the critical events allow the film maker considerable power to hold the attention. We are shown the fear, anxiety, expectation of the entire planet through those we already know in London. As the time draws nearer to the detonation of the bombs, characters begin to re-evaluate their relationships, and question the nature of their lives. Finally, the climax is left to us. We decide what outcome we desire most or think the world deserves, and if the film maker has done his job well, as I believe he has, we must be satisfied with the ending we choose.
See it soon. See it before you watch the next slobbering demon from Planet X invade the space ship and devour the unsuspecting Earthlings. The Day The Earth Caught Fire will show how drama and character have a place in science fiction, and how these are gravely absent from much of the science fiction films of today.
I retreated into the Science Fiction area and found her again; superimposed on the shiny barrel of a ray gun or , her space suit torn strategically to reveal sufficient flesh to attract the slobbering, horned alien, whose previous victim is still hanging in tatters from his blood stained fangs. Video viewers despair!, I thought. We're finished. But wait! What's this? The Day The Earth Caught Fire. No monsters, no murderers, no aliens and no semi-nude victim. Hurray!
I had seen this film on television twenty years ago, when I could not really appreciate it, but finding it on video started a nagging sensation at the back of my brain and I felt compelled to give it another, adult, viewing.
The basic situation of the story, the most improbable element of the film, is that two nations have simultaneously detonated nuclear bombs in their Cold War induced weapons testing hysteria, and have shifted the axis and orbit of the Earth with the result that the planet is headed for collision with the Sun. This premise unfolds gradually. Today, we would be shown, during opening credits, a slick computer generated graphic of mushroom clouds and the Earth from space, sailing through the cosmos toward destruction.
It is of little significance that no such technology was available to this particular film maker in 1961. He would have had no use for it, anyway. The film so cleverly acknowledges its limitations and adapts to them, that it rises above its shortfalls and still delivers one of the most gripping, and accessible science fiction stories on film.
In his first leading role, Edward Judd plays Peter Stenning, a world weary , disenchanted newspaper reporter. Peter's once promising career is fading and he must be frequently rescued from dismissal by his older colleague, Bill Maguire; played with characteristic quality by veteran Leo McKern. Maguire, like the custodial older brother, often does double duty, writing Stenning's articles for him while Peter dries out from a binge or rolls in late from an all night assignation with a young woman. At first, these characters play as stereotypical and shallow. Peter smokes and drinks too much. Maguire is bored with his work and avoids his wife. But they are delivered so well and with such consistency by the actors and the dialogue that they quickly become familiar and tangible. This is aided further by the gradual unfolding of the narrative that they populate. We regard them as real people before we are invited to share in their crises.
In a film whose resources are limited, or whose writer/director is really using their talents to the fullest, the narrative must be treated as the most important element. We all crave story. No matter if we watch film to see the special effects or our favourite actors, if the story is poor, we feel it. How often do we enter a theatre with a feeling of nervous expectation and leave it with a vague undefinable yearning for something more?
Val Guest produced, directed and co-wrote The Day The Earth Caught Fire. His single strongest effort here was in finding its point of view. It can not have been by accident that the main characters work for a newspaper. In 1961, newspapers were still the most widely used method of delivering current information. Like this film, the most effective news story is not about actual events, but the effects of each event on people. Guest recognised that The Day the Earth Caught Fire would be much more interesting as a story about the characters than one of atomic bombs or the mathematics of gravitational dynamics.
Ironically, narrowing the view to one newspaper office, broadens the reach of the film. As it becomes known, gradually, that the Earth is not only leaning over at a greater angle than before, but that it is also slipping out of its orbit around the sun, the reporters and editors of the paper begin to show the stresses they share with the rest of the world. Their personal concerns begin to compete with their professional ones. We are hooked by our human connection to the characters and they keep us in the world of the film through their commitment to deliver to a news hungry public.
With a sound film maker's instinct, Guest places the camera and characters where drama is served best. The motif of limited access is one which builds tension toward the climax. Doorways seem forever blocked or locked. Characters are kept apart by walls, doors or obstructions. Stenning frequently calls a broken elevator. Panicked crowds of weekend picnickers are turned away from a subway entrance by a police officer as thick fog envelopes England (a side effect of violently changing global weather). In a fit of decorum, while taking refuge at her flat during the fog, Peter sleeps apart from Jeannie, the object of his affections, separated from her by a bathroom door. Guest keeps his characters, and his audience, deliciously unaware of critical information with the same instinct for suspense that characterises the films of Alfred Hitchcock or John Frankenheimer.
The climax of The Day the Earth Caught Fire, is one of its weaker components. Here Val Guest returned to the original flaw. He based the resolution of the story on the initial, and improbable (even to those with only a limited grasp of physics) premise; that Earth could be shifted in space by bombs detonated on its surface. But again, he knows his strength. The film gives its attention to the stresses felt by the small group of familiar characters.
Tensions grow as fresh reports of severe climatic changes and public distress filter in to the newspaper office. Finally, and ironically, Earth's only hope rests with the strategic detonation of further bombs to correct the orientation and orbit of the planet. Here, again, our distance from the critical events allow the film maker considerable power to hold the attention. We are shown the fear, anxiety, expectation of the entire planet through those we already know in London. As the time draws nearer to the detonation of the bombs, characters begin to re-evaluate their relationships, and question the nature of their lives. Finally, the climax is left to us. We decide what outcome we desire most or think the world deserves, and if the film maker has done his job well, as I believe he has, we must be satisfied with the ending we choose.
See it soon. See it before you watch the next slobbering demon from Planet X invade the space ship and devour the unsuspecting Earthlings. The Day The Earth Caught Fire will show how drama and character have a place in science fiction, and how these are gravely absent from much of the science fiction films of today.
Not bad I suppose.
Samthesham6721 September 2019
The idea that the world's superpowers could cause the end of the world with nuclear testing is only too real and this film attempts to portray the subject quite well for 1961. The only real problem I have with this film is the dialogue. The actors are very well known and established but it seems as though they have to fill every second with rushed dialogue, there are no spaces between lines. The newsroom scenes are the worst, I know that in real life, newsrooms can be quite busy, but the rushed, monotone, ceaseless dialogue is annoying and seems quite amateur at times.
Fuego!
EdgarST3 March 2004
1961's "The Day the Earth Caught Fire" must be judged according to the parameters of classics as 1951's "The Day the Earth Stood Still", and not today's special effects mega productions in which the perspective of the disappearance of planet Earth is taken with cynic humor.
The idea came to director Val Guest during the Cold War in 1954, and it is under that decade's spirit that the movie is better appreciated. I remember seeing it when it opened, and I have never forgotten that experience, specially its tinted sequence. Sixty years later I am able to see it again, and it is still the same notable film, not the least affected by today's cinematic technology, because, in its core, Guest's motivation -the worry for the actions of mindless men who struggle to control the Earth- is still relevant.
If it is not highly regarded today as "The Day the Earth Stood Still", I think it has to do with the fact that Universal sold it as a B movie in the United States (although not so by British Lion in the UK, where it was a huge success, and won the film industry's top prize for its screenplay) and because not too many critics paid attention to it and wrote positive reviews, establishing it as an important science-fiction movie since then. Although there are very few re-enacted disaster scenes and it relies upon footage of real catastrophes, the tension is handled effectively in the newspaper's office where most of the action takes place, with its overlapping dialogues and constant flow of new information; and in the development of the romantic story in the midst of violence and terror in the streets. Edward Judd, Janet Munro and Leo McKern contribute good performances to this fine movie, shot in wide-screen Dyaliscope.
The idea came to director Val Guest during the Cold War in 1954, and it is under that decade's spirit that the movie is better appreciated. I remember seeing it when it opened, and I have never forgotten that experience, specially its tinted sequence. Sixty years later I am able to see it again, and it is still the same notable film, not the least affected by today's cinematic technology, because, in its core, Guest's motivation -the worry for the actions of mindless men who struggle to control the Earth- is still relevant.
If it is not highly regarded today as "The Day the Earth Stood Still", I think it has to do with the fact that Universal sold it as a B movie in the United States (although not so by British Lion in the UK, where it was a huge success, and won the film industry's top prize for its screenplay) and because not too many critics paid attention to it and wrote positive reviews, establishing it as an important science-fiction movie since then. Although there are very few re-enacted disaster scenes and it relies upon footage of real catastrophes, the tension is handled effectively in the newspaper's office where most of the action takes place, with its overlapping dialogues and constant flow of new information; and in the development of the romantic story in the midst of violence and terror in the streets. Edward Judd, Janet Munro and Leo McKern contribute good performances to this fine movie, shot in wide-screen Dyaliscope.
Ambiguous Conclusion
claudio_carvalho30 May 2018
After the explosion of nuclear bombs by the United States and the Soviet Unions, the weather in London and in the rest of the world changes. The Daily Express alcoholic reporter Peter Stenning (Edward Judd) meets the telephonist Jeannie Craig (Janet Munro), they fall in love with each other and have a love affair. When Jeannie overhears a conversation, they learn that the explosions have altered by 11 degrees the Earth nutation, changing its orbit. Now the only chance to mankind is to explode bombs again so that the rotation shaft returns to its position. Will Earth be saved or doomed?
"The Day the Earth Caught Fire" is a disaster movie with an interesting storyline and an ambiguous conclusion. Peter Stenning is a non-likable character and his behavior betraying his girlfriend is the weakest part of the story. The conclusion with the newspaper showing two front pages written "World Saved" and "World Doomed" is fantastic. My vote is six.
Title (Brazil): "O Dia em Que a Terra se Incendiou" ("The Day the Earth Caught Fire")
"The Day the Earth Caught Fire" is a disaster movie with an interesting storyline and an ambiguous conclusion. Peter Stenning is a non-likable character and his behavior betraying his girlfriend is the weakest part of the story. The conclusion with the newspaper showing two front pages written "World Saved" and "World Doomed" is fantastic. My vote is six.
Title (Brazil): "O Dia em Que a Terra se Incendiou" ("The Day the Earth Caught Fire")
An all-time classic
NymChimpsky30 November 2000
This has got to be one of the best sci-fi films ever made. Great plot, snappy and witty script, characters with real depth and histories, and a (debatably) great ending. What more could you ask for?
Although the plot is quite similar to that of 'When Worlds Collide', the realism of the characters and setting really lift the whole film far above its contemporaries. Its use of journalists to tell the story is similar to that of many of the classic works of literary science fiction (HG Wells' War Of The Worlds or John Wyndham's Kraken Wakes for example) and it follows a similar apocalyptic template as well.
The theme of mankind's actions causing havoc for the globe, which was originally a criticism of the cold war, is still very relevant today for quite different reasons. The parallel with global warming is obvious, and the graphic depiction of the effects of this are all the more disturbing because we see similar effects, on a smaller scale, around the world on a day to day basis. The film is shocking in its bleak vision of the havoc that mankind has brought upon himself.
Basically, this is the benchmark for all serious science-fiction, and makes a perfect partner for the other great of the cold war era, "The Day the Earth Stood Still".
Although the plot is quite similar to that of 'When Worlds Collide', the realism of the characters and setting really lift the whole film far above its contemporaries. Its use of journalists to tell the story is similar to that of many of the classic works of literary science fiction (HG Wells' War Of The Worlds or John Wyndham's Kraken Wakes for example) and it follows a similar apocalyptic template as well.
The theme of mankind's actions causing havoc for the globe, which was originally a criticism of the cold war, is still very relevant today for quite different reasons. The parallel with global warming is obvious, and the graphic depiction of the effects of this are all the more disturbing because we see similar effects, on a smaller scale, around the world on a day to day basis. The film is shocking in its bleak vision of the havoc that mankind has brought upon himself.
Basically, this is the benchmark for all serious science-fiction, and makes a perfect partner for the other great of the cold war era, "The Day the Earth Stood Still".
An intelligent low-budget sci-fi doomsday movie
mwilson197629 November 2019
Don't be fooled by the schlocky title of this 1961 British science fiction disaster film, it's actually one of the best apocalyptic films of its era. Told through the eyes of British reporter Peter Stenning (Edward Judd), we learn that both the U.S. and the U.S.S.R. have simultaneously set off nuclear explosions to test their efficiency, causing the Earth to go off its axis. Directed by Val Guest (The Abominable Snowman / The Quatermass Experiment), it offers a sobering look at a country staring the end of the world in the face. It uses matte paintings to create images of abandoned cities and desolate landscapes, as well as incorporating real London locations create a movie that is heavy on atmosphere (heavy rains buffet the windows of buildings, thick fog wafts through the city, a raging hurricane crashes into the British coast). The production even features the real Daily Express, using the paper's own then headquarters, the Daily Express Building in Fleet Street. The film was made in black and white, and in the original prints the opening and closing sequences are tinted orange-yellow to suggest the heat of the sun. Monty Norman wrote the "Beatnik Music" score, and would become well known one year later when his James Bond Theme was used in the title sequence of Dr. No. Look out for a before he was famous appearance by Michael Caine in an uncredited role as a police constable.
The Earth is doomed
chris_gaskin12316 February 2005
Warning: Spoilers
I have seen The Day the Earth Caught Fire several times and is one of the best sci-fi movies of the 1960's.
Reporters at the Daily Express in London make the startling discovery that the Earth has been knocked of its axis and is heading towards the sun. This has been caused by too much nuclear testing. As a result, freak and unusual weather conditions are happening round the world, including hotter than normal temperatures in the UK, cyclones, freak fog caused by the heat, blizzards and tornado's. The River Thames is drying up too and water is put on ration. To stop the Earth's journey towards the sun, the USA and Russia explode the biggest nuclear bombs to date and if it that doesn't work, Earth is certainly doomed... Through all of this, one of the reporters falls in love.
The scenes of the streets of London deserted, the fog and the dried up Thames are very eerie. This movie doesn't have much background music, but it isn't needed as the atmosphere is haunting enough.
The cast includes sci-fi regular Edward Judd (First Men In the Moon, Island Of Terror), Janet Munro (The Crawling Eye) as his love interest and Leo McKern (Rumpole Of the Bailey), Michael Goodliffe (A Night To Remember) and Bernard Braden. Look out for Michael Caine as a policeman towards the end. You certainly cannot mistake that voice.
This movie is a must see. Fantastic.
Rating: 4 and a half stars out of 5.
Reporters at the Daily Express in London make the startling discovery that the Earth has been knocked of its axis and is heading towards the sun. This has been caused by too much nuclear testing. As a result, freak and unusual weather conditions are happening round the world, including hotter than normal temperatures in the UK, cyclones, freak fog caused by the heat, blizzards and tornado's. The River Thames is drying up too and water is put on ration. To stop the Earth's journey towards the sun, the USA and Russia explode the biggest nuclear bombs to date and if it that doesn't work, Earth is certainly doomed... Through all of this, one of the reporters falls in love.
The scenes of the streets of London deserted, the fog and the dried up Thames are very eerie. This movie doesn't have much background music, but it isn't needed as the atmosphere is haunting enough.
The cast includes sci-fi regular Edward Judd (First Men In the Moon, Island Of Terror), Janet Munro (The Crawling Eye) as his love interest and Leo McKern (Rumpole Of the Bailey), Michael Goodliffe (A Night To Remember) and Bernard Braden. Look out for Michael Caine as a policeman towards the end. You certainly cannot mistake that voice.
This movie is a must see. Fantastic.
Rating: 4 and a half stars out of 5.
Talky movie
leavymusic-228 October 2019
It's a good movie, if you get passed the mass of cynical dribble the main character Peter spills at every step, the script must have been as big as the sun.
Once that calms its quite a frightening film, could this happen? Or will the sun more likely burn out.? With similar disastrous results.
Recent BFI version of this film has been massively cleaned up and now looks superb.
Worth watching.
An underrated sci-fi classic
vmwrites30 March 2004
This 1961 classic is truly underrated. Performances by Janet Munro and the great Leo McKern (Rumpole of the Bailey) are quite good, and Edward Judd, whose career is introduced in this movie come together to create a create a sense of building tension as the audience finds out the reason for the strange changes in weather.
Judd plays his character a little roughly, but that is to be understood, given his problems with his divorce and visitation with his young son.
Leo McKern's dialogue and facial expressions are superb and create the perfect persona of the seasoned veteran science writer who interprets and unravels the mystery for us.
Janet Munro, who died prematurely in her thirties gave a very acceptable performance for a young starlet, who keeps reporter Pete Stenning (Judd) at bay, then feeds him the critical information that blows open the story. I have two copies - One I taped from TV in the 80's, and another that I bought new. My sci-fi collection wouldn't be complete without it.
Judd plays his character a little roughly, but that is to be understood, given his problems with his divorce and visitation with his young son.
Leo McKern's dialogue and facial expressions are superb and create the perfect persona of the seasoned veteran science writer who interprets and unravels the mystery for us.
Janet Munro, who died prematurely in her thirties gave a very acceptable performance for a young starlet, who keeps reporter Pete Stenning (Judd) at bay, then feeds him the critical information that blows open the story. I have two copies - One I taped from TV in the 80's, and another that I bought new. My sci-fi collection wouldn't be complete without it.
This movie doesn't exactly catch fire, but is quite good
funkyfry9 October 2002
A solid end-of-the-world morality tale from Val Guest, in his realistic tone and setting. The dialogue is crisp and the story moves along briskly. Nice effects work by Les Bowie's underrated crew make mist and cyclones batter London as the earth is propelled toward the sun. The performances are spirited and Munro is sexy as the love interest to answer everyone's question -- what would YOU do at the end of the world?
Absolutely Dreadful
mindcat12 June 2010
I find it strange this flick has gotten such over all good reviews. I just viewed it from DVD, having checked it out of the public library and found the dialog almost incomprehensible.
People speak in short bursts and gush out essentially nothing. The script is horrible, the science deplorable.
Yes, the flick may have some historical appeal to fears of the cold war and environmental Armageddon. However, the style was absolutely dated and campy. Although the issues addressed, may insight fears even today, especially with global warming, I have to give this film a 2 and say it was a waste of time.
People speak in short bursts and gush out essentially nothing. The script is horrible, the science deplorable.
Yes, the flick may have some historical appeal to fears of the cold war and environmental Armageddon. However, the style was absolutely dated and campy. Although the issues addressed, may insight fears even today, especially with global warming, I have to give this film a 2 and say it was a waste of time.
A British Classic
jemwil5 December 2002
Thoroughly recommend this film as one of the classics of British sci-fi. The look and feel of this film is superb and the director, Val Guest, delivers a piece that demonstrated perfectly the end result of nuclear games.
Some of the acting is a little wooden but the key players deliver a quality performance.
recommended....the DVD is well worth the investment.
Some of the acting is a little wooden but the key players deliver a quality performance.
recommended....the DVD is well worth the investment.
The Long, Hot Summer
BaronBl00d20 May 2005
Val Guest directs this gritty film about the effects of what might happen after nuclear testing. Apparently some bombs were exploded at the pole(I think) and it shifted the Earth's axis and some areas of the world that were cold in general become much hotter. In many ways if has some compatibility with what happens(oppositely) in The Day After Tomorrow. Anyway Guest is a very competent director and manages to convey some startling realism as England becomes the hot spot - temperatures rising to epic heights, water having to be rationed, and no end in sight except becoming cinders and ashes. We are in the company of two newsmen and a woman who becomes romantically involved with one that works in the government service as a secretary. Edward Judd plays the leading man - a bit too "angry" from Britain's Angry young man tradition. Judd does overact but is saved by the earthy acting of his friend/newspaper mentor Leo McKern and Janet Munro as the attractive woman Judd falls for. McKern is the conscience of the film - it is through his eyes we see much of what is going on and it is with his heart and mind that we are carried into the impending doom of the situation. This is a rather good film. Scientifically it seems plausible and does never try to go for the cheap special effect or easy storyline. The film has almost a documentary feel about it which greatly adds to its credibility. The film gave me pause as one might ponder what effects man's playing with the world will eventually wrought. Change will not be slow but rather abrupt - the end result of something that had been going on for some time. The Day the Earth Caught Fire is a fine science fiction film in the British tradition of the Quatermass series, and it has solid performances, lively, innovative direction, and some philosophical points to make as well.
An all-time classic.
docp19 May 2004
This is truly an all-time classic. It is a genuine gem from beginning to end. Its date of 1961 should not be allowed to put you off as you will find here a gripping film with truly serious overtones and a very worrying conclusion. The acting is excellent and the story-line convincingly brought out. The tension builds up throughout the duration of the film and the end of the film really makes one think. The special effects are more-than-adequate - indeed, no more is needed. Shot in dramatic black and white this film deserves a place on everyone's DVD shelf. If you haven't yet seen it, then don't hesitate a moment longer as you are missing one of the best sci-fi films of all time.
Dry Heat, World's End
AaronCapenBanner19 October 2014
Val Guest directed this apocalyptic sci-fi thriller that stars Edward Judd & Leo McKern as newspaper journalists in Britain who come to the awful conclusion that the world has been tilted on its axis, hurtling toward the sun after both American & Russian forces conduct nuclear tests that backfire badly, threatening the entire human race. Janet Munro plays Judd's contact and love interest, as things start to heat up... Talky film is well acted, with some memorable scenes, and a most striking(if understated) ending, but is marred by a slow pace and dry, arid atmosphere that makes film a hard(but still worthwhile) haul. Doesn't quite live up to that title...
Timeless, compelling sci-fi drama
refrankfurt28 January 2006
After more than forty years, this film is still a milestone in the science fiction genre. In its day, it was years ahead of its time. It had characters that acted like real people, instead of like John Agar and Lori Nelson. It contained a clearly implied sexual relationship between the two main characters, in an era when filmmakers were still routinely depicting even married couples as sleeping in separate beds. It was filled with shocking insinuations that the government is not all-wise and benevolent, that science doesn't really have all the answers, that the military is capable of blunders that put new meaning into the phrase "friendly fire," and that all may not be well, after all.
The film's greatest strength is in its understated, matter-of-fact presentation of the characters' various reactions to the relentlessly deteriorating situation. The performances are consistently honest and compelling, from the principal players down to the smallest walk-on parts. The award-winning script by Wolf Mankowitz is at times almost too clever for its own good. If there is one criticism that may be leveled against it, it is that most real people are not that consistently witty. Occasionally they are at a loss for words. Occasionally they say things that are lame, stupid, and altogether inappropriate. And this is the one element that was pretty much absent from the dialogue.
In an age when movies are being strangled to death by their own special effects, and character development often does not extend beyond the crudest bodily functions and four-letter expletives, it is genuinely refreshing to return to a film such as this one. Not only does it not rely on visual effects to tell its story, it is really so little dependent on the visual that it could have been equally successful as a radio drama (a forgotten art form nowadays), and might very well have caused an even greater panic than Orson Welles' "War of the Worlds."
The film's greatest strength is in its understated, matter-of-fact presentation of the characters' various reactions to the relentlessly deteriorating situation. The performances are consistently honest and compelling, from the principal players down to the smallest walk-on parts. The award-winning script by Wolf Mankowitz is at times almost too clever for its own good. If there is one criticism that may be leveled against it, it is that most real people are not that consistently witty. Occasionally they are at a loss for words. Occasionally they say things that are lame, stupid, and altogether inappropriate. And this is the one element that was pretty much absent from the dialogue.
In an age when movies are being strangled to death by their own special effects, and character development often does not extend beyond the crudest bodily functions and four-letter expletives, it is genuinely refreshing to return to a film such as this one. Not only does it not rely on visual effects to tell its story, it is really so little dependent on the visual that it could have been equally successful as a radio drama (a forgotten art form nowadays), and might very well have caused an even greater panic than Orson Welles' "War of the Worlds."
We Have Met the Enemy and He is Us.
rmax30482327 May 2007
Warning: Spoilers
It has a lot more in the way of special effects than "On the Beach," released the year before, but the special effects look pretty cheesy by today's standards. Not that it matters much because there are so many of them -- tornadoes, heat, floods, mists, the most severe droughts. That's what can happen when you tilt the earth's orbit towards the sun. The most dramatically on display here are advective fog and droughts. See London turned first into San Francisco and then into the Sahel. It reminds me a little of an effective Twilight Zone episode called, maybe, "The Midnight Sun".
Basically we have three parallel stories. Edward Judd plays a reporter whose recently dissolved marriage has deprive him of his son and his sense of responsibility. He drinks too much and doesn't always show up for work. Then he runs into the trusting Janet Munro whom he first betrays, but who then reforms him as any sensible woman would. That's story number one, and I don't mind saying that the Judd reporter is a real heel in the first half of the movie -- glib, pushy, deceitful, and manipulative. And don't give me that sob story about his marriage either. When my marriage dissolved, I flourished.
Story number two is not so deep in the background. Judd, his girl friend, his colleagues and editors find out that the earth is about to be destroyed, after puzzling over multiple disasters such as the blocking of local television signals. The possibility of salvation exists. The boys down in the machinery of the newspaper have prepared two alternative next editions. One headline reads: "Earth Saved. Nation Prays." The other reads: "Earth Doomed. Now Nation Prays." (A pretty good example of the kind of wit with which this script is strewn.) Story number three is a kind of ethnography of a Fleet Street newspaper. How is the tribe organized? What exactly does it do? Well, this sub-story confirms any suspicions you might have had that news people are a pretty solidary and cohesive lot. Intrigues and jealousies, yes, but also covering up for friends and, most of all, thinking of the news to the exclusion of much else. When he is first informed that the world will end in a few months, Judd's chief editor removed his glasses, stares into space solemnly for about three seconds, shakes his head and replaces his glasses and shouts, "CONFERENCE." It's a well-written script. I won't go through all the bon mots that crop up but I'll mention one of them. Wandering through an almost impenetrable fog, Judd and Munro come across a lone crying child. Judd hefts the girl onto his shoulders and tells her cheerfully that now she is taller than anyone. Munro remarks admiringly, "You look comfortable carrying a child," and Judd replies, "My doctor says I have the perfect figure for it." It's not much. None of the wisecracks amount to much, but they do indicate that some clever hands have been at work on the dialog. Perhaps the saddest scene in the film takes place almost at the very end, in Harry's Bar. We've seen it in several earlier scenes, chock full of newspapermen talking their craft, having supper or a drink or both, kidding one another and flirting with Harry's wife. Now, at the end, it's deserted, dilapidated, and dry. Only Harry, his wife, and the three principal actors are there. The wife breaks out a hidden bottle and they share a hopeful drink for some kind of future. (Harry's wife speaks sharply to him about some petty fault and he replies weakly, "You didn't really mean that, did you?") There is nothing sadder than an empty, dusty pub waiting for the world to end.
For 1960, this was a frankly adult script. I don't mean the end of the world so much as the vulgar language and the near exposure of Janet Munro's bosoms. (I realize that "bosoms" isn't exactly the right word but I adopt that usage from fashion photographers who say things like, "Fine, now could you lift your left bosom a bit?") She's seems pretty and bright and has a perfect figure for carrying babies. A shame her world ended so soon.
The finale is corny, though, as if in an attempt to make up for all the cynicism that has preceded it. We hear vague church bells in the background (the producers wanted a heavenly choir) as Judd dictates a preachy speech about love instead of hate and all that, and the film ends with a slow zoom onto the cross that crowns St. Paul's. Stanley Kramer at least spared us that in "On The Beach." But that's only a few minutes out of an otherwise portentous and horribly horripilic movie. All we really need to do is substitute greenhouse gases for simultaneous nukes, and 400 months for four months, and the story we see elicits the slightest of shudders.
Basically we have three parallel stories. Edward Judd plays a reporter whose recently dissolved marriage has deprive him of his son and his sense of responsibility. He drinks too much and doesn't always show up for work. Then he runs into the trusting Janet Munro whom he first betrays, but who then reforms him as any sensible woman would. That's story number one, and I don't mind saying that the Judd reporter is a real heel in the first half of the movie -- glib, pushy, deceitful, and manipulative. And don't give me that sob story about his marriage either. When my marriage dissolved, I flourished.
Story number two is not so deep in the background. Judd, his girl friend, his colleagues and editors find out that the earth is about to be destroyed, after puzzling over multiple disasters such as the blocking of local television signals. The possibility of salvation exists. The boys down in the machinery of the newspaper have prepared two alternative next editions. One headline reads: "Earth Saved. Nation Prays." The other reads: "Earth Doomed. Now Nation Prays." (A pretty good example of the kind of wit with which this script is strewn.) Story number three is a kind of ethnography of a Fleet Street newspaper. How is the tribe organized? What exactly does it do? Well, this sub-story confirms any suspicions you might have had that news people are a pretty solidary and cohesive lot. Intrigues and jealousies, yes, but also covering up for friends and, most of all, thinking of the news to the exclusion of much else. When he is first informed that the world will end in a few months, Judd's chief editor removed his glasses, stares into space solemnly for about three seconds, shakes his head and replaces his glasses and shouts, "CONFERENCE." It's a well-written script. I won't go through all the bon mots that crop up but I'll mention one of them. Wandering through an almost impenetrable fog, Judd and Munro come across a lone crying child. Judd hefts the girl onto his shoulders and tells her cheerfully that now she is taller than anyone. Munro remarks admiringly, "You look comfortable carrying a child," and Judd replies, "My doctor says I have the perfect figure for it." It's not much. None of the wisecracks amount to much, but they do indicate that some clever hands have been at work on the dialog. Perhaps the saddest scene in the film takes place almost at the very end, in Harry's Bar. We've seen it in several earlier scenes, chock full of newspapermen talking their craft, having supper or a drink or both, kidding one another and flirting with Harry's wife. Now, at the end, it's deserted, dilapidated, and dry. Only Harry, his wife, and the three principal actors are there. The wife breaks out a hidden bottle and they share a hopeful drink for some kind of future. (Harry's wife speaks sharply to him about some petty fault and he replies weakly, "You didn't really mean that, did you?") There is nothing sadder than an empty, dusty pub waiting for the world to end.
For 1960, this was a frankly adult script. I don't mean the end of the world so much as the vulgar language and the near exposure of Janet Munro's bosoms. (I realize that "bosoms" isn't exactly the right word but I adopt that usage from fashion photographers who say things like, "Fine, now could you lift your left bosom a bit?") She's seems pretty and bright and has a perfect figure for carrying babies. A shame her world ended so soon.
The finale is corny, though, as if in an attempt to make up for all the cynicism that has preceded it. We hear vague church bells in the background (the producers wanted a heavenly choir) as Judd dictates a preachy speech about love instead of hate and all that, and the film ends with a slow zoom onto the cross that crowns St. Paul's. Stanley Kramer at least spared us that in "On The Beach." But that's only a few minutes out of an otherwise portentous and horribly horripilic movie. All we really need to do is substitute greenhouse gases for simultaneous nukes, and 400 months for four months, and the story we see elicits the slightest of shudders.
Supreme film-making
mik-193 July 2006
What an absolutely devastating movie! I am still completely engrossed in it, and it has been a while since I took the DVD out of the player.
Was any science fiction movie ever more ambitious than this one? The staggering opening, tinted in reddish yellow and brilliantly composed in widescreen, looks like Tarkovsky and Lars von Trier, and has the same dry wasteland quality to it. Callous and unpublicized nuclear tests by both the Soviet Union and the US have upset the environment, causing record-breaking heat waves, floods, cyclones, eclipses, and what not, and we gradually find out that Earth has tilted and is hurtling towards the Sun where, in four months' time, the universe will savor "the delightful smell of charcoaled mankind", as put by a cynical newspaperman. The largest nuclear bomb ever made will now be detonated in Siberia, and no one knows what will happen now ... The environmentalist discourse seems extremely contemporary to us today.
Now, how to make intelligent, thoughtful entertainment out of that pulp?! Leave it to writer-director Val Guest who more than rose to the task. He put a heartbroken, newly divorced and slightly alcoholized reporter in the center, working for the London Daily News. He tries, with his science editor and surrogate father, to delve into what went wrong and who is responsible, and he falls in love with a switchboard girl with a cleavage. All this to keep the movie grounded, the drama realistic. All of this naturalistic drama is cross-edited with stock newsreel footage of natural disasters, and it works. It works supremely well, and you are sucked into the action, as the end of the world approaches.
All the actors are brilliant, not least Edward Judd as the main reporter, cynical, witty, vulnerable.
Was any science fiction movie ever more ambitious than this one? The staggering opening, tinted in reddish yellow and brilliantly composed in widescreen, looks like Tarkovsky and Lars von Trier, and has the same dry wasteland quality to it. Callous and unpublicized nuclear tests by both the Soviet Union and the US have upset the environment, causing record-breaking heat waves, floods, cyclones, eclipses, and what not, and we gradually find out that Earth has tilted and is hurtling towards the Sun where, in four months' time, the universe will savor "the delightful smell of charcoaled mankind", as put by a cynical newspaperman. The largest nuclear bomb ever made will now be detonated in Siberia, and no one knows what will happen now ... The environmentalist discourse seems extremely contemporary to us today.
Now, how to make intelligent, thoughtful entertainment out of that pulp?! Leave it to writer-director Val Guest who more than rose to the task. He put a heartbroken, newly divorced and slightly alcoholized reporter in the center, working for the London Daily News. He tries, with his science editor and surrogate father, to delve into what went wrong and who is responsible, and he falls in love with a switchboard girl with a cleavage. All this to keep the movie grounded, the drama realistic. All of this naturalistic drama is cross-edited with stock newsreel footage of natural disasters, and it works. It works supremely well, and you are sucked into the action, as the end of the world approaches.
All the actors are brilliant, not least Edward Judd as the main reporter, cynical, witty, vulnerable.
Better newsroom flic than sci-fi
coachellacanuck22 October 2021
As sci-fi films go, it's a not bad example of 1960s Cold War era apocalyptic movies but it will someday be viewed as a good example of how old-time print newsrooms operated. "Stop the presses", "replate", and more classic scenarios from an era where deadlines and solid sources ruled, before digital news-on-demand relied more on rumours and tweets.
Day The Earth Caught Fire
gcrespo28 March 2006
This film holds a special place for me.....it was the inspiration to get into news broadcasting...no lie. I saw this film in the earl 60's and always was fascinated by the "newsroom", the teletype machines and, the reporters. The story was typical sci-fi but instead of filling the film with bug eyed monsters or giant creatures(which ain't bad by the way), it delved more into characters, emotions, plot... The idea of the world coming to an end has been done time and time again, but this was very well done. The black and white added to the dismal attitude, you could "see" the heat on the screen and feel it...Edward Judd, Leo McKern and Janet Munro were all excellent....kudos to director Val Guest. I understand that a re-make is being considered...please don't...you'll ruin it....
The Day The Earth Caught Its Pants On Fire
strong-122-4788857 October 2014
Movie tag-line - "The Incredible Becomes REAL!... The Impossible Becomes FACT!... The Unbelievable Becomes TRUE!"
You know, if I'm not mistaken, this 1961 Doomsday-Thriller was the very first picture to prominently display the all-familiar "peace sign" in its story. (This happened during an anti-nuclear protest in London)
This peace sign is now, of course, famous, worldwide. But, back in 1961, it wasn't. It was originally designed by British artist Gerald Holtom in 1958 to help support the nuclear disarmament movement back then.
And, speaking about the likes of nuclear disarmament - I think that you should see this taut "Countdown-To-Catastrophe" movie for yourself and be the judge as to whether it condones or condemns this sort of thing.
See just how the scriptwriters carefully weighed the pros & cons of this particular matter and then presented that outlook to the audience in a fairly intelligent manner.
Anyways - Regardless of its glaring flaws and half-baked scientific guess-work, this 53-year-old British production was still well-worth a view.
But, be warned - This vintage "End-of-the-World" picture was loaded with plenty of stock footage during its scenes that depicted worldwide disaster. And this, of course, helped to render its overall visual effects as being somewhat wishy-washy, in the long run.
You know, if I'm not mistaken, this 1961 Doomsday-Thriller was the very first picture to prominently display the all-familiar "peace sign" in its story. (This happened during an anti-nuclear protest in London)
This peace sign is now, of course, famous, worldwide. But, back in 1961, it wasn't. It was originally designed by British artist Gerald Holtom in 1958 to help support the nuclear disarmament movement back then.
And, speaking about the likes of nuclear disarmament - I think that you should see this taut "Countdown-To-Catastrophe" movie for yourself and be the judge as to whether it condones or condemns this sort of thing.
See just how the scriptwriters carefully weighed the pros & cons of this particular matter and then presented that outlook to the audience in a fairly intelligent manner.
Anyways - Regardless of its glaring flaws and half-baked scientific guess-work, this 53-year-old British production was still well-worth a view.
But, be warned - This vintage "End-of-the-World" picture was loaded with plenty of stock footage during its scenes that depicted worldwide disaster. And this, of course, helped to render its overall visual effects as being somewhat wishy-washy, in the long run.
Absolutely awful. Not what I had expected
spotlightne28 October 2010
Someone said to me, 'have you seen The Day The Earth Caught Fire - it's excellent.' So I got hold of a copy and I knew in the very first 10 minutes I wasn't going to like it.
First up, I didn't like the acting. The film wasn't compelling at all. And none of the characters were likable either. Particularly Edward Judd's character. He comes across as a big creep, especially when he's chasing the affections of a young Janet Munro. In one scene he manages to burst his way into Janet's flat, having begged for a date SEVERAL TIMES. But it's not a date he wants. After looking oddly at her underwear on the bed, Janet loses her senses and eventually gives into this creep. He gets his way with the girl in the most nauseating manner. What a thoroughly distasteful man.
Well that had me almost vomiting. I tried to concentrate on the film, but it was so mind-numbingly boring. And it doesn't help one's concentration when the central character is nauseating.
I could only stomach this rubbish for 45 minutes before switching off. It's bleak, DATED and highly overrated. Simply not for me, despite my usually liking sci-fi films from this period.
First up, I didn't like the acting. The film wasn't compelling at all. And none of the characters were likable either. Particularly Edward Judd's character. He comes across as a big creep, especially when he's chasing the affections of a young Janet Munro. In one scene he manages to burst his way into Janet's flat, having begged for a date SEVERAL TIMES. But it's not a date he wants. After looking oddly at her underwear on the bed, Janet loses her senses and eventually gives into this creep. He gets his way with the girl in the most nauseating manner. What a thoroughly distasteful man.
Well that had me almost vomiting. I tried to concentrate on the film, but it was so mind-numbingly boring. And it doesn't help one's concentration when the central character is nauseating.
I could only stomach this rubbish for 45 minutes before switching off. It's bleak, DATED and highly overrated. Simply not for me, despite my usually liking sci-fi films from this period.
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
