Rating: 
Summary: makes t2's nuclear war effects look like child's play
Review: terminator 2, which is younger than the day after, got most of its effects from an old value city commercial. the day after shows you the real nuclear explosion's effects: fireball, heat wave, blast wave, and mushroom cloud, enough to scare the [heck] out of you
Rating: 
Summary: Accurate view of a limited nuclear war
Review: Instead of brutalizing us with the massive gore and instant death of a full-scale war, "The Day After" shows us the frustration of survivors as they discover that a limited nuclear war makes life just as impossible. The movie benefits from a stellar cast in sympathetic roles, but suffers from having too many characters in too short a movie. On a positive note, we share in doctor Jason Robards' powerlessness to cure survivors, and his mourning for lost family members. We see farmers' frustration as they discover their lands will never be safe to farm again. For another portrayal of the human side of a nuclear war, see "Testament" starring Jane Alexander, William Devane, and a young Lukas Haas. It features the effect of the war on one rural American family. "Testament" was originally filmed for cinema but was eventually shown on PBS.
Rating:
Summary: Everything's Blown to Atoms in Kansas City
Review: This apocalyptic view of nuclear war was a made for TV movie aired on ABC. Starring Jason Robards as a physician, Steve Guttenburg as a medical student and John Lithgow as a college professor, the movie is set in or around the University of Kansas at Lawrence and Kansas City. The pacing builds up as tension between East and West heightens through news bulletins and growing public anxiety over the threat of war disrupts daily lives, including wedding preparations. That is the main point, how even the build up can be disastrous and the event itself is absolutely catastrophic. The effects are realistic and the make-up showing radiation poisoning is graphic. However, the movie underestimates the pure power of the weapons which would be used and more people live through the initial attacks than would be the case if 20-35 megaton warheads were used. Nonetheless, this movie is an excellent portrayal of the social disorganization and medical misery resulting from nuclear war. Only "Threads" and the British 1967 "The Wargame" are better.
Rating:
Summary: A powerful and chilling film.
Review: This film is one of the most terrifying TV movies ever made and a powerful anti-war statement to boot. Though not 100% accurate, like the cold and heartless British film Threads, The Day After still packs quite a wallop. We feel the helplessness of the characters and their mounting dread at the approaching apocolypse. Director Nicholas Meyer succeeds in creating a believable "what-if" that will shake even the most jaded viewers to their very core. We are not dealt cold, hard statistics but, rather a picture of the flames of humanity being snuffed out by our own technological advances and blatant ignorance. As one of the doctors says before the outbreak of war, "Stupidity has a habit of getting its way!" It is to the filmmakers' credit that they bring the effects of a global nuclear exchange down to a very intimate level. It provokes argument and debate and refuses to bury the truth of nuclear war in a landslide of facts and figures. Those who have come of age in the shade of former President Bush's "New World Order" would do well to see this film and learn from it. Mankind is still just a few steps away from armageddon!
Rating: 
Summary: Nuclear War Lite
Review: Of all the WWIII movies I've seen, the portrayal of the survivors of a nuclear war seemed like an insipid version of the Blizzard of '78. Apparently the world only suffers a limited not full exchange of weapons, seeing at that time there were a count of over 40,000 nuclear warheads in the world. If the US were to be hit with just a 1/3rd of that arsenal, I'd think the effects would be more devestating than what was portrayed in the film. If you really want the Bejesus scared out of you, and see, IMHO, a true account of what could happen, I'd recommend the British film "Threads" that came out a year or two later.
Rating: 
Summary: Historical what-if?
Review: How many remember when this movie aired in November 1983 on a Sunday? I remember it was the Sunday before Thanksgiving here in the states. Well anyway this show caused quite a stir weeks before it even aired and was a huge ratings bonanza for ABC network. I taped it and watched it a few nights later, I was initially intrigued and in the second half bored. Well I just watched this movie a week ago and seventeen years later I find the same thing to be true. The film fails to satisfy anyone. For the sci-fi doomsday fans there are no mutants, monsters, and other various items. For the anti-nuke activist the film fails to convey the full "horror" of an all out nuclear exchange and to the pro-defense conservative the movie assumes a full out nuclear exchange with everyone launching their entire stock of nukes.Which many felt was unrelistic by 1983. Plus for the survivalist set there were no heroic survivors fighting hordes of bikers and looters with their assault rifles and grenades. I found it intruiging that there was no mention of the electromagnetic pulse phenomenon that is caused by a nuclear burst. By 83 many think-tanks felt that a full exchange might be stopped cold by just one nuke going off over the North Pole. In other words everything electronic would shut off and very possible many a nuclear equipped ICBM would simply come crashing down to the ground, scattering nuclear garbage everywhere, but without the boom. Well whatever the movie fails. I have to agree with the prior reviews. Too many characters, weak writing, poor attention to technical details and very slow moving. Considering that Nicholas Meyer directed it ( Star Trek II,and VI, The Deceivers and The Seven Percent Solution-author) I would have expected more. Oh well it is definitely a historical piece if nothing else.
Rating:
Summary: Good cast, tepid movie. . .
Review: The Day After is an ambitious movie that unfortunately falls short of its goals. Touting a cast of veteran character actors including Jason Robards and Steve Guttenburg, the film attempts to portray the effects of the immediate prelude to and after-effects of a nuclear exchange between the United States and the Soviet Union. The first half of the picture is taut and engrossing, showing the town of Lawrence, Kansas trying to deal with the mounting crisis as students at the University of Kansas attempt to register for upcoming classes. The feelings of confusion, disbelief and helplessness experienced by the residents are effectively depicted. The contrast between those who fatalistically prepare for the worst and those who refuse to accept the severity of the situation provides a powerful conflict of perspective. This portion of the movie ends with an emotionally striking scene of the spectators at a football game staring upward in confusion and consternation as a flight of minuteman missiles from Whiteman Air Force Base leaves multiple arcing trails in the mid-day sky. The military footage, including the nuclear alert and response, is taken directly from a 1980 documentary series entitled "The Defense of the United States." It is technically accurate and does a fairly good job of depicting the likely sequence of events as the ongoing conflict rapidly escalates from a European crisis into a general nuclear exchange. The scenes of nuclear detonations and the immediate destruction caused are all stock footage which the viewer will recognize from countless other productions related to this subject. Once the nuclear blasts have ended, the story settles into a stock melodrama about ordinary people trying to cope with extra-ordinary events. Unfortunately, there are too many characters to allow any of them to be developed to a point where the viewer really cares what is happening or what will happen. The basic plot of trying to deal with a lack of supplies, communications, power and the breakdown of local society could come from any disaster movie. The depiction of nuclear winter, which could have been a major central theme, is woefully inadequate and becomes just another undeveloped sidelight. In the final analysis, The Day After tries to do to much with too many characters and accomplishes virtually nothing. If you have a strong interest in nuclear disaster movies, you may find the first half of the picture interesting. Otherwise, there isn't much to recommend this film.
Rating:
Summary: Not bad, but it could have been a lot better.
Review: The Day After bills itself as a close look at the terrible after-effects of a nuclear exchange between the United States and the former Soviet Union on the lives of average people. In some respects, it delivers on this promise; in others, it is sorely lacking. The story line is schizophrenic: the initial portion of the film, leading up to the actual warfare sequences, is tense, well-directed and engrossing. The scenario of a Soviet strike into central Europe leading to an ever-escalating exchange of nuclear weapons is plausible, if now problematic. Unfortunately, once the final buttons are pushed, the remainder of the film goes up in the mushroom clouds. The depictions of the military scrambling to respond to its alerts and launch orders, and the actual detonation and damage shots, are all stock footage that the viewer will likely recognize from any number of other films and documentaries addressing the topic of nuclear warfare. The representation of the resultant nuclear winter is woefully inadequate. There is, however, one truly terrifying scene of the spectators at a University of Kansas football game watching in confusion and horror as numerous minuteman missiles climb from their silos at the neighboring Whiteman Air Force Base. The remainder of the story is anti-climactic, rapidly deteriorating into a standard soap opera, with very little substance to hold the viewer's interest. None of the characters is developed sufficiently to achieve an emotional bond with the audience, and the intended anti-war moral of the story gets lost in its snail-like pace and seeming lack of direction. As to the validity of the social upheaval depicted, the producer's and director's joint conjecture is as valid as anyone's, so who knows? The Day After began as an ambitious, worthwhile effort to show the world what might happen if the button was ever pushed. Sadly, it ended as just another standard drama hoping to put a lump in your throat and a tear in your eye. As stock soap-opera, it is effective, but that is where it stops. Certainly, this is not a bad film, but it never really achieved its potential.
Rating:
Summary: Not As Scary As It Should Have Been
Review: I first saw "The Day After" in its entirety in 1989. The film is a "horror" story about nuclear war, which concentrates on areas around Kansas City. Jason Robards plays a doctor. He is one of the survivors who makes his way back to the hospital, which is being swamped with the injured and the sick. The scenes of the holocaust are quite spectacular (for their time) and this is the highlight of the film. After that the film seems to drag. Survivors wandering around hopelessly, getting sick and dying. I know this is what would happen in reality but I don't think the film needed to go on for as long as it did. It managed to be a disturbing story until I saw the British film "Threads", which was far more realistic and far less sentimental. When you analyze "The Day After" you start to wonder how realistic it really is. If nuclear war really happened, it's highly unlikely that a hospital would be able to help anyone. (That was put across quite graphically in "Threads".) Is a car really a safe place to hide from a nuclear explosion? If my memory serves me correctly, Jason Robards wasn't even scratched! All the other people around him were dead. If you want to see the "real" consequences of nuclear war, see "Threads". (If you can find it.) It was directed by Mick Jackson, better known for his film "Volcano".
Rating:
Summary: Still packs a multi-megaton emotional wallop
Review: This made for television film first aired nearly 25 years ago while the Cold War was on - and it still packs the same sobering multi-megaton emotional wallop as it did back then. The story and scenes of human and animal tragedy and suffering will haunt for days afterwards. It's very good early 1980s period piece that fairly accurately depicts the rising Cold War tensions early in the Reagan administration. In a reprise of the Soviet blockade of Berlin two decades earlier in 1961, the plot begins with a Soviet blockade of access points between East and West Germany, following by the massing of troops on the border between East and West. When the Soviet bloc troops move across the border, NATO responds by unleashing tactical nuclear weapons on the invading forces, destroying two German cities in the process. The Soviet responds by targeting a NATO regional headquarters in England. It rapidly escalates from there to a major exchange of MIRVed ICBMs, including electromagnetic pulse (EMP) weapons that detonate high in the atmosphere and knock out all electrical and electronic equipment. All of the European developments are depicted via fast paced news reports and bulletins coming into a worried American heartland on what would have been an otherwise typical early September weekend as people went about and planned their lives. One of the more chilling scenes vividly depicts the contrast between normal life and unfolding nuclear exchange. Two children innocently watch television, unaware of the gravity of the situation, as their amorous parents slip upstairs for a quick interlude before breakfast. Suddenly a TV bulletin interrupts to report the use of tactical nuclear weapons in Europe. The scene then shifts to a nearby Strategic Air Command base as klaxons wail and B-52 crews scramble to get their planes into the air. The film is set in Kansas City and Lawrence, Kansas. Jason Robards puts in a fine performance as a doctor and the central character.
| 
