Nuclear War is a bad thing. On this we can all agree. Other than that, this accidental comedy is divorced from any semblance of reality. Each character seems to be reading straight out of the "How to be an alarmist nut case with a bad haircut" Handbook of 1983. Folks live in Kansas to AVOID encountering silly people such as the ones portrayed. Bad writing, bad directing, and SPECTACULARLY bad acting combine to make this hooey the "Plan 9 From Outer Space" of the 1980s. It is difficult for me to believe that it's possible NOT to live up to the low, low standards of TV movies of that time. They managed to do it in spades. I originally watched this movie with my parents 1983. We all laughed out loud then, and I'm laughing out loud watching it now.

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!

This is one of those Important Movies (capital letters and all) that Hollywood comes out with every so often -- you know, like 'china syndrome', and 'farenheit 9/11'. Such movies are so heavy-handed that the makers might as well have just filmed themselves standing on soapboxes haranguing us at how foolish we are for one reason or another. The dialog is expository in the extreme, with characters labeled 'experts' holding forth to audience surrogates (who ask rock-headed questions); people acting in really unbelievable ways (my favorite is the little girl who has just watched her world destroyed by multi- megaton Russian bombs wrinkling her nose and complaining the the basement smells bad), to further the makers harangue-making. In sum, the Russians get greatly peeved at us, and decided to nuke the bejezus out of . . . Kansas?!? I mean there are missile silos there (but not just there - one character announces that the silos being hit are all "titan-2's, but the missiles we see launched are minuteman-3's and an occasional atlas -- launched from the suddenly-mountainous Kansas prairie), but it sure seems like the Russians have something against Kansas, and I don't think trading all of the soviet union for several square miles of Kansas is good strategy. (No offense to Kansans, by the way -- great state, great people.) Anyway, the movie just doesn't work -- either things would be not as bad as described, or much, much worse (in a real general war, for instance, there would be nobody to come to survivors aid). It's just so busy preaching, the flick doesn't tell a good story. If you want to see a movie about nuclear war that will REALLY talk straight, try and find a copy of "The War Game" (British, 1965).

I just finished watching this movie for the first time and had to give a comment. I was only 5 when this movie came out and don't remember seeing it, but growing up next to a military base, the threat of a nuclear attack, although remote was in the back of our minds. While this movie is not perfect (they should have had a couple less story lines going), this movie is the best attempt to show what was previously a very realistic scenario. While it's very toned down from what would actually happen after a nuclear attack, showing people out in the middle of nowhere trying to survive or just showing everyone die in a matter of a few days would not have had the same impact. This movie shows as graphically as could be shown on US network television a glimpse of the horror of nuclear war. The special effects and makeup are very good for a made for TV movie in 1983, impressive actually. The attack is shown is a very shocking and realistic manner (other than lessening the actual size of damage that would occur). The aftermath makes you realize that the lucky ones were those that were instantly vaporized. Although they don't show it, you realize that all of the characters that fought for so long against radition poisoning were not going to make it much longer. It shows many sides of human nature that would come to the surface under such circumstances and hints towards even worse ones that couldn't be shown. Although the cold war is behind us, these weapons are still around and there will come a time someone wants to use them. Everyone should see this movie to give them at least a small glimpse at why we can never allow that to happen.

At best - I could only rank 1983's "The Day After" with just a measly 3-star rating. Yes. With this "Made-For-TV-Movie" now being close to 40 years old, I did try to cut it some slack - But, (IMO) it had way too much going against itself for it to deserve any positive recommendations from me. One of this film's biggest problems was that it tried to introduce way, way too many characters into the story. And, this, in turn - Only served to clutter up the story's escalating drama in a big-big way. Anyway - It didn't help matters much that "The Day After's" old-school visual effects were so cheesy-looking that I was prompted to laugh out loud more than just a few times.

I remember the hype surrounding THE DAY AFTER just before it was shown on British TV in 1984, it had supposedly caused a massive stir across the pond and I had seen news footage of adults openly sobbing as they viewed it. So I sat down as a 17 year old in nervous anticipation to watch " No holds barred depiction of nuclear war " My verdict: Utter garbage ! TDA is nothing more than one of those " disease of the week " TVMs except this time it involves the bomb. Where the hell`s the " No holds barred depiction of nuclear war " Everyone gets a free X-ray, some people shoot each other in the aftermath and some peoples` hair falls out ! Oh I`m scared. Is this the best American TV executives can come up with ? What about Nuclear winter and mutant babies ? , and how come most of the cast seem to survive till the final reel ? I might be wrong but I was under the impression that thermo nuclear war has a detrimental effect on peoples health, I may be wrong of course and TDA may be right in it`s portrayal in almost everyone surviving the initial attack , though somehow I think I`m right in this instance If this Hollywood garbage scared you witless then avoid at all cost THREADS and THE WAR GAME which shows up THE DAY AFTER for what it is - A very mediocre TVM disguised as something far more important than it actually deserves to be

This movie aired recently on the USA network and I saw it for the first time since I was ten years old. Although I did not find myself experiencing nightmares when I went to bed that night, as I did seventeen years ago, I still found the movie's message delivered clearly and with solid dramatic impact. Upon close analysis, there are flaws, both technical and on the creative end. The post-bomb world seems far too well-lit at times in light of the "nuclear winter" theory. And (as the film's disclaimer says) the actual results are much, much grimmer. Seven years ago I visited Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and the photos, accounts and newsreel footage taken of those who survived are absolutely horrifying. Some of the plot point devices and characters seem far too constructed (or perhaps outright contrived): Steve Guttenberg and his girlfriend and their tearful reunion, the dying doctor played by Jason Robards returning to the ruins of Kansas City for a final farewell to his home (and wife who died in the explosion). But the acting is strong, and Nicholas Meyer's largely low-key direction (often with no music) hammer home what is the film's message - loss. Not just the typical message that everyone loses in (nuclear) war, but illustrating what would be lost: loved ones, your home, your way of life, simple human dignity. And that it would be lost forever. For me, one of the most chilling lines is when Steve Guttenberg says to his girlfriend, "There's not going to be any phones." Haunting.

I am a native of Kansas City (KS) and I remember watching this for the first time when I was a kid. There are so many apocalyptic movies made yet so few that attempt to look at the perspective of small-town America. For me, hearing that towns such as Sedalia, Kansas City, Independence, and Lawrence being obliterated, I had nightmares. Maybe someone in Los Angeles didn't have the same feeling but it made me very aware of how easy this could happen. Very thorough movie for being low-budget.

I first reviewed this from memory a few months ago , then lo`n`behold I found myself watching TDA on the sci fi channel at the weekend after last seeing it nearly 19 years ago . I found it a very badly done nuclear holocaust drama when it was first broadcast on British television and I stick by that opinion after seeing it again . In fact TDA is even worse than I remembered it , for instance we see the missiles being fired from the USAF base in Kansas and the following minutes are taken up with people screaming as they run through the streets in a mass panic trying to make it to the nuclear shelters then when the bombs hit the city and everyone gets their free X-rays we`re shown a montage of people sitting in a cinema , attending a wedding and standing at a bus stop ! Very sloppy work on the part of the director - but the directing is as nowhere bad as the script in which the first half is taken up with some middle American characters who would seem at home in a daytime soap called DULLSVILLE. This is bad enough but after the bomb drops everything becomes ridiculous , there`s no real attempt to point out the most horrifying aspect of a nuclear war - that of a dying society where it`s everyman for himself . People are cruel by nature , people rob cheat and steal from one another , people beat , rape and murder one other , that`s a fact and that`s without thermo nuclear conflict . Dr Russell Oakes still cares for his myriad of patients but why would he ? Why would doctors and nurses continue to care for people ? because they`re doctors and nurses ? Sorry just because you work in the medical profession doesn`t mean you`re a better more compassionate person than anyone else . Worse THE DAY AFTER wants us to believe that most Americans share this caring attitude like the American airforce man befriending the refugee or the scene at the end where the man offers Dr Oakes an orange . It`s not just these " Disease of the week " sentimental scenes that make TDA unconvincing , the dialogue suffers from being too expositional and patronising ( But it`s not as patronising as THE WAR GAME ) like the scenes where the doctors discuss EMP or the fact that burning wood spreads radioactive fallout or where people discuss what Albert Einstien said about world war 4 being fought with sticks and stones . All this leads to wonder why THE DAY AFTER was made in the first place . I do take onboard what its defenders have said that no American TV network would have touched it if it was too graphic , but that`s exactly the point why I don`t like it , it just doesn`t go far enough . So why do it if it`s going to defeat its own purpose ? It struck me both then and now as an overblown TVM not helped by the fact that the main protaginist is played by a well known actor namely Jason Robards ( And seeing as many of the cast like Jobeth Williams , Steve Guttenberg and John Lithgow have become well known faces over the years this criticism of a star cast is made even worse watching it in 2002 ) . Did I like anything after rewatching it from all those years ago ? Well I do concede the make up was fairly good , probably the best aspect of the film I`d say , and it`s good for nostalgia reasons . If you were living in the early 80s then you`d remember the cold war very well and thank gawd it`s over , so I guess THE DAY AFTER`s heart was in the right place. Such a pity its Brain wasn`t One strange point: When THE DAY AFTER was released on video in Britain it carried an 18 certificate whereas when THREADS ( The British nuclear holocaust film ) was released on video it only carried a 15 certificate ! If you`ve seen both films then you`ll be extremely surprised to hear that considering THREADS is the most shocking thing in the history of television . If you were upset by TDA then please do not watch THREADS under any circumstances

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.