User reviews

I, like many of my age, saw this when it originally aired as a class assignment. It had a great impact on me, as the cold war was still going strong and the threat of a nuclear war was something that people still thought about. The movie may not be the greatest ever made, but the acting is more than adequate, especially from Jason Robards, and the script was far better than any other movies made for television at that time. I recommend it to anyone, even those with a low tolerance for grossness (radiation sickness is shown in progressive stages, and it is not pretty). It's dark, depressing, and if you get into it you will definitely need to follow it up with a musical or cartoons just to lift your spirits again. Still, the subject matter is not something that can be portrayed positively even at a tv-movie level of realism.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

While serving in Germany, I met another paratrooper who was from Hungary. He had been a student in Budapest during the Hungarian Revolution in the fall of 1956. He had tossed Molotov cocktails at Russian tanks, and later escaped to the West where he joined the U.S. Army. He became a friend and later flew to the U.S. to take his citizenship test, and be sworn in as an American. Calmer, wiser leaders have been the rule among the world's military powers the past few decades. But now we have smaller countries with nuclear capabilities. Pray that reason will continue to outweigh radical ideology so that we never have a nuclear disaster like that in "The Day After."

This film originally aired as a TV movie back in 1983 in the United States. It depicts the effects of nuclear war on the citizens of the Kansas City area. In the film, during the actual attacks, a lot of raw footage of nuclear blasts and explosions is used, but no computer enhanced special effects were needed in this film to get the point across. The point, being of course, that nuclear war is horrible. The movie was aired to show leaders of nations in the world what would happen if nuclear war was ever waged. When this film was first aired, Cold War tensions were high and the fear of nuclear war was very imminent. Though the events in the film are very powerful, a disclaimer at the end of the movie even tells the viewers that the events depicted in the film are far less worse then what would actually take place in a real nuclear war.

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

Overall, the movie is very excellent and places itself very positively in my book. It was a very controversial film for its time and it did scare the hell out of many people (truthfully, it did shake me up a little the first time I saw it). It's really not for the kids, even though it was a TV movie, because the scenes of the nuclear blasts and radiation sickness aren't very light.

Scrolling through the comments, I was impressed with the number of people from the USA, who said that this movie really scared them, when they first saw it. In fact it is not surprising. Well, I am Russian, yet it scared me too.

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

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

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

P.S. Recently I saw the movie one more time, and it stirred the same emotions, as it did in my childhood. A great movie, that's all I can say...

Oh, how wonderful it is to see a disaster film without CGI at every turn, and actually being shot on location and not in a studio! Now, this was REAL film making.

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

The film is obviously dated by today's standard, but it is still an interesting watch and rather exciting, too. This must have been incredible at the time of release. 'The Day After' is ultimately a very sad film, and rightfully so, as it warns us of the effects of a nuclear disaster. Indeed a very thought provoking film.

I saw a glimpse of this film when I was about eight or nine and it left me with nightmares for quite a few days after (especially since I live in a viable British target for a bomb) and, even now, I have a fear about nuclear attacks. And no matter how many times I see 'The Day After', it still leaves me with the chills and contemplating how easily the world can be destroyed on the whim of arrogant politicians. The film is set in Kansas, circa the early Eighties, against the backdrop of growing aggression between the US, UK and West Germany against the USSR and East Germany, normal people go about their daily lives. But when the Soviet attack the US and are hit with a counter-attack, we follow various characters as they cope with nuclear attack and the bleak aftermath of a world changed forever.

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

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

This film is as powerful now as I imagine it was in 1983 and should be compulsory viewing for everyone on the planet past primary school age as a reminder of why nuclear weapons have no place in the world.

I was a naval aviator deployed aboard the USS Ranger (CV-61) when I first saw this film. The show had aired back in the States some time before the film reels (this was before video tape decks were commonplace) were flown out to our Battle Group, so we knew that the telecast had had a big impact on the American public before we had the chance to view it.

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

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

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

Yes, better special effects would make from some jaw-dropping images, but would that improve upon the film's message? In my opinion, no.

Before it was broadcast by ITV in Britain. The Day After made headline news for its record breaking viewing audiences in America.

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

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

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

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

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

After the movie was broadcast, the BBC announced that they were going to show their own version called Threads in 1984. It was no contest, Threads was bleak as nuclear black rain.

A graphic, disturbing film about the effects of a devastating nuclear holocaust on small-town residents of eastern Kansas.

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

While categorized as "science fiction", this is really pretty spot on. People do not gain mutant powers and America does not invent some new device to nullify nuclear weapons. This is a very realistic what-if scenario.

I never got to see this film when it was first aired in the Uk, and it was only recenlty on the sc-fi channel did I get to see it. To be honest the time it was on suprised me after watching it, this is not one for young viewers and can understand why it give many viewers nightmares but worth keeping to show your grand children what could have happen in the Nuclear age.

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

A very dark film with a very serious message

First off, I just have to say that, I'm sorry, but I really don't think that the people who witnessed nuclear detonations first hand in this movie would have been alive afterwards to tell the tale. It's not like you can just say, "Oh, well, it's only a mushroom cloud..." and then get up and walk away from it. It's not happening, and I don't see why ABC thought this part of the plot would actually be believable.

Besides that, I enjoyed the scenes of panicked melee that ensued once the bombs were in the air and it was clear that Kansas was going bye-bye.

A lot of the movie is implausible, and about half of it is pretty dull, but as a cautionary tale against world nuclear war, it serves its purpose. The frightening fact of the matter is that if nuclear devices ARE ever detonated in civilian areas, it's going to be ten thousand times worse than the situations portrayed in this movie, and twenty thousand times worse than watching this movie.

The Day After is a movie that I had trouble getting out of my mind. It's full of realistic nightmarish images that chilled me to the bone. This is NOT a pleasant film. This is about devastation and nuclear destruction, and it's not very fun to watch. It doesn't have the budget to pull off stuff like many disaster movie do, but this one doesn't need it. I was scared enough as it was. That is one of my biggest fears in life, a nuclear holocaust. I was first exposed to this movie when I was younger, and it scared the living wits out of me. Even after multiple viewings, it's still an extremely harrowing experience which is tough to endure. Jason Robards is excellent as the lead. He did a really good job as the every day man. Steve Guttenberg & Jobeth Williams do well in their respective roles and add great depth to the proceedings. My only real complaint is that sometimes the pacing is a tad off, but I get why they did it. They wanted to augment the feeling of dread

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

7.4/10

"I don't know how World War Three will be fought," famously said Albert Einstein , "but I do know that World War Four will be fought with sticks and stones."

the Day After was a television event in 1983 and we watched as the effects of a nuclear war would have a devastating impact on humanity that it is unlikely to recover from for a very long time. It's a little slow to get started as we are introduced to the various characters, but once those bombs detonate it becomes a nightmare, especially when we witness being vaporized where they stood-they are the lucky ones. For those who survive the initial attack it is a hellish world where survival surpasses all other impulses. The film might have been more effective had it not cast so many familiar actors-it becomes very distracting after a while. A year after this film was released came the British version of the same story but it is vastly more frightening. I watched it recently and will never watch it again-that's how freaked out I was and it took days to get over it. The Day After suffers for its big names, big budget, and big effects. But it still has many good aspects and tries to show a world following these events.

If you think this movie's theme is outdated, think again. The Doomsday Clock has moved ahead three times since the end of the Cold War. From a press release: "Chicago, February 27, 2002: Today, the Board of Directors of the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists moves the minute hand of the `Doomsday Clock,' the symbol of nuclear danger, from nine to seven minutes to midnight, the same setting at which the clock debuted 55 years ago. Since the end of the Cold War in 1991, this is the third time the hand has moved forward."

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

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

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

I wish we had more movies like this, and like _Traffic_, that bring painful realities to life and make people think.

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!

Back in the 1980s, this movie was a true horror movie, boldly showing a Hollywood version of what a nuclear war and its direct aftermath would be like. How the people would be afterwards, the sickness, injuries and hopelessness along with the violence was vastly toned down in this movie, especially since it was shown on network TV back then. It is too bad that the reality and horror wasn't depicted as more realistic, bit they did the best that was allowed back then.

After much of the things I've seen in the movies now (in 2024,) The Day After pales in comparison. It has not really aged very well, especially since it has not shown the true reality that humankind is capable of doing to each other. The only reason I am giving it a 7/10 is because of how I remember how horrified everyone was back when it first aired on network TV in 1983. I suppose its more of a nostalgic rating than an actual one, but it is my choice and my decision to be able to do so.

Either way, I still feel that it is a historic movie, one that everyone should watch at least once, probably in high school, just to see a toned-down version of what could happen should nuclear war ever truly happens.

A lot of negative ink has been given over the years to "The Day After". People say it is either too harsh, or too soft. People say it is too "sentimental" and is just a soap opera hiding behind a disaster film front. They say it is "unrealistic".

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

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

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

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

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

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

The first half of the movie is way too long. All it establishes is that eastern Kansas has normal folks living their daily lives there. It is all quite well done, but contributes nothing. Most of it could have been shortened. Having been in the Army in 1961 when access to Berlin was closed by the Russians, this movie had some significance to me, but they overstated and belabored the issues. There was way too much of a soap opera taking up valuable screen time. Even when a plot, or at least a story line developed, things took way too long and there was way too much melodrama. This movie has very little content and only one message which took way too long to deliver.