Leofwine_draca
Hammer man Val Guest directed this predictable disaster movie, which has the same basic premise as NIGHT OF THE BIG HEAT, except on a much grander scale (as portrayed via some choice stock footage). In a way it's a throwback to the '50s atomic monster movies, as the disaster turns out to be the direct result of nuclear testing.On the plus side there is an intelligent script, which gives realistic impressions of the public's reaction to the news that they may only have days left to live (rioting breaks out in one area of London) and solid performances from Edward Judd as the dashing reporter hero and a youthful-looking Leo McKern (THE OMEN) as a stuffy but friendly newspaper editor. The realism and tension in this film is the best thing about it - but unfortunately, it sometimes becomes too realistic. I would have preferred a little bit more science fiction thrown in.Unfortunately the excitement is greatly diminished by a dull romance between Judd and Munro, which I could quite happily have done without. Romance has been done a million times before and this time was no different. Also, action fans should look elsewhere, as the only exciting sequence is one where Judd has to rescue his girlfriend from a group of water-crazy teenage delinquents, and one gets knocked down a lift shaft in a comic moment.There is some interesting (if cheap-looking) effects work from Les Bowie (also from the Hammer stable) to add considerably to things, but in the end the central premise is enough to carry the film through and it's an intelligent speculation of what could happen if we're not careful when dealing with Mother Nature.
MartinHafer
"The Day the Earth Caught Fire" is an intelligently made but incredibly depressing film. The Earth is screwed in this drama. It seems that the US and USSR simultaneously tested nuclear devices and there's been an unforeseen problem...the blasts have affected the Earth's axis. Only later do they realize that the Earth is also now slowly drifting towards the sun. The magnitude of this as well as the possible solution are only discussed late in the film. In between, you see the story unfolding from the viewpoint of a group of reporters. The overall effect is rather realistic as well as super-depressing. While other Earth in peril films have been made, this is earlier and more intelligently made than most. The film has a few minor problems related to special effects but considering when it was made and its budget, the film actually is remarkably good. Certainly not a feel-good movie but one that is very well presented. Some might hate the ending--I thought it quite appropriate and well done, though I did think the social chaos in the film was probably way understated if such a situation ever occurred. Not a crackpot or bug-eyed monster sort of sci-fi film, that's for sure.
writers_reign
Journeyman writer-director Val Guest puts a spin on the Boulting Brothers Seven Days To Noon in this London-in-Danger entry albeit more correct would be Earth-in-Danger. Nevertheless it's still the scientists carrying the can for the problems of mankind and in this case the scientists of two continents whose simultaneous nuclear experiments manage to tilt the earth off its axis and cause it to move inexorably toward the sun. Of course, as we all know, Rick's celebrated speech 'the problems of three people don't amount to a hill of beans ...' is pure malarky because it is precisely the problems of 'little people' that cinema attendees DO want to see, especially when these problems are played out against a canvas of imminent disaster. It took some doing but real-life newspaper editor proves more wooden than John Gregson, Laurence Harvey, Richard Pascoe, Michael Gough and their ilk combined. All in all still watchable.
spotlightne
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.
AD
