Si ce jour venait, ce serait la fin de chaque journée! Les effets d'un holocauste nucléaire dévastateur sur les habitants des petites villes de l'est du Kansas. Voici ce qu'aurait été la tro... Tout lireSi ce jour venait, ce serait la fin de chaque journée! Les effets d'un holocauste nucléaire dévastateur sur les habitants des petites villes de l'est du Kansas. Voici ce qu'aurait été la troisième guerre nucléaire!Si ce jour venait, ce serait la fin de chaque journée! Les effets d'un holocauste nucléaire dévastateur sur les habitants des petites villes de l'est du Kansas. Voici ce qu'aurait été la troisième guerre nucléaire!
- Réalisation
- Scénario
- Casting principal
- Récompensé par 2 Primetime Emmys
- 6 victoires et 11 nominations au total
- Stephen Klein
- (as Steven Guttenberg)
Avis à la une
So why is there any discussion of the differences? To debate the flaws and merits of one horror in many variations is pointless, for they are all important, all special and all as relavant today as they were when they were first created. Perhaps we have learned nothing?
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.
The critics say the film was not graphic enough (they prefer things like Threads) or too graphic (prefering more subtile films like Testament ). There is no need to be totally graphic and accurate in portraying the events. Yes, we know it would be worse. But the goal is not to gross everyone out. We want younger audiences to see the film too - and that would never happen with something like theads. Likewise, a mored emotional but action lacking film would not draw in the audiences. The purpose was to 'get the point accross' and I think it did that very successfully - bad acting, flubbed lines, stock footage and all. It showed enough of the circumstances surrounding the events for those who had some education in things could recognize issues and say,"Yes thats right" while not being overly graphic so that only adults could see it.
If you want to see an action movie about nuclear war or you want to see a touchy-feely emotional treatment of the losses due to war - this film is not for you. The purpose of this film is to show what nuclear war may be like (in a very superficial way) and to remind everyone that it must NEVER happen again. Back in the early 1980's with the Soviets under a rotating leadership of old hardliners and the US with Ronny talking smack - the threat was very real and the reality check this film delivers was needed. It doesn't play as well in the year 2002 - but you must remember when a film was made when you see it.
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.
Le saviez-vous
- AnecdotesThe program originally aired on November 20, 1983. It remains the most-watched TV movie in U.S. history. Estimates put the viewership at over 100 million Americans, with a Nielsen share of 62 percent.
- GaffesWhen Dr. Austin (Lin McCarthy) is explaining the effects of the electromagnetic pulse (EMP) from the nuclear blast, he says. "It's all theoretical. It's never happened before." In actuality, the United States detonated a 3.8 megaton warhead at an altitude of 50 miles, 1 August 1958, in the Operation Hardtack Teak shot nuclear test. This event caused unexpected communications disruption and damage to electrical equipment in an area that ranged between Hawaii and New Zealand. It was the first observation of the EMP effect.
- Citations
[intercontinental ballistic missiles are being fired]
Cynthia: What's going on?
Joe Huxley: Those are Minuteman missiles!
Cynthia: Like a test, sort of... like a warning?
Joe Huxley: [shakes his head, staring at the missiles in awe and disbelief] They're on their way to Russia. They take about 30 minutes to reach their target.
Aldo: So do theirs, right?
- Crédits fous[After movie has ended, before end credits.] The catastrophic events you have just witnessed are, in all likelihood, less severe than the destruction that would actually occur in the event of a full nuclear strike against the United States. It is hoped that the images of this film will inspire the nations of this earth, their peoples, and leaders to find the means to avert that fateful day.
- Versions alternativesThe rare laserdisc version (released by Image Entertainment in 1995) is advertised as being a director's cut. This version runs 127mins, is widescreen in its proper ratio of 1:75:1 and has a commentary track by director Nicholas Meyer. At the time of this release full versions of the film were not readily available. So it stands to chance this director's cut is actually the same as the current mgm dvd (US region 1) as far as content and running time goes, with the exception of the widescreen format and commentary track which so far has only be found on this laserdisc.
- ConnexionsEdited from Un tueur dans la foule (1976)