The Night the World Exploded

Well, I like this movie, and I don't care what the critics say. It's a low-budget "Monolith Monsters" in reverse, sort of. Unlike the Monoliths that grow explosively when wet, the rocks in NTWE explode when dry.

Yes, the props and sets are cheesy sometimes (the "Pressure Photometer" could use a few squirts of oil), but it's an interesting concept that makes an attempt to offer halfway logical scientific reasons for its premise, unlike the pure nonsense of more contemporary movies like "Independence Day", in which any appearance of logical reasoning is thrown out the window.

Unfortunately, there appears to have never been a studio release of this movie, either on VHS or DVD. Currently, one can find both formats on ebay, but they all seem to be copies of the same TV broadcast.

If you agree with me that this is a movie worth watching, post a reply on the Message Board (there's a link near the bottom of the NTWE main page) and let me know that I'm not alone.

Two seismologists by the name of "Dr. David Conway" (William Leslie) and "Dr. Ellis Morton" (Tristam Coffin) along with their pretty assistant "Laura 'Hutch' Hutchinson" (Kathryn Grant) have just produced a machine that can predict earthquakes. Unfortunately, the first earthquake it predicts is extremely catastrophic and it's followed by much larger ones. Soon the earth has reached a critical point and everything points to a new discovery called "Element 112" as the cause. But can anybody do anything about it? Rather than answer that question and possibly spoil the movie for those who haven't seen it I will just say that this was a satisfactory science-fiction movie for the most part. Obviously, being made in 1957 one shouldn't expect graphics quite as good as those produced today but for that particular time they weren't too bad. Likewise, the acting was adequate as well. All things considered then I suppose this movie is worth a look by fans of this genre and I rate it as average.

While "The Night the World Exploded" is a very low-budget film with no-name actors, it is enjoyable. It also manages to make a ridiculous plot seem plausible--and that is no small feat.

The film begins with a seismologist creating a new machine that would help them predict earthquakes. However, the equipment is either faulty OR the Earth is royally screwed!!! Soon, after the big quake, they discover a new element--#112. And here is where it gets crazy. There is a lot of it and the element is VERY explosive--so explosive that the planet may soon go kaboom! That is, unless they enact a crazy plan that just MIGHT work.

While this film offers few huge thrills, it works well. The miniature sets work well and the acting is good. Most importantly, the film is written well and will probably hold your attention.

Dr. David Conway (William Leslie), with the assistance of Laura "Hutch" Hutchinson (Kathryn Grant), is in a race to stop a series of earthquakes that threaten the entire world. It seems that a newly discovered element, Element 112, expands and explodes when dry and mixed with nitrogen. And, because of mining and oil exploration, Element 112 is making its way to the Earth's surface.

By no means is The Night the World Exploded a great film, but I found it reasonably entertaining. It's slow, lacks big-budget special effects, and the lead is a bit dry, but it's got something about it that worked for me. The sci-fi elements are presented believably enough to be effective. And there's some nice slow-burn suspense that's built throughout that worked on me. Other aspects that helped the film include a perky female lead in Kathryn Grant, real life disaster footage nicely blended into the film, and a short runtime.

I called William Leslie "dry", but it's not just him, it's his character also. I know his Dr Conway is a driven professional, but come on - how could not not see Hutch has feelings for him? It's not until the world is about to end that he pays any notice to her. What a dolt!

A 50's Sci Fi. Is it good? No. It's not good. There's far better sci fi even back in the 50's. It's a pretty short movie too. Short on length. Short on Story. Short on character development. Yeah I know I am stingy. 4/10.

And IMDB has now made it so a review has to have 600 characters before it can be entered. I really don't expect that to last very long because people are sure to complain about it. But until that happens I guess we have to expect reviews to be long winded and sometimes about absolutely nothing to do with the show in question.

It's really not even worth the time reviewing some of them.