Good movie but grossly overrated

I like movies that are aware of what they are selling... without [any] greater aspirations than to make people laugh and that's it.

A movie that not only functions as a solid scarefest but a razor-sharp satire.

A clunky actioner with a handful of cool moments.

"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.

British actor Michael Caine (who has a bit role in this movie) once said that a problem with the British film industry is that instead of making "moving pictures" like the Americans often make, British filmmakers quite often make "talking pictures". He added that sometimes it gets worse, with some British films more or less being "illustrated radio".Well, "The Day the Earth Caught Fire" is not illustrated radio, but for a large part it could be considered a "talking picture". After an admittedly interesting opening, the next hour or so of the movie is quite slow and talky. While it does feel like a more realistic take on a (slowly!) building crisis, I think some people will be severely bored by this section of the movie. An American movie would have thrown in some excitement and some more special effect sequences to make sure the first hour of the movie would hold the audience's attention. Personally, I wasn't really bored by this first hour, but I admit it sure seemed to be padded out at times.The last half hour does pick up considerably, adding action, tension, and some pretty good special effects. Then there is an ending (which I won't reveal) that I'm sure will frustrate some viewers. I personally didn't mind the ending that much - it was another feature about the movie that made it interesting and unlike so many Hollywood disaster films. But I'm not everybody. While I did kind of like the movie as a whole, I can see some people really hating it. I would suggest you read more about the movie before deciding whether to see it or not. Each to his own taste.

The Earth's climate is heating up--and humans have to figure out how to cope with it.The movie was made in 1960, at the height of the Cold War--so in the movie, nuclear weapons, rather than greenhouse gases, are the culprit. But most of what you see transpiring could happen just as easily as the greenhouse effect increases. (Someone could really do a superb remake of this movie today, blaming CO2 instead of nukes.) In this movie, there are no jaw-dropping special effects, just ordinary folks struggling to cope with the biggest challenge humanity has ever faced. As seen through the eyes of newspaper reporters, who report the facts to their readers--and try to figure out what it all means.A taut script, excellent acting, taut direction, good characterizations, and docudrama-like realism all keep the tension at a high level.

Simultaneous nuclear testing at the North and South poles throws the Earth off its axis and careering into the Sun. The only way to prevent annihilation is for the world's antagonistic superpowers to get together and detonate four more nuclear bombs to try and put the Earth back on track. The events surrounding all this are seen through the eyes of London journalists Stenning (Edward Judd, THE FIRST MEN IN THE MOON) and Maguire (Leo McKern, RUMPOLE OF THE BAILEY, THE PRISONER). Steamy romantic interest is provided by normally clean-cut Disney girl Janet Munro (DARBY O'GILL AND THE LITTLE PEOPLE) as the Government employee who innocently stumbles upon the terrifying truth the Government is trying to suppress. Temperatures rise in more ways than one as we are led to an ambiguous but entirely appropriate finale.This is an atmospheric character driven drama and the performances are solid throughout, particularly from McKern as a dependable but gruff science reporter, and Judd, in his first starring role, comes across so well not only as the hard drinking, brash but charming reporter but also in his light romantic comedy scenes with Munro that it's a wonder his career never amounted to much after this. The production is brisk and very slick and the minimal SFX by Les Bowie that graphically illustrate the bizarre climatic changes resulting from the rising temperature, in particular the River Thames drying out, belie the low budget director Guest had at his disposal. Stock footage is also used seamlessly and effectively, including some from THE QUATERMASS EXPERIMENT, also directed by Guest.The film is also important in its almost documentary style record of London's newspaper industry of the time. Its location shooting in the offices of the Daily Express in London's famous Fleet Street wonderfully, and authentically, captures a bustling bygone age and even has then ex-Daily Express editor Arthur Christiansen portraying the editor. It's no surprise that Christiansen was also technical adviser on the film.Also, keep your eyes peeled for a very young Michael Caine as a British Bobby directing traffic through the heat induced London fog.Highly recommended.