I have to laugh at the way come people with an axe of their own to grind have to cast this as some 'liberal propaganda' or 'communist sympathy' or whatever other nonsense such people are spouting in these reviews.
The film itself is...well, it's made in the early 1980s, and not on a great big budget. Some of the acting isn't the best, some of the blocking tends to look amateurish with the benefit of a quarter-century of new technology, and yeah, the special effects aren't going to seem real impressive to a generation that's seen so much more than was available then.
It's still a frightening, well-written, well-composed movie with a vital and valid point about the utter insanity of nuclear weapons. It's frightening and as close to 'real' as one could expect at that time. I really don't see this so-called "liberal" slant or "elitism" toward rural America. If you are so fortunate to have not grown up under the threat of "Mutually Assured Destruction" and myopic enough to think that the threat of nuclear war is now passed...well, I envy you in your ignorance. If all you can think to say about this fine movie is "the special effects suck," then I congratulate you on your uncanny ability to miss the point. The remark about Kennedy's "over-reaction" really made me laugh, given that historians of all political bent are in general agreement that if not for Kennedy's "over-reaction" - and my father was on one of those boats - the results may well have looked much like this film. Please, if you want someone to pat you on the back and tell you how clever you are, go troll MySpace or something.
If, on the other hand, you want to get a genuine feeling (or a trip down memory lane) for what it was like to live under the constant fear of nuclear war; to understand the blanket of fear that we all lived under at that time (and don't believe this nonsense about 'oh, the cold war was nearly over,' we sure didn't know that *then*); to understand the sense of melancholy, resigned distrust of our fumble-fingered "leaders" and why some of us have never been in a big hurry to go to war...take a look at this film. Yes it's dated. Yes some of the performances could have been better.
And yes, if you have anything approaching a soul or a sense of humanity, it will frighten and move you, regardless of whether "Threads" was a better film or the special effects "suck." Rated 10/10 because what the movie loses in performance quality and fancy CGI that didn't even exist 25 years ago, it more than makes up for in a perfectly-executed buildup to the event, and an unflinching look at how the crass self-absorption evidenced by some of these comments would play out in a real disaster.
The film itself is...well, it's made in the early 1980s, and not on a great big budget. Some of the acting isn't the best, some of the blocking tends to look amateurish with the benefit of a quarter-century of new technology, and yeah, the special effects aren't going to seem real impressive to a generation that's seen so much more than was available then.
It's still a frightening, well-written, well-composed movie with a vital and valid point about the utter insanity of nuclear weapons. It's frightening and as close to 'real' as one could expect at that time. I really don't see this so-called "liberal" slant or "elitism" toward rural America. If you are so fortunate to have not grown up under the threat of "Mutually Assured Destruction" and myopic enough to think that the threat of nuclear war is now passed...well, I envy you in your ignorance. If all you can think to say about this fine movie is "the special effects suck," then I congratulate you on your uncanny ability to miss the point. The remark about Kennedy's "over-reaction" really made me laugh, given that historians of all political bent are in general agreement that if not for Kennedy's "over-reaction" - and my father was on one of those boats - the results may well have looked much like this film. Please, if you want someone to pat you on the back and tell you how clever you are, go troll MySpace or something.
If, on the other hand, you want to get a genuine feeling (or a trip down memory lane) for what it was like to live under the constant fear of nuclear war; to understand the blanket of fear that we all lived under at that time (and don't believe this nonsense about 'oh, the cold war was nearly over,' we sure didn't know that *then*); to understand the sense of melancholy, resigned distrust of our fumble-fingered "leaders" and why some of us have never been in a big hurry to go to war...take a look at this film. Yes it's dated. Yes some of the performances could have been better.
And yes, if you have anything approaching a soul or a sense of humanity, it will frighten and move you, regardless of whether "Threads" was a better film or the special effects "suck." Rated 10/10 because what the movie loses in performance quality and fancy CGI that didn't even exist 25 years ago, it more than makes up for in a perfectly-executed buildup to the event, and an unflinching look at how the crass self-absorption evidenced by some of these comments would play out in a real disaster.
Tell Your Friends