Preposterous sci-fi trash in which a little boy believes himself a son of an alien. Based on this account, he waits for his 'alien' father returns to bring him back for another planet. Suddenly, a strange creature appears at the little town where the boy lives with an adopted father and starts to kill the inhabitants. The premise of this misfire could have rendered an acceptable film but the final result is ridiculous, boring and unbelievable. Just Miss Kinsky is a delight to see. I give this a 03 (three).
41 Reviews
Weird, pretentious but not entirely bad
manuel-pestalozzi5 May 2006
There are definitely too many references to other movies and story traditions in this flick. It starts like Stanley Kubrick's The Shining (the heroine driving a New Beetle yech!), it continues with dark humor like a novel by Kafka (heroine with a badly defined mission comes to a strange place and meets a bunch of strangely hostile stereotype comic book characters of uncertain authority), then there's a whiff of Twin Peaks (hints of sexual abuse of minors and general depravity in the backwoods), then in comes E.T. (minor bonds with extraterrestrial), then it turns out that minor's mother was regarded by the populace as a kind of a witch and was treated accordingly. On top of that, there is a clear reference to a 50ies horror B-movie. (Hence the confusing title which has nothing to do with the story told here).
The references in themselves are not really bad or a rip-off. However, it would have been more fun, had they tied all that stuff together in a more coherent, rigid and orderly fashion. The pairing of psychology and the supernatural clearly does not work here. I didn't manage to find out what story the movie wants to tell and I suspect its makers could never really make up their mind. This is a pity, as the cast is quite good. I hope Nastassja Kinski still has a long career ahead of her. Not only for her looks, but also because she really is a versatile actress who in my opinion still didn't get her share of good movie parts. Randy Quaid and Bobby Edner are equally convincing in their roles, within the apparent limits of the script. The same goes for the rest of the characters who are parodies or stereotypes.
The references in themselves are not really bad or a rip-off. However, it would have been more fun, had they tied all that stuff together in a more coherent, rigid and orderly fashion. The pairing of psychology and the supernatural clearly does not work here. I didn't manage to find out what story the movie wants to tell and I suspect its makers could never really make up their mind. This is a pity, as the cast is quite good. I hope Nastassja Kinski still has a long career ahead of her. Not only for her looks, but also because she really is a versatile actress who in my opinion still didn't get her share of good movie parts. Randy Quaid and Bobby Edner are equally convincing in their roles, within the apparent limits of the script. The same goes for the rest of the characters who are parodies or stereotypes.
Not to be confused with the original film of the same title
pundit-13 June 2005
Why the producers of this film chose to name this with the title they did is a mystery. This is not a post apocalyptic thriller nor is it about the end of the world in any way. A typical low budget low quality thriller about a young boy who comes to believe that he is the offspring of an alien creature that is terrorizing a small town in Nevada. He uncovers suppressed memories of his mother who was killed by the frightened townsfolk. She however turns out to be a rather pretty human female and not anything like the alien creature. Which raises some obvious questions. First how does this pretty human female end up meeting and making love to an alien being in order to produce a rather human looking kid,who has no resemblance at all to the extraterrestrial daddy? Also what is not explained is the real reason why the townsfolk killed the boy's mother. Supposedly the boy's mother like him had some psychic powers but that alone cannot explain why the narrow minded townsfolk went after and killed her. This is not exactly your intelligent cerebrally stimulating movie, but at least the acting of RAndy Quaid and the beautiful Natassia Kinski saves the film from being a total flop.
Big Title, Small Film
imprator17 August 2003
This is a 1950's science fiction B-movie remade for the noughties.
Some of the expected variations from a 50's movie are present - the injection of foul language, the obligatory sex scene and the emphasis placed very firmly on horror rather than sci-fi. There is also the predictable selection of nasty, unlikeable characters, a complete absence of fun, and a much-reduced level of excitement compared to the old films.
Unfortunately, one change that should have been evident - improved special effects - is entirely absent. The effects are not only very un-special, they are inferior to many of the most ordinary 1950's sci-fi movies.
Still, it's a somewhat entertaining film. Something to watch if you find yourself at a loose end and there's nothing else on TV that you want to see. It will keep you mildly interested for much of the runtime.
Just don't let the somewhat starry names of the leads (Randy Quaid and Nastassja Kinski) mislead you. This is a small film, with an uninspired central premise, adequately executed - no more.
Disappointing.
3/10
Some of the expected variations from a 50's movie are present - the injection of foul language, the obligatory sex scene and the emphasis placed very firmly on horror rather than sci-fi. There is also the predictable selection of nasty, unlikeable characters, a complete absence of fun, and a much-reduced level of excitement compared to the old films.
Unfortunately, one change that should have been evident - improved special effects - is entirely absent. The effects are not only very un-special, they are inferior to many of the most ordinary 1950's sci-fi movies.
Still, it's a somewhat entertaining film. Something to watch if you find yourself at a loose end and there's nothing else on TV that you want to see. It will keep you mildly interested for much of the runtime.
Just don't let the somewhat starry names of the leads (Randy Quaid and Nastassja Kinski) mislead you. This is a small film, with an uninspired central premise, adequately executed - no more.
Disappointing.
3/10
This movie is awful with the only plus being Nastassja Kinski.
fookoo3 August 2003
It seems like light years since "Tess." Nastassja Kinski is a very skilled actress whose resolve must have been sorely tested in the making of this movie. Although this movie is not likely to be seen by many viewers, Nastassja plays it straight with a high degree of professionalism, never overacting or becoming hysterical in her role. It seems that no matter the role, her acting skills always seem to be very economical with no excess or no under acting. In other words, she tailors her performance to the demands of the role, whether large or small. Not even a thoughtful Nastassja performance can salvage this turkey of a movie. The only other sterling performance is put on by the new Volkswagen bug. Nastassja and the VW are the only ones that emerge from this movie unscathed. Nastassja has put on a clinic on how to act in a lousy movie and that is the only redeeming quality of this movie.
Avoid.
weyrleader4724 July 2014
It wasn't the plot or the cast nor the (Aliens) nor the location I hated about this almost watchable movie.... It was lines like...
" Sometimes my dad gets so mad he doesn't really know who he's hurting" "But that's OK BC lots of dads are like that.. Right.?" Spoken by the child who blames himself for his moms death.
What was worse is that the woman treating him. AGREED. Sure its normal..
NO IT Isn't. Normal dads don't strip everything fun from their child's bedroom BC they think he was bad. And then blame the child..
Whoever wrote this script need psychological help...
" Sometimes my dad gets so mad he doesn't really know who he's hurting" "But that's OK BC lots of dads are like that.. Right.?" Spoken by the child who blames himself for his moms death.
What was worse is that the woman treating him. AGREED. Sure its normal..
NO IT Isn't. Normal dads don't strip everything fun from their child's bedroom BC they think he was bad. And then blame the child..
Whoever wrote this script need psychological help...
Yawn! WITH MAJOR SPOILERS
IOBdennis5 September 2002
Warning: Spoilers
This was definitely a made-for-TV horror flick, which means it's too good to be bad, but too bad to be good. Since it's a horror flick, it has to have some kind of an "angle" nowadays. And what could it be in this film?
Oh, I know! Name the movie after another horror flick, showing scenes from that earlier film inside this film, hey--and let's make the monster sort-a look like the original one, and what about story? Story? Oh, yeah. Gotta have a story, I guess. Well, let's not do a remake of the original film we're calling our film, let's think of something different. Let's make the kid think his daddy's the monster (oh, boy, is that a double entendre in this flick!). And let's end it with one of those close up shots made famous by Anthony Perkins in "Psycho". That should do it. No, no. Let's have a wacky off-the-main-roads town full of wacky hillbilly-types (isn't this a novel idea?) and wacky-type folks, such as a fat nurse who dresses and looks like Divine in this backwoods community (that's novel). Let's make her the elementary school nurse (now that's downright weird). Sounds good. You know, a town full of xenophobic psychos, or seemingly so, and people you'd expect to meet on the streets of Greenwich Village. Yeah, the town sheriff--let's make him a rube. Sounds good! You got some real weird stuff there as well as some stereotypes. Let's make the female lead a mousey type psychiatrist who talks in a stage whisper. Maybe someone in the discerning audience will wonder what her "story" is. And when she comes to town, they treat her like the weird outsider. (Well, maybe if she lives there long enough, she'll fit right in and look like the nurse?????) And what about some sex? Well, we'll throw that in somehow. Back to the story:
Let's have a kid think weird stuff, but let's make some of it real and some of it not real--maybe. Yeah, that's good, after all that's how kids are. And let's have another male lead, Randy Quaid, at least he can act. That makes this project legit. Enough said.
Oh, I know! Name the movie after another horror flick, showing scenes from that earlier film inside this film, hey--and let's make the monster sort-a look like the original one, and what about story? Story? Oh, yeah. Gotta have a story, I guess. Well, let's not do a remake of the original film we're calling our film, let's think of something different. Let's make the kid think his daddy's the monster (oh, boy, is that a double entendre in this flick!). And let's end it with one of those close up shots made famous by Anthony Perkins in "Psycho". That should do it. No, no. Let's have a wacky off-the-main-roads town full of wacky hillbilly-types (isn't this a novel idea?) and wacky-type folks, such as a fat nurse who dresses and looks like Divine in this backwoods community (that's novel). Let's make her the elementary school nurse (now that's downright weird). Sounds good. You know, a town full of xenophobic psychos, or seemingly so, and people you'd expect to meet on the streets of Greenwich Village. Yeah, the town sheriff--let's make him a rube. Sounds good! You got some real weird stuff there as well as some stereotypes. Let's make the female lead a mousey type psychiatrist who talks in a stage whisper. Maybe someone in the discerning audience will wonder what her "story" is. And when she comes to town, they treat her like the weird outsider. (Well, maybe if she lives there long enough, she'll fit right in and look like the nurse?????) And what about some sex? Well, we'll throw that in somehow. Back to the story:
Let's have a kid think weird stuff, but let's make some of it real and some of it not real--maybe. Yeah, that's good, after all that's how kids are. And let's have another male lead, Randy Quaid, at least he can act. That makes this project legit. Enough said.
Lame!
Torgo_Approves31 May 2006
Not much real "horror" to see here, but The Day the World Ended is a far more competently directed movie than the Z-grade trash I usually review, so I'm going to cut it some slack. What we have here is a very average supernatural movie with underused actors and a weak script.
The story follows a shrink, played by Natassja Kinski, who moves from NYC to some hillbilly village, where she meets standard-horror-movie-kid Ben (Bobby Edner), whom she takes into analysis. Randy Quaid disapproves. Stephen Tobolowsky shows up as Ben's headmaster who enjoys boning the overweight school nurse (WTF?). Seriously, I know Tobolowsky will star in anything, but what exactly was the point of this role? Why would he want it? He gets no memorable lines (and mind you Stephen can be extremely funny, read: Groundhog Day) and his character is an adult version of the teens from horror movies: he has sex, then he dies. So pointless.
Anyway, the "dramatic" scenes are overblown and the movie is randomly filmed in a jerky, uncomfortable matter, typical of made-for-TV movies. But the film held my attention and, being the bad-movie-buff that I am, I knew TV productions could be way worse than this.
The worst TV movie of all time has to be Airtight, by the way. This movie isn't very interesting, but not completely awful either.(r#28)
The story follows a shrink, played by Natassja Kinski, who moves from NYC to some hillbilly village, where she meets standard-horror-movie-kid Ben (Bobby Edner), whom she takes into analysis. Randy Quaid disapproves. Stephen Tobolowsky shows up as Ben's headmaster who enjoys boning the overweight school nurse (WTF?). Seriously, I know Tobolowsky will star in anything, but what exactly was the point of this role? Why would he want it? He gets no memorable lines (and mind you Stephen can be extremely funny, read: Groundhog Day) and his character is an adult version of the teens from horror movies: he has sex, then he dies. So pointless.
Anyway, the "dramatic" scenes are overblown and the movie is randomly filmed in a jerky, uncomfortable matter, typical of made-for-TV movies. But the film held my attention and, being the bad-movie-buff that I am, I knew TV productions could be way worse than this.
The worst TV movie of all time has to be Airtight, by the way. This movie isn't very interesting, but not completely awful either.(r#28)
Dull and derivative alien film has nothing to do with the '50s original
Leofwine_draca5 June 2016
THE DAY THE WORLD ENDED is another lame TV movie released as part of a Creature Features set of '50s remakes. I've yet to see one I liked! Just the other movies in the series, this bears no resemblance to the movie it's a remake of, and in addition it has absolutely nothing to do with the world ending. It's another run of the mill alien on the loose outing, complete with weird townsfolk, poor attempts at humour and a psychic kid. Somehow, some notable actors have been roped into this mess, including Nastassja Kinski (TO THE DEVIL A DAUGHTER) looking aged as the doctor heroine and Randy Quaid (INDEPENDENCE DAY) playing another weirdo, this time the stepfather from hell.
The film has the whole 'is the alien real or not?' thing going on but it's so mundane, routine and downright boring that you end up not caring. The cast give bizarre, non-serious performances which takes away from any dramatic tension that might have been built as a result of their attitudes. The alien in the woods stuff has been done to death and close-up shots of the extraterrestrial's teeth have been ripped off from ALIENS. I'll admit that there's one decent set piece, a ferocious encounter in a toilet, but it's not worth watching the film just to see that. The best action would be go and watch some of the ORIGINAL '50s creature features like IT! THE TERROR FROM BEYOND SPACE instead just to see how fun and campy they are in comparison to this lacklustre cash-in.
The film has the whole 'is the alien real or not?' thing going on but it's so mundane, routine and downright boring that you end up not caring. The cast give bizarre, non-serious performances which takes away from any dramatic tension that might have been built as a result of their attitudes. The alien in the woods stuff has been done to death and close-up shots of the extraterrestrial's teeth have been ripped off from ALIENS. I'll admit that there's one decent set piece, a ferocious encounter in a toilet, but it's not worth watching the film just to see that. The best action would be go and watch some of the ORIGINAL '50s creature features like IT! THE TERROR FROM BEYOND SPACE instead just to see how fun and campy they are in comparison to this lacklustre cash-in.
No masterpiece, but still creepy fun...holds interest, and a mature cast
hippiedj21 May 2004
Yes, I'm giving a higher mark to this film. There are several things that make this an above-par effort. The story will hold your interest, the cast is mature and the acting is with enough conviction. It gives a nice B-movie feel without resorting to bad CGI effects for a creature.
The Day The World Ended has the classic cliché elements for a perfect B flick: a mysterious misunderstood child, a town with a secret, and an alien (or IS it?). While not a direct remake of the 1956 film of the same title, it utilizes the original film by showing segments on a TV seen within the story and showing that VHS video box cover as part of the child's interest in aliens. High production values combined with B movie flair work just enough to be passable entertainment for some, but if you enjoy the *wink-wink* of its intended fun, it comes out a winner. It has the look and feel of a decent X-Files episode with the more psychological horror elements of the newer Outer Limits. That's not bad at all, considering.
Younger audiences may not give this a chance as the cast (except for the child) is well over 40, but I welcomed that element gladly as the older classic sci-fi/horror films always used a mature cast as well. They cast who would work well with the story instead of who was young and hot at the moment. By casting the way they did, this film will hold up better in years to come. Choosing a teen-looking cast would obviously date it when those stars have faded from the spotlight. Randy Quaid and Nastassia Kinski both give convincing performances, and Stephen Toblowsky adds just enough humor to his role as the principal.
The creature itself is hit-or-miss: in some scenes it looks fine, in others it doesn't. But the fact that it was actually part person/puppet/mechanics helps a lot even if it's not entirely convincing, as these days too many films just use computer animation which becomes distracting like watching cheap animation mixed in with live action.
Yes, this is a B movie. But it's a fun one, just like the old classics of its genre but with a bit more cussing and violence. Don't let the R rating keep you back on that part, as it's not gratuitous and just in the right doses. As for the MPAA's warning of a "sex scene"...it's so brief, rather awkward, and basically humorous that it's not even worth fretting over. Otherwise, those looking for sex and breasts better look elsewhere, this film concentrates on the story and its stronger psychological horror.
Those who are collectors of -- and particularly of ones that are homages to -- old B films will be quite satisfied and not worry that the DVD has just the basics to offer, plus some inside views from Stan Winston and Shane Mahan on a commentary. Others just looking to pass the time might not find the price worth it. I personally think this one will be one that years from now will still entertain. It's good enough, smart enough, and doggone it -- just creepy enough that people might like it. I know I've enjoyed this one a heck of a lot more than the most recently hyped theatrical blockbuster yawners, so give this one a try with a big bowl of popcorn and enjoy! Don't have extreme expectations and you'll be fine!
The Day The World Ended has the classic cliché elements for a perfect B flick: a mysterious misunderstood child, a town with a secret, and an alien (or IS it?). While not a direct remake of the 1956 film of the same title, it utilizes the original film by showing segments on a TV seen within the story and showing that VHS video box cover as part of the child's interest in aliens. High production values combined with B movie flair work just enough to be passable entertainment for some, but if you enjoy the *wink-wink* of its intended fun, it comes out a winner. It has the look and feel of a decent X-Files episode with the more psychological horror elements of the newer Outer Limits. That's not bad at all, considering.
Younger audiences may not give this a chance as the cast (except for the child) is well over 40, but I welcomed that element gladly as the older classic sci-fi/horror films always used a mature cast as well. They cast who would work well with the story instead of who was young and hot at the moment. By casting the way they did, this film will hold up better in years to come. Choosing a teen-looking cast would obviously date it when those stars have faded from the spotlight. Randy Quaid and Nastassia Kinski both give convincing performances, and Stephen Toblowsky adds just enough humor to his role as the principal.
The creature itself is hit-or-miss: in some scenes it looks fine, in others it doesn't. But the fact that it was actually part person/puppet/mechanics helps a lot even if it's not entirely convincing, as these days too many films just use computer animation which becomes distracting like watching cheap animation mixed in with live action.
Yes, this is a B movie. But it's a fun one, just like the old classics of its genre but with a bit more cussing and violence. Don't let the R rating keep you back on that part, as it's not gratuitous and just in the right doses. As for the MPAA's warning of a "sex scene"...it's so brief, rather awkward, and basically humorous that it's not even worth fretting over. Otherwise, those looking for sex and breasts better look elsewhere, this film concentrates on the story and its stronger psychological horror.
Those who are collectors of -- and particularly of ones that are homages to -- old B films will be quite satisfied and not worry that the DVD has just the basics to offer, plus some inside views from Stan Winston and Shane Mahan on a commentary. Others just looking to pass the time might not find the price worth it. I personally think this one will be one that years from now will still entertain. It's good enough, smart enough, and doggone it -- just creepy enough that people might like it. I know I've enjoyed this one a heck of a lot more than the most recently hyped theatrical blockbuster yawners, so give this one a try with a big bowl of popcorn and enjoy! Don't have extreme expectations and you'll be fine!
Warning: Does not deliver what it promises!
breno_bacci30 January 2008
Warning: Spoilers
Yes, this is true. Not actually spoilers here, but I've checked that box over there just in case...
It's NOT about the end of the world. It's not even close to that. The only reason I've wasted 1 hour and a half watching it was because of the title... Well, maybe because of Natassja, too...
Anyways, I've been checking my Vote History to see if it was worth anything more than an 1 out of 10, and IT'S NOT! Seriously, the only thing I could think of while I was reading the credits in the end was: - Oh my! Natassja and Randy are probably cocaine-addicts and HAD to do this movie in order to pay some debts with their dealers...
What other reason would such good actors have to be in such a terrible movie like this?
It's NOT about the end of the world. It's not even close to that. The only reason I've wasted 1 hour and a half watching it was because of the title... Well, maybe because of Natassja, too...
Anyways, I've been checking my Vote History to see if it was worth anything more than an 1 out of 10, and IT'S NOT! Seriously, the only thing I could think of while I was reading the credits in the end was: - Oh my! Natassja and Randy are probably cocaine-addicts and HAD to do this movie in order to pay some debts with their dealers...
What other reason would such good actors have to be in such a terrible movie like this?
An interesting play on the child mind
Wyrmis23 November 2001
This is one of those horror movies in a similar vain as some of Stephen King's books; in which the focus of the movie is as much supernatural terror as childhood trauma. This movie centers around an "exceptional" boy and the thing he witnessed 5 years ago. A new therapist for the school district shows up and immediately becomes drawn to the kid. Over the next hour and some minutes, she learns what it is that happened and must aid the boy as events unfold.
This movie has a lot of standard horror cliches: the shadowy creature, the town secret, the pained kid, the outsider, the small town freakiness. It plays them all well, but seems for the most part to fall back upon them instead of come up with anything significant. The movie is not one that will make jump out of your seat, but you will stay interested throughout the most of it.
I give it 8 out of 10, the only problem I have with the movie is the ending...a little bit too "clip-art from the big book of horror movie endings" for my taste....but at least it wraps up one or two things.
This movie has a lot of standard horror cliches: the shadowy creature, the town secret, the pained kid, the outsider, the small town freakiness. It plays them all well, but seems for the most part to fall back upon them instead of come up with anything significant. The movie is not one that will make jump out of your seat, but you will stay interested throughout the most of it.
I give it 8 out of 10, the only problem I have with the movie is the ending...a little bit too "clip-art from the big book of horror movie endings" for my taste....but at least it wraps up one or two things.
Good grade B fun
OMontalvo29 May 2005
Warning: Spoilers
When I decided to watch this movie, I expected it to be bad. After all, Randy Quaid was in it. But I was pleasantly surprised; it was actually decent.
The story begins when a New York Therapist, Dr. Jennifer Stillman (Nastassja Kinsky), goes to live in a small town in the mountains and work as a school psychiatrist. The people of the town seem xenophobic and treat her with disdain. She meets a dejected boy, Benjamin James McCann (Bobby Edner), who is mistreated by both the other children in school and by the adults of the town. The boy is obsessed with science fiction aliens and likes to watch old alien horror movies. Dr. Stillman takes a liking to him, but when she tries to help him, the boys father, Dr. Michael McCann (Randy Quaid) is against her even talking to him. Things start to take a turn for the worse when Dr. Stillman tries to get Benjamin to remember his dead mother, and people in town start to die.
Bobby Edner is very good in this role. There is a combination of vulnerability and anger that he manages very well. Both Quaid's and Kinsky's performances were good but not exceptional. The supporting cast was decent as was the directing. The plot was a little predictable and too much information is given too early. The monster was appropriately cheesy, and actually better than I expected. There were a couple of inconsistencies in the plot, but I had expected more. The pacing was good and the story kept moving.
This is not a jump out of your seat horror film. It's paced a little slower, allowing Edner to fill out his character. The plot reminded me a little of the old Twilight Zone episode "It's a Good Life".
Definitely a movie to watch if you are into grade B horror films, otherwise you can probably pass.
The story begins when a New York Therapist, Dr. Jennifer Stillman (Nastassja Kinsky), goes to live in a small town in the mountains and work as a school psychiatrist. The people of the town seem xenophobic and treat her with disdain. She meets a dejected boy, Benjamin James McCann (Bobby Edner), who is mistreated by both the other children in school and by the adults of the town. The boy is obsessed with science fiction aliens and likes to watch old alien horror movies. Dr. Stillman takes a liking to him, but when she tries to help him, the boys father, Dr. Michael McCann (Randy Quaid) is against her even talking to him. Things start to take a turn for the worse when Dr. Stillman tries to get Benjamin to remember his dead mother, and people in town start to die.
Bobby Edner is very good in this role. There is a combination of vulnerability and anger that he manages very well. Both Quaid's and Kinsky's performances were good but not exceptional. The supporting cast was decent as was the directing. The plot was a little predictable and too much information is given too early. The monster was appropriately cheesy, and actually better than I expected. There were a couple of inconsistencies in the plot, but I had expected more. The pacing was good and the story kept moving.
This is not a jump out of your seat horror film. It's paced a little slower, allowing Edner to fill out his character. The plot reminded me a little of the old Twilight Zone episode "It's a Good Life".
Definitely a movie to watch if you are into grade B horror films, otherwise you can probably pass.
Could it get any worse...???
bluejlovefox10 September 2012
Warning: Spoilers
this is one hell of a movie...and talking about hell literally!! The title is misleading and it has nothing to do with the end of the world. I wasted 1 hour of my life since I saw the 3/4 of the movie on fast forward. The story is a childish science fiction b movie. The plot is silly and the effects are for kids. It is really a low budget production. The acting is even worse. They all act like they play in a Hollywood blockbuster... Do yourself a favor and do something else instead of watching this one! I try to find a reason why I saw it till the end, and I can only say that every second passed I hoped for something different or a big twist... I have never written such an awful critic and I love movies, but I hate it when they mislead the public.
I beg you Jesus, strike me blind so I may never see this again.
syfodyas6 November 2002
Okay, this movie is awful. I don't mean good awful, or funny awful or anything like that. I mean awful awful. Like, this is what's playing in the lobby at HELL, awful. No good special effects, sub par acting to say the least, and a plot that makes taking a dump feel like an intellectual activity. For the love of all things holy do not watch this movie....we all need to be very careful not to encourage anyone to think that this movie may be good in any way, shape or form. Use a buddy system if you have to. Every time you think of watching this movie call your buddy and he/she will come over and shoot you in the eyes with a high powered pellet gun until you change your mind.
PLEASE IMDB!! POST THIS!! THE WORLD NEEDS TO KNOW ABOUT THIS MOVIE!
Save yourself the torment, watch Howard the Duck instead!!
PLEASE IMDB!! POST THIS!! THE WORLD NEEDS TO KNOW ABOUT THIS MOVIE!
Save yourself the torment, watch Howard the Duck instead!!
I wish I could round up the writers and...
erotic_Wyter4 November 2007
Warning: Spoilers
I am only giving this movie a 1 out of 10 because I can't give it a minus 10! I am sorry, when it comes to scary movie, I am the BIGGEST chicken ever but this movie didn't even make me go eep! This movie is so horrible. The only reason why I kept watching it was because I was thinking "there is no way this movie can get any worse" but I was wrong! Even after I found out that I was wrong, I kept on watching after that was because I wanted to see how much worse it could get. The story had promise but they did nothing with it! I think a bunch of people just got together and said "people will watch anything. Lets stick Randy Quaid, Natassa in a movie together and just to push it lets stuck a weird looking kid...make that Bobby Edner and name it something really cool!" And why in the hell did they write the same question over and over being said by the same person...
Predictability is the word that comes to mind... this movie is a train-wreck and the people who thought it was a good idea to make it need some serious help.
If I could give you advise its "STAY AWAY FROM THIS MOVIE!" after you watch it you're going to wish the world had ended...
Predictability is the word that comes to mind... this movie is a train-wreck and the people who thought it was a good idea to make it need some serious help.
If I could give you advise its "STAY AWAY FROM THIS MOVIE!" after you watch it you're going to wish the world had ended...
For specialized tastes. Very specialized.
rmax3048236 August 2007
Warning: Spoilers
Nastassja Kinsky is easy to look at, and the performances aren't bad, and that's about it.
Now, if you're going to make a science fiction movie about some weird stuff going on in town, some conspiracy or secret, there are a couple of ways of approaching it. You always begin with a normal person, as this movie does with Kinsky. And there should be someone else around who behaves normally, so that the hero or heroine can have someone to talk things over with. Katherine Ross, in "The Stepford Wives", has the bosomy, candid Paula Prentice to talk to, until Prentice became part of the problem instead of the solution.
Alternatively you can have the entire town act normal until its residents one by one become creepy, or a group become, let's say, unusual. See "Invasion of the Body Snatchers" for an example of the first kind, and "Village of the Damned" for the second.
In this remake, the entire town resents Kinsky from the moment she first drives into it, even before they can possibly know who she is. Actually, she's the school's resident psychological counselor, which puts her in the position of being nosy and turning the town's resentments into full-blown hatred. We know she's resented from the first few minutes of the movie when the director has carelessly positioned the extras so that they all stand with their hands on their hips, glaring at her.
Does she get help from the school's nurse? How about the school's principal? Are you kidding? This raises an interesting question right off the bat. If no one in the town wants a snoopy school psychologist, then why did they hire one? I have it on now in the other room. Somehow it was mistakenly included in a box of DVDs someone sent me. I won't watch it until the end because I don't care what the town's secret is. I imagine, though, that, since this is a remake of a cheap science fiction film from the 50s, and because the cover tells me so, that a monster appears courtesy of special effects. The appearance of a modern CGI monster is, I take it, the chief reason for the appearance of the movie. I can't think of any other reason.
Who would enjoy it? I think lots of kids around 10 or 12 would get a kick out of this undemanding and commercial pap. And, meaning no disrespect, I imagine some adults with a taste for cheaply done science fiction movies with slobbering creatures killing off characters would also enjoy it.
Not my cup of tea though. Not a soupçon of originality. Can't speak for everyone.
Now, if you're going to make a science fiction movie about some weird stuff going on in town, some conspiracy or secret, there are a couple of ways of approaching it. You always begin with a normal person, as this movie does with Kinsky. And there should be someone else around who behaves normally, so that the hero or heroine can have someone to talk things over with. Katherine Ross, in "The Stepford Wives", has the bosomy, candid Paula Prentice to talk to, until Prentice became part of the problem instead of the solution.
Alternatively you can have the entire town act normal until its residents one by one become creepy, or a group become, let's say, unusual. See "Invasion of the Body Snatchers" for an example of the first kind, and "Village of the Damned" for the second.
In this remake, the entire town resents Kinsky from the moment she first drives into it, even before they can possibly know who she is. Actually, she's the school's resident psychological counselor, which puts her in the position of being nosy and turning the town's resentments into full-blown hatred. We know she's resented from the first few minutes of the movie when the director has carelessly positioned the extras so that they all stand with their hands on their hips, glaring at her.
Does she get help from the school's nurse? How about the school's principal? Are you kidding? This raises an interesting question right off the bat. If no one in the town wants a snoopy school psychologist, then why did they hire one? I have it on now in the other room. Somehow it was mistakenly included in a box of DVDs someone sent me. I won't watch it until the end because I don't care what the town's secret is. I imagine, though, that, since this is a remake of a cheap science fiction film from the 50s, and because the cover tells me so, that a monster appears courtesy of special effects. The appearance of a modern CGI monster is, I take it, the chief reason for the appearance of the movie. I can't think of any other reason.
Who would enjoy it? I think lots of kids around 10 or 12 would get a kick out of this undemanding and commercial pap. And, meaning no disrespect, I imagine some adults with a taste for cheaply done science fiction movies with slobbering creatures killing off characters would also enjoy it.
Not my cup of tea though. Not a soupçon of originality. Can't speak for everyone.
Hmmmm...
Scars_Remain29 January 2008
I haven't seen the original version of "The Day the World Ended," but I hear this is a completely different story and everything. This movie is a pretty average made for TV flick that plays out like a Disney channel original movie, and then there are cuss words thrown in to remind you that what you're watching is actually rated R. It was fairly enjoyable.
Some of the acting is OK but most of the performances are pretty bad. The story is alright, and it had an unexpected twist which was a nice surprise, but nothing too special. The effects were great, I really liked the look of the alien. That's pretty much the gist of this one.
What we have here is an average Sci-Fi film with not much going for it other than some cool special effects. It's pretty good for a rainy day.
Some of the acting is OK but most of the performances are pretty bad. The story is alright, and it had an unexpected twist which was a nice surprise, but nothing too special. The effects were great, I really liked the look of the alien. That's pretty much the gist of this one.
What we have here is an average Sci-Fi film with not much going for it other than some cool special effects. It's pretty good for a rainy day.
Can it be today, please?
Coventry20 September 2006
The day the WORLD ended? Gee, isn't that a little too melodramatic? Since when do some mildly ominous events in a small town of hillbillies affect the existence of the entire world? Or maybe this is all just because this film is part of a series of TV-remakes of cheap & nearly forgotten Sci-Fi films, dating back to the 1950's. Roger Corman directed the original version of "The Day the World Ended" and it featured an entirely different storyline. The lame and overly child-friendly plot of this version revolves on a young boy who firmly believes that his real father is an alien. You'd believe him too, if you look at his childhood pictures. The school psychiatrist Dr. Stillman (portrayed by Nastassja Kinski who's not ageing very well, I must say) wishes to save him from the social isolation brought on by his father, but then there really does land a slimy alien in town! This is the first of the HBO's remakes I watched, but I'm already going to pass on the rest of them. It has absolutely nothing to offer, except for an adequate cast that deliver below-average acting performances. The rest is just pathetic. The script "borrows" ideas from several other movies, there's absolutely no suspense and the make-up & creature effects are downright laughable. The alien monster is identical to the one in Corman's original (as some kind of homage) but the old creature looked a lot more petrifying. This is simply a sad excuse for a horror film, exclusively intended for younger audiences that refuse to watch black & white cinema.
Very Disappointing
Theo Robertson14 June 2003
Warning: Spoilers
***** SPOILERS *****
I really enjoyed SHE CREATURE from the creature features series so I was looking forward to this instalment but I was so very disappointed with it . This is more or less a remake of XTRO . Okay maybe it`s not as bad as the British video nasty since it does make some sense but it`s still a cliched tale of a misunderstood alien boy who awaits the return of his father in a space ship . There`s few shocks to be had in this predictable tale and the only stomach churning scene involves that guy from MEMENTO having sex with a nurse . What`s stomach churning about that ? Well I`m not talking about Guy Pearce who played Lenny I`m talking about the guy who played Sammy , and the nurse is middle aged and must weigh about 280 pounds so it`s sick bags ahoy
I really enjoyed SHE CREATURE from the creature features series so I was looking forward to this instalment but I was so very disappointed with it . This is more or less a remake of XTRO . Okay maybe it`s not as bad as the British video nasty since it does make some sense but it`s still a cliched tale of a misunderstood alien boy who awaits the return of his father in a space ship . There`s few shocks to be had in this predictable tale and the only stomach churning scene involves that guy from MEMENTO having sex with a nurse . What`s stomach churning about that ? Well I`m not talking about Guy Pearce who played Lenny I`m talking about the guy who played Sammy , and the nurse is middle aged and must weigh about 280 pounds so it`s sick bags ahoy
A Surprisingly Good Plot to Remember the Movies from the 50's
claudio_carvalho10 July 2003
Dr. Jenniffer Stillman (the gorgeous Nastassja Kinski) is a school psychologist from N.Y. that moves to her new job in a small American town. There she will meet Benjamin James McCann (Bobby Edner), a boy with a powerful mind, and some strange citizens that live under the shadow of a mysterious event in the past. I am a great fan of those Universal Classic Monster movies from the 50's, such as 'The Creature from The Black Lagoon', 'The Wolf Man', 'Frankenstein', 'The Invisible Man' etc. 'The Day the World Ended' look like one of those movies from the 50's. It seems that the director and the screenplay writer wanted to honor those movies. Further, it could be used as a 'X-Files' episode. There are clichés, the special effects are very poor, but it has a charm. It is a Sci-Fi / Horror movie without explicit violence that entertains. It deserves to be watched. My vote is seven.
Title (Brazil): "O Dia Que o Mundo Acabou" ("The Day the World Ended")
Title (Brazil): "O Dia Que o Mundo Acabou" ("The Day the World Ended")
Not great but..
PessimisticGrace30 November 2003
.. Are people THAT afraid of an overweight nurse? I mean,
seriously, get over it!
No, it wasn't a great movie, but an overweight middle-aged nurse
isn't something to hate it for. There ARE such people in the world,
my friends. If the 15 second sex scene scared you that much, I
think YOU need to visit Kinski's shrink character. (Older, unpretty
people have sex. Deal with it. I bet you're the same people that
freaked over Anthony Hopkins doing a love scene in The Human
Stain.)
Definately not a great movie.. I kind of feel sorry for Quaid and
Kinski.. They're stuck in low-budget made-for-video films, despite
being pretty good actors.
I don't think it was bad enough to "shoot you with a pellet gun,"
though. That's a little overkill. There are a lot worse films.
I'd give it a 4 out of a 10. Despite not being a good film, I did watch
it all the way through. I wanted to see the ending, though some of
the middle was rather dull.
For alien movie lovers, I'd recommend War of the World (older
color version, with the aliens with the blinking lights and really
creepy hands) and It! The Creature (Thing?) from Outer Space.
4/10 stars
seriously, get over it!
No, it wasn't a great movie, but an overweight middle-aged nurse
isn't something to hate it for. There ARE such people in the world,
my friends. If the 15 second sex scene scared you that much, I
think YOU need to visit Kinski's shrink character. (Older, unpretty
people have sex. Deal with it. I bet you're the same people that
freaked over Anthony Hopkins doing a love scene in The Human
Stain.)
Definately not a great movie.. I kind of feel sorry for Quaid and
Kinski.. They're stuck in low-budget made-for-video films, despite
being pretty good actors.
I don't think it was bad enough to "shoot you with a pellet gun,"
though. That's a little overkill. There are a lot worse films.
I'd give it a 4 out of a 10. Despite not being a good film, I did watch
it all the way through. I wanted to see the ending, though some of
the middle was rather dull.
For alien movie lovers, I'd recommend War of the World (older
color version, with the aliens with the blinking lights and really
creepy hands) and It! The Creature (Thing?) from Outer Space.
4/10 stars
A clever re-imagining that's a lot of fun
rmurphy186427 November 2001
What better way to pay homage to an old spook film than by incorporating it into the mythos of a new tale? The fact that this film reworks DAY THE WORLD ENDED by having a child conjure the title beast after seeing the original movie is great idea. Incorporating some of that small town paranoia adds just the right amount of all-too-real horror and humanity. All and all, this is a cool flick that rises way above its cheesy name.
It is the message beneath
Andreas_N9 November 2005
Warning: Spoilers
Bobby Edner did a great job in here. I loved the way he projected his character's emotional confusion and how he dealt with his apparent alien heritage. How stirring is the scene when the alien monster approaches him by leaving a path of destruction and death behind it and young Bobby shyly whispers "Dad?" towards the creature? That's awesome. Despite a rather fine cast, the entire movie was an apparent cheap production and - to be very honest - the alien was a real shame. That's what happens to low-budget productions trying to create something beyond their financial capacity. The characters were shallow most of the time and the story did not develop in a too sophisticated manner. However, I liked the movie as a whole due to a) Bobby Edner, who just aced a very difficult and emotionally ambiguous role and b) the story, which had its good basic approaches nicely delivered and was interesting to follow. I'll award it with a 7 due to my personal preferences, though it normally is not to be rated above a solid 6.
starts as psychological B-horror then into F creature feature
SnoopyStyle3 September 2015
Dr. Jennifer Stillman (Nastassja Kinski) from NYC arrives in a small town to be the school psychologist. She takes an interest in the troubled boy Ben. He's haunted by his mother's death. His father Dr. Michael McCann (Randy Quaid) is probably not his biological father. Michael is hostile to Stillman's interest. Ben has horrifying visions and wonders if he has extraterrestrial origins.
This starts as a psychological mystery. It's low budget but holds a little bit of potential. Then it goes into creature feature territories. It still tries to do something out of the ordinary with it. However it doesn't work at all and the movie collapses.
This starts as a psychological mystery. It's low budget but holds a little bit of potential. Then it goes into creature feature territories. It still tries to do something out of the ordinary with it. However it doesn't work at all and the movie collapses.
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
