The Day the World Ended

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")

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.

There are some noteworthy names and familiar faces involved here, not least effects maestro Stan Winston. While Terence Gross isn't otherwise known to me, I did quite enjoy his 2000 feature 'Hotel Splendide,' which boasted outstanding, fanciful aesthetics and dark humor. How might all these folks and the anticipated creature effects fare in a TV movie - a medium not generally well known for high quality, or originality?

Well. Uh. The writing sure is heavy-handed, isn't it? And it sure does rely on tropes and ideas so well-worn that we're well past beating a dead horse and entering the territory of "pulverizing the dead horse's bones one stroke at a time." Big city woman in a small town; small town peculiar, and unfriendly to strangers; small town unfriendly to modern medicine, science, or social ideations, including the great mysterious discipline of "Psychology." Adults being abuse to young kid; young kid expected to conform to all adult expectations, and being bullied and treated different. Aliens, monsters, supernatural/unnatural something or other; obligatory, gratuitous "creepy" imagery and sequences; the big city woman newcomer is sure to find out what's going on and connect it to this one specific kid that's different. Characters making abjectly poor decisions. And so on, and so on.

It's not that 'The day the world ended' is specifically bad. It's that the flick altogether gives away at least half of its plot within the first third, and that in every last capacity, we've effectively seen this before. Every idea in the writing has been employed countless times. Every thought in Gross' direction can be plucked from any of countless genre pieces - theatrical release and TV movie alike - from the better part of at least thirty years. Same for the editing, and the cinematography, and the music; the actors give decent performances, but sometimes they are guided into acting that's downright ham-fisted, or at least just unremarkable. From the beginning this is a title that we can "watch" rather passively, without actively engaging, and that only becomes more true as the minutes tick by. That's fine, I suppose, but if that's the type of viewing experience being offered, then we don't have much reason to bother in the first place, do we?

I do appreciate Winston's effects. While I'm usually of the mind that horror should suggest more than show - keeping the shock as a surprise - in this instance I wonder if it wouldn't have been better if we'd seen a lot more of the creature a lot sooner. I say this because with the picture being so roundly tried and true, and so readily revealing of its story, the minutes start to drag on. The pacing is fine in and of itself, but if we were sitting to watch ninety minutes of actors reciting the Latin alphabet, then the result would suffer in the same way this does with its very common notions. In turn, for whatever mild entertainment 'The day the world ended' has to offer, it's arguably just as true that the viewing experience is a bit of a chore.

When you get down to it this is suitably passable to whittle away some time on a quiet day. Maybe that's all it needs to be. Keep your expectations in check, and definitely don't go out of your way for it, but so long as you know what you're getting into - and how could you not? - then there are worse ways to spend your time. Take that as you will.

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

Horror film finds a killer alien, who is just misunderstood, devouring people. A school psychologist (Nastassja Kinski) investigates the death of a student's mother and finds the boy (Bobby Edner) believes he is the son of the being. His earthling father (Randy Quaid) is also a doctor who has the boy in his care and holds that it is all in the boy's imagination...or is it? A good cast and an original premise high-light this mediocre made-for-TV monster flick. The creature effects aren't bad but the film generally lacks tension, suspense and gore and is rather predictable despite a good, well-written finale and adequate direction from Terence Gross. Interestingly, the title has absolutely nothing to do with the film (Not to mention the fact that this movie is completely unrelated to the 1956 original Roger Corman film barring the same name!). Check out the "face-skinning scene for some hilariously bad effects. 4.5/10.