Wordiezett So much average

Micitype Pretty Good

StyleSk8r At first rather annoying in its heavy emphasis on reenactments, this movie ultimately proves fascinating, simply because the complicated, highly dramatic tale it tells still almost defies belief.

Kimball Exactly the movie you think it is, but not the movie you want it to be.

Wizard-8 With a sci-fi movie from this era, it's not really fair to compare it to sci-fi movies from modern days. But I had to admit to myself that a more modern take on this movie's idea would probably run a lot better. Actually, the movie gets to a pretty good start, leaping right into the story and setting up the situation in less time than even some modern movies might take. However, after the promising beginning, things start to slowly go downhill - with emphasis on the word "slow". Though the movie is only about 63 minutes long, it feels much longer. One reason is that there is too much talk and not enough action or tension. The low budget is probably the reason for this, and while they try to liven things up with ample stock footage, it makes the whole enterprise feel cheaper than it actually was. I've seen a lot worse sci-fi movies from this era, but in the end the only people who would probably appreciate this movie would be die hard fans of old school science fiction cinema.

Scott LeBrun A cutting edge scientist, Dr. David Conway (William Leslie) has developed a machine that he hopes can predict when earthquakes are going to occur. It works quite well, as we shall see, and a series of quakes happen which get progressively worse. Conway and his loyal assistant, Laura "Hutch" Hutchinson (Kathryn Grant), find that the culprit responsible is a previously unknown element with very explosive potential. The race is then on to solve the problem before the title disaster can take place.One might say that the budget for this modestly entertaining B picture is ultimately too low for its ambitions, but director Fred F. Sears ("Earth vs. the Flying Saucers") succeeds in crafting some tension. Much use is made of what is presumably stock footage, adding to the scope of the action (not to mention the running time, which is very short anyway). The "underground" sets and props aren't exactly convincing, but they don't distract too much from the fun. The fairly neat premise is admittedly somewhat close to that in the Universal production "The Monolith Monsters".A decent bunch of actors does help matters. Leslie isn't terribly expressive, but he's reasonably likable, and it's very easy to watch the young Ms. Grant, who's incredibly cute. Co- starring are Tristram Coffin as the dedicated Dr. Ellis Morton, Raymond Greenleaf as the governor who learns his lesson after failing to take Conway and Morton seriously, and Paul Savage as the curious and engaging Ranger Kirk.Passable special effects, and a rather amusing problem solving finale, help this to kill 64 minutes pleasantly.Six out of 10.

Uriah43 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.

captainapache If you're looking at the reviews for Night the World Exploded, you are probably already a hopeless 50's sci-fi addict. But it's OK, you're in good company.This is actually a pretty engaging film that may hold up to some repeated viewings. Although the props and sets are not as good as they could be, they still support a very interesting story with good production values and some very good B movie acting.I would actually recommend this film above The Unknown Terror and Flame Barrier. These two are probably better films with bigger budgets but have a very boring script with little to no action.Also, if you're into 'End of the World' flicks, don't miss Crack In The World - one of the best!!