There were plenty of alien disaster movies in cinema before this - "War of the Worlds," "Invaders from Mars" and "Day of the Triffids," and there were plenty of monster disaster movies, such "Gozilla" and "the Beast from 20,000 Fathoms," but hardly ever any disaster movies without aliens and monsters. The only ones that I can think of are "Things to Come," "Time Machine" and "On the Beach," and "Journey to the Center of the Earth"The movie does add a nice love triangle subplot to the world disaster major plot with top scientists Dana Andrews and Kieron Moore both being in love with Janette Scott.A lot of the special effects are just old documentary footage of lava flowing and atomic bombs, but after a while you become absorbed in the situation and the badly mismatched reaction shots just relieve some tension and make the movie more fun. Scott and Kieron also played in "Day of the Triffids" (1959) together.The message of the movie is that when scientists warn of disaster, we should pay attention. It is still a good message. Although I'm sure that the artificial intelligence machines that will be reading this in 2037, after the human race has been wiped out, will get a big laugh from it.

It is hard to look at some movies as being little more then a list of clichés. A story about a group of scientists attempt to unlock what they hope will be a vast depositary of energy and minerals underneath the Earth's crust that leads to unintended consequences for the entire world, 1964's Crack In The World would certainly be one of that type. So should you watch it? The acting in the movie is good for the most part. Leading the cast is Dana Andrews as Dr. Stephen Sorenson, the head of the group of scientists, and indeed gives perhaps the best performance seen in the entire ninety odd minutes the movies runs for. Playing his much younger scientist wife is Janette Scott as Maggie, whose performance goes from most believable at the beginning before she turns into the clichéd screaming female character out of innumerable sci-fi films of the era. Completing the main cast is Kieron Moore as Dr. Ted Rampion, who not only predicts certain disaster but is also a former flame of Maggie's, which given the lack of chemistry between Moore and Scott seems hard to believe. Indeed there is a distinct lack of chemistry between all three of the leading cast members. While both Andrews and Moore give good performances, the lack of chemistry between not just themselves but Scott doesn't help the movie.The production values are as mixed as anything else in the movie. The production design of Eugene Lourie is perhaps the biggest strength of the whole movie, particularly with its impressive set of the project's operation center. The special effects though are mixed as they range from the excellent models and effects seen during the first thirty to thirty five minutes to the film to some incredibly unconvincing back projection work as the movie reaches its end. Other production values, such as the score by John Douglas and the direction of Andrew Marton, give the entire film a very dated feel. The editing of Derek Parsons is also very much of the era, meaning that despite running a little over ninety minutes the film drags horribly along during that time. The result is that the movie looks good for the most part but heavily dated and slow moving as well.Nothing though dates Crack In The World more then its script by Jon Manchip White and Julian Zimet. The script has a neat idea as its basis: that the Earth's crust, weakened by decades of nuclear tests, could be cracked open and threaten all life on Earth. A neat idea, though it went out of date the year following the movie's original release. But the premise is an intriguing one though its execution is anything but. The script throws in every cliché it can seemingly come up with: a love triangle between two rival scientists (one older, one younger) over the former's wife, the prediction of catastrophe ignored, a failed attempt to avert disaster and fleeing members of the general public being killed as they do say to name but a few. The result is a neat idea bogged down by a list of clichés.Despite the occasional good performance and a neat (if outdated) idea as its basis, Crack In The World is weighed down heavily by the many, many clichés it employs along the way. It also doesn't help that the film is horribly dated by much of its production values as well. The overall result then is that the movie is watchable, if only just.

"Crack in the World" is a terrific disaster movie. The plot is simple: a scientist disregards another scientist's evidence and sets off a nuclear reaction at the boundary between Earth's mantle and core. In so doing, he practically has doomed mankind. The conflict between Dr. Sorensen (Dana Andrews) and Dr. Rampion (Kieron Moore) isn't just over geological theory; it's also over Sorensen's wife and Rampion's former lover, Maggie (Janette Scott). The two men truly have a rivalry between theory and Maggie, and when it turns out that Rampion is proved right, Sorenson rids himself of Maggie while literally declining in health to the cancer that he's been treating in a matter of days. It's only in the end, when it looks as though there's a chance of survival for Earth, that Sorenson finds a new purpose: he's going to record the ending for posterity's sake.Overall, the acting and the special effects are quite good, and the supporting cast is excellent. Highly recommended.

I first saw this film when I was about 14. The movie itself is an okay science fiction story. Probably better than most for that period in time. Interestingly, aside from the final scene, which was pretty awesome to me at 14, the thing that might have made the strongest impression on me at the time was the film score. (I hadn't realized it at the time, but I've been a film/TV score junkie since at least 5 years old!) I can still remember it to this day, even though I haven't seen this move in probably a couple of decades, at least.See the movie if you can rent it or catch it on TV, but make sure you pay attention to the music, as well. It's a major part of the experience in this story.