The year after the U.S.A. aired 'The Day After', England followed suit with this BBC movie that details the chilling after-effects of a nuclear strike.America and Russia get locked into an escalating battle that ends with a series of nuclear attacks, and the working-class English city of Sheffield is one of those burgs that are victimized. The story is personalized by focusing on a young couple, Jimmy (Reece Dinsdale) and Ruth (Karen Meagher), who are expecting a child and decide to get married. But they are never able to realize their plans."Sobering" doesn't begin to describe 'Threads'. It's one of the most gut-punching, honest, believable, and gloomy tales to touch upon the subject of living in a post-holocaust world. In the hands of writer Barry Hines and producer / director Mick Jackson (who went on to make Hollywood movies such as "Volcano" and "The Bodyguard"), there is no room for melodrama here. Everything is played in a strict matter-of-fact fashion. And the devastation that we witness here makes for an interesting sort of entertainment. One doesn't really "enjoy" it, but it's as fascinating as it is bleak. Part of the impact comes from a documentary-style approach, with a narrator (Paul Vaughan) who is heard on a fairly regular basis. We see many victims struggling mightily to survive, and doing whatever they have to do. We are also shown the efforts of emergency personnel to deal with this untenable situation, and given all pertinent scientific facts (giving 'Threads' a bit of an edge over 'The Day After').Ruth remains a focal point as we are taken on this sombre journey. The movie is also a real triumph in production design, atmosphere, and gritty cinematography. It doesn't go overboard in covering actors in grotesque makeup in order to make its point; here, a little goes a long, long way.'Threads' is the kind of experience that doesn't leave one unaffected.10 out of 10.

Once again, I struggled to understand the British English. At least this time, I didn't really need to. Not a word needed to be spoken to convey the very real horror we might all be subjected to. Now, closer to that armageddon than ever before in our history. I just hope I die in the initial blast. The after is actually worse than the blast itself. God help us all.

It's a true testament to a films impact and power, when its narrative and its images stay with you for years or even decades after its release. It's even more impressive when a television movie, often resigned as cinema's lesser equivalent, manages that same feat despite lower budgets and lesser known stars. "Threads" shot on a shoestring budget of between £250 to 350,000 and first broadcast on 24th September 1984, is one of the few television films that transcends its medium and in many ways, surpasses even cinematic features in its depiction of apocalyptic events. It also say's a considerable amount when, despite relatively few repeats, it's visceral, grotesque images still stay with its viewers more than three decades after its original broadcast."Threads" similarly to its American predecessor "The Day After", released a year before, depicts the events leading up to, during and after a Soviet-American nuclear war and the resulting social, medical and psychological breakdown of society. Unlike "The Day After", which shows up to a few weeks after the nuclear exchange, "Threads" shows what would happen 10 years following the attacks, allowing for a greater perspective on the aftermath. That, in my opinion, is why "Threads" packs a far harder punch than "The Day After" which, whist harrowing in its own way, has a more definitive end: with "Threads" the horror never ends.Key to the film's power is the way the director, Mick Jackson, approaches the material. More kitchen sink drama then disaster movie, "Threads" was written by Barry Hines, author and screenwriter of the excellent "Kes". Jackson gives "Threads" a similar approach to the latter, portraying realistic, ordinary characters caught up in events far beyond their control. There are no scenes depicting Soviet and American generals bickering and blustering, instead, the political and military drama takes a backseat to the human drama. What we have instead, is an everyday scenario regarding an unplanned pregnancy, between two people from different social classes in Sheffield. A subplot details the bureaucratic and ultimately futile plans of a group of civil servants to keep the country running, should war break out. We are kept informed of escalating events between Russia and the United States via scant news reports, scattered radio broadcasts and a clipped, almost matter of fact narration from Paul Vaughan. There are no massive action set pieces showing cities being vaporised: instead inter-titles showing figures and statistics, clinically describe the worlds decent into nuclear holocaust.Cast wise, "Threads" is, for the large part, devoid of household names, unlike "The Day After" which counts Jason Robards and John Lithgow among its cast. Here, the cast is comprised of mostly unknown actors, adding to the strong sense of realism. Few of the actors are household names, so their performances here are not tainted by their over familiar faces or associations with any other roles. Instead, the actor's anonymity helps the audience immerse themselves in the story and relate to the characters more. Following the attack scenes, several characters are never seen again, effectively putting us in the remaining characters shoes: they don't know what's happened to their loved ones and neither do we.Ultimately, what makes "Threads" stand out among its contemporaries, are its true commitment to both realism and showing the audience the true, terrifying aftermath of nuclear war. The film shows us, in almost unbearable detail, the graphic and rapid deterioration of humanity once the bombs drop and the fallout descends. . Ironically despite the films subject matter there are comparatively few gruesome scenes, even the stomach churning hospital scene is shot and edited in such a chaotic, fleeting way that it leaves more of a psychological impact then a visceral one and shots of burned corpses are brief. The film's horror instead lies, not in graphic shots of dead and disfigured bodies, but in showing the complete and total breakdown of social order and how quickly the "threads" of society become severed. The majority of the films disturbing imagery is depicted in the third act of the story, depicting ten years after the attacks. What used to be Sheffield is now a burned out wasteland, inhabited by a dwindling population of sick, starving and blind survivors trying vainly to eke out an existence from the poisoned soil. The few children born since the war are illiterate, feral and barely capable of speaking English due to the nonexistent education system. The most horrific image that the film conjures up is its final one: due to years of radiation exposure, the next generation are stillborn and deformed and any lingering hope that the viewer had for a happy ending is brought crashing down.For all the praise I've heaped on the film thus far, "Threads" does have a few, comparatively minor flaws. Some of the characters feel somewhat underdeveloped, although this could be overlooked, as due to the films style and commitment to realism giving the characters Hollywood style story arcs would have been jarring with the films tone. Secondly, due to the time and political climate when the film was made, it is perhaps unsurprising that the film is by now very dated, however again this can be overlooked as the films raw power overrides the films dated look. Indeed the films gritty, grainy stock really helps convey the squalor of the post war world.Overall, "Threads" is a true television masterpiece that far surpasses the "The Day After" and the rest of its contemporaries. Powerful, hard hitting and thought provoking, "Threads" is guaranteed to linger in the mind long after it's over. Overcoming its minuscule budget and dedicated to showing the true face of nuclear war in all its grotesque, nightmarish realism, Mick Jackson delivers a truly terrifying glimpse into a world that could have been, could still be and must never be.

With our idiot politicians popping their buttons when it comes to a nuclear confrontation, here in 2017, everyone should be required to see this film. It takes place in England and focuses on a small space and involves the aftermath of a nuclear confrontation. It is a companion piece to America's movie "The Day After." As powerful as that film is, this one eclipses it in its horrifying portrayal of the lives of people, trying to deal with all the fallout (both literally and figuratively) of such an event. Here we see what would actually happen to people and communities. There is nothing the least bit optimistic. The kind of devastation is beyond belief. I mentioned fallout. As bad as the original wave of fire is, at least most of those people were incinerated. It's those left alive that are the focus. Pregnant women, little children, young people who had a future, local politicians trying to aid people when they are totally unprepared. We need to recognize that the ones that would have to help us could be themselves destroyed or decimated. This is one of the most troubling films ever produced and can barely be watched. Much scarier than any commercial effort because of its documentary style and ultimate messaged. There is no letup in it and no real reward, other than this is an unacceptable thing to have happen.