Skip to main content

I’ll never watch this harrowing, notorious 40-year-old movie ever again. Here’s why

A policeman wearing a mask stands in Threads.
BBC

I saw a few announcements about the October 9 rerun of the BBC film Threads ahead of it playing, and couldn’t quite remember if I had seen it or not. I was probably confusing it with another powerful made-for-TV movie about nuclear war, The Day After. I certainly knew Threads by reputation, though — a bleak depiction of what would happen to normal people in the wake of a nuclear conflict.

After it started it took only a few minutes for me to remember that I had, at some point, seen Threads before. I’m not sure when or how, as it has hardly been shown since its initial debut in 1984. But I knew, and it was a sinking feeling in the pit of my stomach that told me I’d forced the film out of my memory, such is its ability to horrify. Yet I still wasn’t prepared for the ways it can still scare today, 40 years after it was made.

Recommended Videos

Can a movie cause childhood trauma?

Threads (1984) ORIGINAL TRAILER [HD 1080p]

The flashbacks started immediately — not of war or a previous viewing, but of childhood. A light-blue four-door Ford Cortina not dissimilar to the one my dad had. A hand-held games machine that plays one game on an LCD screen, much like my once beloved Nintendo Game and Watch. Cassette decks with wired headphones and orange foam ear pads, and products purchased in supermarkets with prices ending in a half pence. I don’t know what made me more uncomfortable, the impending nuclear attack, or how distant and alien this depiction of life during my own formative years seemed.

The typed-out message on screen announcing the use of nuclear weapons by the United States and Russia in battle is cold, clinical, and horrifying. In the wake of Russian president Vladimir Putin’s nuclear posturing since the invasion of Ukraine, it’s horribly current, too. Then, more flashbacks, but this time of another more recent situation that made the film feel even more uncomfortably real. The panic-buying in the aftermath of the news brought back those first weeks of the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020, when I stood in long, socially distanced queues outside supermarkets, silently wondering what the future held.

Threads (1984) Nuclear bomb scene

Threads is astonishingly effective at making you believe what you’re seeing. A lot of this comes from the use of government announcements, which are apparently genuine recordings of what we would have heard at that time should the bomb have dropped, according to director Mick Jackson. They have the serious, stiff-upper-lip tone associated with the BBC at the time, which as a British person, I feel conditioned to listen to and take seriously. I had the same feeling when Prime Minister Boris Johnson told the British population to stay at home in March 2020. Threads was weaving its way into my psyche in ways I didn’t expect, and technically, nothing had even happened yet.

A harrowing experience

A man and a mutated woman stand in rubble in Threads.
BBC

Then the siren goes off, wailing to tell people that in just moments, a nuclear bomb is going to explode. If you’re not absolutely petrified watching what happens after it, and throughout the rest of the film, then you’re made of sterner stuff than me. It’s everything we as humans fear. There’s chaos in the bunkers as officials pointlessly try to organize something, anything, in a feeble attempt to keep order. Ordinary people, as feeble as the official’s efforts, stagger out into an obliterated world filled with the dead and dying. Fires rage. Radioactive dust settles. Though it continues in one form, life as everyone knew it is effectively over.

When pregnant Ruth leaves her home what she sees is so grim, putting into words here won’t do its impact justice. When she reaches the hospital, it gets even worse. I was glad to look down at the screen on my laptop to type out these words for a reminder that my reality was not what I was seeing on TV. There will be those who think I’m overreacting, that Threads can’t be that harrowing. There’s a chance it’s not to everyone, but just remember, I had made myself forget I’d seen the film. Not because I’m forgetful or that it lacks impact, but because it’s a truly agonizing ordeal.

A woman stands in rubble in Threads.
BBC

How horror affects you alters with age and experience too. I spent years watching all genres of horror, often making it a mission to seek out the nastiest examples, but over the years this enthusiasm has faded and often replaced by empathy. It doesn’t mean I can’t enjoy a good splatter movie today, but anything more realistic and it’s a far harder watch. Threads shows utter devastation on an individual level rather than global scale, and you connect to it on an emotional, human level. You watch people suffer not at the hands of a demon or maniac but through events out of their control. It’s utter despair played out on screen for you to endure.

Different past, same future

A woman sits in debris in Threads.
BBC

As the film progresses, mayhem and madness descends, the country is plunged into a darkness as black as the future, and it becomes clear that surviving the apocalypse does not look like the more preferable outcome. Yet it’s inevitable that you become practically desensitized to what’s happening. It’s shockingly simple to accept that eating a dead sheep or rat raw is the “new normal,” that childbirth will happen in filthy outbuildings, and an impending awful death awaits rather than any hope of a new life.

Worse, Threads doesn’t just envisage the immediate time after the attack, it goes far into the future where nothing gets better or easier. The future in Threads contains only the past, as there’s no machinery, no buildings or shops, and no real structure or society, and it’s filled with desperate people, horrendous disease, and atrocious conditions.

Nuclear Disaster Movie I Threads (1984) I Retrospective

Watching the life shown in Threads prior to the attack must look like the dark ages to anyone who wasn’t around in the ’80s too, as it was before the internet, before home computers, smartphones, Instagram, Bitcoin, and electric cars. But this reveals the film’s true, horrific power. It doesn’t matter if the world before nuclear war in Threads doesn’t represent the world today, because we absolutely know the horrendous world it depicts afterward will probably be 10 times worse. It’s why Threads is, without a doubt, one of the most disturbing, upsetting, and chilling horror films I’ve ever seen. If it’s ever shown again, I’ll definitely remember not to watch it.

Threads is streaming for free on Tubi. Watch at your own risk.

Topics
Andy Boxall
Andy is a Senior Writer at Digital Trends, where he concentrates on mobile technology, a subject he has written about for…
The best Western of the 21st century is now on Netflix. Here’s why you should watch it
Three men hold guns in 3:10 to Yuma.

Once one of Hollywood's most popular and acclaimed genres, the Western is now a shadow of its glorious former self. During the mid-1940s, all the way to the late 1960s, the genre peaked, and many of the greatest Western movies came out, defining the myth of the Old West and cementing the cowboy as the defining figure of American identity. New Hollywood turned its attention elsewhere, and the genre slowly declined in popularity. However, the gritty nature of post-New Hollywood movies gave birth to the neo-Western genre, which endures to this day.

In 2007, James Mangold boldly took one of the best Westerns of the 1950s, Delmer Daves' 3:10 to Yuma, and remade it under a neo-Western approach. Starring Oscar winners Christian Bale and Russell Crowe, the film follows a small posse tasked with transporting the dangerous criminal Ben Wade to the town of Contention, where he is to board the 3:10 train to Yuma prison. Although acclaimed at the time of release, Mangold's 3:10 to Yuma has never received the attention or praise it rightfully deserves. Fortunately, this modern Western gem is now on Netflix, meaning it's the perfect chance for you to check it out. If you haven't, you absolutely should because it is probably the best Western to have come out this century; here's why.
It has brilliant performances from Christian Bale and Russell Crowe

Read more
Quentin Tarantino talks failed Star Trek movie and why he’ll never watch Toy Story 4
Quentin Tarantino sits at a table with a mic and stares.

Quentin Tarantino is without a doubt in the upper echelon of podcast guests. The Oscar-winning filmmaker is opinionated, intelligent, and brutally honest. Tarantino's authenticity is quite refreshing in a day and age where celebrities tread carefully with what they say.

On the latest episode of Club Random with Bill Maher, Tarantino's appearance lived up to the hype as the Pulp Fiction director riffed on several noteworthy topics, including Star Trek. In 2017, Tarantino's pitch for an R-rated Star Trek was accepted by producer J.J. Abrams. Tarantino partnered with The Revenant screenwriter Mark L. Smith for an edgier, earthbound installment of Star Trek. Ultimately, the film fell through, and per Tarantino, it will never be made.

Read more
This Christian Bale film is one of his most underrated movies. Here’s why it’s worth watching
A man looks into a window in Laurel Canyon.

In a recent op-ed, The New York Times proclaimed Tubi as "the little streamer that could," noting that the often-mocked service has now eclipsed more established competitors like Peacock, Max, and Apple TV+ in total number of viewers. As a regular Tubi user myself, this makes perfect sense to me. Where else can you watch the Paul Verhoeven camp classic Showgirls, the intense 1990s action film Point Break, and all episodes of the Canadian teen drama Degrassi: The Next Generation in one place?

It's the quality and quantity of its library that keeps cash-strapped viewers like me coming back, and in August, there's one movie that made me grateful I downloaded the app in the first place. Laurel Canyon, Lisa Cholodenko's sexy, knowing 2002 comedy, is about a recently engaged couple, Sam (Christian Bale) and Alex (Kate Beckinsale), who stay at Sam's mother's Laurel Canyon house. Problems ensue when Sam's mother, Jane (Frances McDormand), a laidback music producer, insists on maintaining her free-spirited lifestyle, which includes her romance with a much younger musician, intermittent pot-smoking sessions, and skinny dips in the backyard pool.

Read more