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.

Andy Boxall
Andy is a Senior Writer at Digital Trends, where he concentrates on mobile technology, a subject he has written about for…
Topics
What’s in ‘The Box’?!? Why this cult sci-fi movie is still an intriguing mess after all these years
James Marsden in The Box.

Richard Kelly is (or, more precisely, was) a polarizing figure in Hollywood. He only directed three movies during his career, the first being his 2001 cult classic Donnie Darko, which thrust him onto the global stage as an emerging filmmaker. But then came his sophomoric film, Southland Tales, in 2006. The movie was a trainwreck, albeit a gloriously absurd trainwreck, that was so confusing and clumsy it was booed at its Cannes premiere.

Then came Kelly’s third (and final?) film, The Box. Released in 2009, the movie starred Cameron Diaz and James Marsden as a down-on-their-luck couple with a young son. One day, a mysterious package arrives, revealed to be a box containing a singular button. The following day an even more mysterious man (Frank Langella) arrives to explain the rules. If they push the button, they get $1 million… but someone they don't know will die. After a bit of debating, they decide to press the button.

Read more
This horror sequel should’ve never been made. Here’s why it works for me
An old woman screams in Psycho II.

Nothing is sacred in Hollywood. But that's not a recent truism -- it's always held true. If Hollywood smells an opportunity to take advantage or exploit, it will do so with gusto. Take, for instance, Psycho. You can't get more sacred than that, right? Alfred Hitchcock's seminal 1960 film changed cinema forever, and while it was immediately ripped off left and right, no one dared touch it in the two decades after it was released.

Yet the film also made a ton of money, and if it worked once, why can't it work again? Director Gus Van Sant, flush from his 1997 commercial breakthrough with Good Will Hunting, certainly thought so and remade it in 1998. That version flopped, but he wasn't the first to go back to the Psycho well to ring an extra buck or two. The relatively unknown Australian director Richard Franklin (Roadgames, Fantasm) was hired by Universal to make a follow-up to Hitchcock's classic in 1983, three years after the Master of Suspense had passed away.

Read more
25 years ago, one of the saddest action movies ever made dazzled moviegoers
Terence Stamp in The Limey.

Few directors were on a bigger hot streak from 1998 to 2001 than Steven Soderbergh. The director, who has long been known for his willingness to invent, started that run with Out of Sight, and then made Erin Brockovich, Traffic, and Ocean's Eleven. Nestled in the middle of that run, though, is The Limey, a smaller, pricklier movie than any of the others on that list.

The film tells the story of an English ex-con named Wilson who comes to Los Angeles after hearing that his daughter died under mysterious circumstances. The movie's plot is actually remarkably simple, as Wilson storms his way through Los Angeles's criminal underworld, determined to figure out what happened. Here are five reasons the movie is worth checking out 25 years later.
The movie is reckoning with the 1960s

Read more