End of the World Reviews

  • Apr 15, 2016

    First of all, let me tell you straight off the bat that my rather high rating here has nothing to do with the film's quality. It has some decent aspects, mind you, but has 'TV-movie' or 'late-night time-waster' written all over it, despite Sir Christopher Lee's presence and a really good ending, for such a low-budget production. The beginning is also quite good and intriguing--it's everything in between that lets the film down. I like Sue Lyon (Stanley Kubrick's 'Lolita', although she's not a good actress, just an intriguing presence) and Macdonald Carey--but these actors are clearly at the stage of their career when if they're not doing theatre, they're taking TV-work or B-movies such as these, that fine actors such as Ray Milland, Bette Davis and Joan Crawford gave credibility to, in their declining years. There isn't a lot of action. It's full of lulls and rather boring--you get a lot of sequences of looking at screens or printouts from those clanky old computers and printers that used to take up so much space. Lee does the best he can, there's good chemistry between Lyon and her protagonist-husband, there's good use of stock footage of disasters happening all over the world, and the climactic shot at the end is excellent despite the low budget. It made me wonder how it would have looked if shot a few years later, when 3-D made a brief comeback as a fad. I gave one star (out of five) for one of my favourite horror actors ever, one for that shot at the end, and one for the way the poster reminded me of my favourite album cover--Oxygene by electronic music pioneer Jean-Michel Jarre. How I wish his music from that album had been utilized instead of the shreck that was used. So, in total, 3/5, or 6 out of 10.

    First of all, let me tell you straight off the bat that my rather high rating here has nothing to do with the film's quality. It has some decent aspects, mind you, but has 'TV-movie' or 'late-night time-waster' written all over it, despite Sir Christopher Lee's presence and a really good ending, for such a low-budget production. The beginning is also quite good and intriguing--it's everything in between that lets the film down. I like Sue Lyon (Stanley Kubrick's 'Lolita', although she's not a good actress, just an intriguing presence) and Macdonald Carey--but these actors are clearly at the stage of their career when if they're not doing theatre, they're taking TV-work or B-movies such as these, that fine actors such as Ray Milland, Bette Davis and Joan Crawford gave credibility to, in their declining years. There isn't a lot of action. It's full of lulls and rather boring--you get a lot of sequences of looking at screens or printouts from those clanky old computers and printers that used to take up so much space. Lee does the best he can, there's good chemistry between Lyon and her protagonist-husband, there's good use of stock footage of disasters happening all over the world, and the climactic shot at the end is excellent despite the low budget. It made me wonder how it would have looked if shot a few years later, when 3-D made a brief comeback as a fad. I gave one star (out of five) for one of my favourite horror actors ever, one for that shot at the end, and one for the way the poster reminded me of my favourite album cover--Oxygene by electronic music pioneer Jean-Michel Jarre. How I wish his music from that album had been utilized instead of the shreck that was used. So, in total, 3/5, or 6 out of 10.

  • Jun 20, 2015

    u find urself waiting 4 this one to end

    u find urself waiting 4 this one to end

  • Jul 18, 2014

    First of all, let me tell you straight off the bat that my rather high rating here has nothing to do with the film's quality. It has some decent aspects, mind you, but has 'TV-movie' or 'late-night time-waster' written all over it, despite Sir Christopher Lee's presence and a really good ending, for such a low-budget production. The beginning is also quite good and intriguing--it's everything in between that lets the film down. I like Sue Lyon (Stanley Kubrick's 'Lolita', although she's not a good actress, just an intriguing presence) and Macdonald Carey--but these actors are clearly at the stage of their career when if they're not doing theatre, they're taking TV-work or B-movies such as these, that fine actors such as Ray Milland, Bette Davis and Joan Crawford gave credibility to, in their declining years. There isn't a lot of action. It's full of lulls and rather boring--you get a lot of sequences of looking at screens or printouts from those clanky old computers and printers that used to take up so much space. Lee does the best he can, there's good chemistry between Lyon and her protagonist-husband, there's good use of stock footage of disasters happening all over the world, and the climactic shot at the end is excellent despite the low budget. It made me wonder how it would have looked if shot a few years later, when 3-D made a brief comeback as a fad. I gave one star (out of five) for one of my favourite horror actors ever, one for that shot at the end, and one for the way the poster reminded me of my favourite album cover--Oxygene by electronic music pioneer Jean-Michel Jarre. How I wish his music from that album had been utilized instead of the shreck that was used. So, in total, 3/5, or 6 out of 10.

    First of all, let me tell you straight off the bat that my rather high rating here has nothing to do with the film's quality. It has some decent aspects, mind you, but has 'TV-movie' or 'late-night time-waster' written all over it, despite Sir Christopher Lee's presence and a really good ending, for such a low-budget production. The beginning is also quite good and intriguing--it's everything in between that lets the film down. I like Sue Lyon (Stanley Kubrick's 'Lolita', although she's not a good actress, just an intriguing presence) and Macdonald Carey--but these actors are clearly at the stage of their career when if they're not doing theatre, they're taking TV-work or B-movies such as these, that fine actors such as Ray Milland, Bette Davis and Joan Crawford gave credibility to, in their declining years. There isn't a lot of action. It's full of lulls and rather boring--you get a lot of sequences of looking at screens or printouts from those clanky old computers and printers that used to take up so much space. Lee does the best he can, there's good chemistry between Lyon and her protagonist-husband, there's good use of stock footage of disasters happening all over the world, and the climactic shot at the end is excellent despite the low budget. It made me wonder how it would have looked if shot a few years later, when 3-D made a brief comeback as a fad. I gave one star (out of five) for one of my favourite horror actors ever, one for that shot at the end, and one for the way the poster reminded me of my favourite album cover--Oxygene by electronic music pioneer Jean-Michel Jarre. How I wish his music from that album had been utilized instead of the shreck that was used. So, in total, 3/5, or 6 out of 10.

  • May 18, 2013

    Dumb and slow, Lee's performance doesn't help the film out much, but at least it gives it some recognition. The effects are cheap, the characters are not interesting, and the title pretty much gives away the ending. Still, it has some neat sci-fi elements in it and fools you into thinking it would be watchable in the first few minutes. Alas, it turns out to be another trash heap.

    Dumb and slow, Lee's performance doesn't help the film out much, but at least it gives it some recognition. The effects are cheap, the characters are not interesting, and the title pretty much gives away the ending. Still, it has some neat sci-fi elements in it and fools you into thinking it would be watchable in the first few minutes. Alas, it turns out to be another trash heap.

  • Oct 25, 2012

    i like christopher lee but this movie makes no sense. all i understand is there are nuns and priest who is christopher lee but they are aliens.

    i like christopher lee but this movie makes no sense. all i understand is there are nuns and priest who is christopher lee but they are aliens.

  • Sep 23, 2012

    This film is a major chore to finish, as there's just nothing interesting about it. Plus, while it's bad and cheap, it's just not bad and cheap enough to be fun for a laugh--it's just bad!

    This film is a major chore to finish, as there's just nothing interesting about it. Plus, while it's bad and cheap, it's just not bad and cheap enough to be fun for a laugh--it's just bad!

  • Jan 24, 2011

    The slowest, end of the world flick I have ever seen. Greatest flaws: the lighting and the frigin fact it's so dull. However, I really enjoyed the last eight secounds of the movie.

    The slowest, end of the world flick I have ever seen. Greatest flaws: the lighting and the frigin fact it's so dull. However, I really enjoyed the last eight secounds of the movie.

  • Oct 12, 2010

    yep, the world actually ends

    yep, the world actually ends

  • Oct 17, 2007

    What happens if you take a script for a half-hour "Outer Limits" episode and pad it to an 88-minute running time with establishing shots that go on forever, and scene after scene after scene of the main characters wandering about, driving around, or sitting around not doing much of anything? You get "End of the World", a film so utterly, mindnumbingly boring that if there was any point to it at all, you're not going to care. In "End of the World", a young scientist (Scott) recieves transmissions from space that warn of impending doom. He and his very gorgeous wife (Lyon) start to investigate... um... something. They eventually run into some aliens who want to return to their utopian homeworld, but who want to destroy the Earth before they do. And what does this have to do with the priest who causes coffeemakers to explode (Lee) and the nun he lives with at an isolated hacienda? Sit through all the padding and you'll find out. There are three worthwhile moments in this film: The first scene of the movie, the sequence where the aliens are revealed, and the movie's eerie climax where our scientist heroes watch the world come to an end on dozens of TV monitors. However, these moments are nowhere near exciting enough to warrant sitting through the boring, badly acted crap that seperates them. Unless you've dedicated yourself to seeing every movie Christopher Lee has appeared in, or you want to see what Lolita looked like 15 years later and without a lollipop, you'll do yourself a favor by skipping "End of the World". Even if you decide you MUST see this misbegotten excuse for a movie, make sure you get it in the 50-movie collection "Nightmare Worlds" . At least that way, you'll get your money's worth via the other films the set. End of the World Starring: Kirk Scott, Sue Lyon, Christopher Lee, Liz Ross, and Dean Jagger Director: John Hayes

    What happens if you take a script for a half-hour "Outer Limits" episode and pad it to an 88-minute running time with establishing shots that go on forever, and scene after scene after scene of the main characters wandering about, driving around, or sitting around not doing much of anything? You get "End of the World", a film so utterly, mindnumbingly boring that if there was any point to it at all, you're not going to care. In "End of the World", a young scientist (Scott) recieves transmissions from space that warn of impending doom. He and his very gorgeous wife (Lyon) start to investigate... um... something. They eventually run into some aliens who want to return to their utopian homeworld, but who want to destroy the Earth before they do. And what does this have to do with the priest who causes coffeemakers to explode (Lee) and the nun he lives with at an isolated hacienda? Sit through all the padding and you'll find out. There are three worthwhile moments in this film: The first scene of the movie, the sequence where the aliens are revealed, and the movie's eerie climax where our scientist heroes watch the world come to an end on dozens of TV monitors. However, these moments are nowhere near exciting enough to warrant sitting through the boring, badly acted crap that seperates them. Unless you've dedicated yourself to seeing every movie Christopher Lee has appeared in, or you want to see what Lolita looked like 15 years later and without a lollipop, you'll do yourself a favor by skipping "End of the World". Even if you decide you MUST see this misbegotten excuse for a movie, make sure you get it in the 50-movie collection "Nightmare Worlds" . At least that way, you'll get your money's worth via the other films the set. End of the World Starring: Kirk Scott, Sue Lyon, Christopher Lee, Liz Ross, and Dean Jagger Director: John Hayes

  • Feb 20, 2007

    2.5/10. I will give it this for uniqueness - there are not too many sci-fi armageddon movie with nuns as main characters. This was lame when I saw it in the 1970's, and is even worse now. Very dated, bad score, lethargic acting. I always wondered what happened to Sue Lyon....

    2.5/10. I will give it this for uniqueness - there are not too many sci-fi armageddon movie with nuns as main characters. This was lame when I saw it in the 1970's, and is even worse now. Very dated, bad score, lethargic acting. I always wondered what happened to Sue Lyon....