Some cult favorites that I are a guilty pleasure of mine (believe it or not) are Escape From New York and even worse, Escape From LA.
I'm thinking Escape From Hawaii could work since it's already an island (although who would want to escape paradise)
: )
A few I thought of:
Attack of the 50 foot Woman
Attack of the Giant Leeches
Frankenstein Conquers the World
Godzilla, King of the Monsters (american version)
Master of the World
i think the incredible shrinking man too. it was an excellent movie but the edning seemed a bit disappointing. he just shrinks into oblivion.
Yeah, and it was all preachy too. To God, there is no zero... unless you're black, gay, Democrat or Jewish.
I just remembered one I watched recently, The Day After. About the day after a nuclear war starring of all actors Steve Guttenburg (?)
They use this stock footage from what looks like Army footage from test detonations in the desert. Real cheesy. I remember watching it growing up in the 80's and at the time it seemed exceptable (after all i was just a child) but after watching it a few times now, it hasn't held up too well.
who, even in 1982 (the year of the film) would believe you can hold your family up in your basement after a nuclear war? even if you have a bomb shelter, you'll have enough food and air for 6 months tops. plus all the people start to panic and run away, where are you going to go? the best advice is head for where you think ground zero is and just get vaporized. at least that way it is quick and painless, unlike this movie.
kolchak Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> who, even in 1982 (the year of the film) would
> believe you can hold your family up in your
> basement after a nuclear war? even if you have a
> bomb shelter, you'll have enough food and air for
> 6 months tops.
What makes you think you will need to stay in your shelter for more than 6 months? You do know people survived the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings (some mere yards from the epicenter of the blast, if protected by buildings) and stayed in the cities afterward?
The biggest long term danger after a full scale nuke show-down is radioactive drinking water (and perhaps breathing radioactive dust). If you move to a location that was not a primary target, and can find fresh water, there is no need to stay in that bomb-shelter for any real length of time after the blast. Let's say it again: it's a BLAST shelter, and anything underground is helpful. (The US Army did studies in the 1950's in which soldiers were in trenches 100's of yards from big nuke blasts and survived).
All that said, I've only seen THE DAY AFTER once, and did not really care for it too much. It was a political scare movie, much like THE DAY AFTER TOMORROW is nowadays about climate change.
yes, what you said is true. buti think you are forgetting that todays bombs (even 1982 nuclear ICBM's) are much much more powerful than the bombs dropped on Japan and even in the 1950's. Plus in the movie they are depicting all out nuclear war, end of the world stuff. not just one or two US cities destroyed.
so yes, if it was one city destroyed i would say you could live in a shelter for a short short time wait till the rads come down to a somewhat decent level and then move as far away from the area as you can get. at least more than 100 miles which is roughly the radius of a modern ICBM, give or take a mile or two.
i suppose you are correect and could live indefinitely in a shelter but if you think about, how are you going to have a lifetime of food and then there is nuclear winter. all the cities on fire would send ash into the atmosphere blocking out the sun and wind would send radioactive dust to all parts of the world. I'm not making this stuff up, if you compare it to a comet or asteriod hitting the planet that would essentially be the same effect.
i'm just saying personally, i would not want to see nuclear war whether it can be survived or not the point is: radiation bad. they also did tests on the people in Japan who's hair and teeth were falling out from radiation sickness. i don't think there is any feasible way to survive all out nuclear war. one or two bombs dropped, sure you could survive. don't be anywhere within 200 miles of the blast area.
it brings to mind those ridiculous bomb drills they made us do in elementary school in the 70's. if a nuclear bomb is dropped, what's the point? i don't think your arms are going to protect you from a nuclear bomb. i don't think the government wants you to think you can not survive, they want you to believe you can and that you will be fine. after the war you can wake up and just go to your job like nothing happened.
massive amounts of adiation never killed anyone.
sorry I just wanted to make sure i made myself clear cause i have a tendency to drift off topic.
the SHELTER WOULD keep you protected so i agree.
BUT how do you store enough food and water for a lifetime which if the ENTIRE world is destroyed and everything is radioactive, you would need to do.
that's what i was trying to say. I apologize if i wasn't clear or misunderstood your post.
the other thing i wanted to ask was, you realize that dropping the bombs on Japan was just an experiment because the US wanted to see what the effects would be. we could have and SHOULD have avoided dropping them.
kolchak Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> the other thing i wanted to ask was, you realize
> that dropping the bombs on Japan was just an
> experiment because the US wanted to see what the
> effects would be. we could have and SHOULD have
> avoided dropping them.
We sure as hell didn't need to drop two! Greatest generation, my ass. Most self-righteous is closer to the truth. The horror it caused will long outlast the excuses used to make it acceptable.