On the Beach (2000 TV Movie) User Reviews

Too real to be science fiction?

[mstomaso · 8/10 · 15 March 2006]

Even writing the most basic mention of On the Beach's plot involves spoilers, so I've checked the spoiler radio button and will proceed to discuss the film with minimal reservation. I won't give away the ending, however.

On the Beach is based on the mid-20th century novel of the same name by Neville Shute, and offers a more elaborate and engrossing treatment of its subject than the original classic film (1959) starring Gregory Peck, Ava Gardner and Fred Astaire. This Showtime original is an hour longer than its predecessor, and will likely bore some of the more impatient members of its audience. Unlike most contemporary sci-fi, this is no action film, but a sombre, depressing, examination of the self-destruction of the human race through nuclear war.

Never over-the-top, alarmist, or politically biased, On the Beach simply presents the stark reality of its premise, and uses finely developed characters to give context, shape and meaning, to the experience. the cast is easily equal to its predecessor, with Armand Assante and Rachel Ward particularly illuminating their roles.

Assante plays an American nuclear submarine commander who has outrun the nuclear fall out and managed to surface near Australia, as that continent prepares to experience the first effects of the radiation now permeating earth's atmosphere. All around, people are preparing to die. The most sought after commodity is a do-it-yourself family suicide kit. Immediately enlisted by the Australian government to carry out a top-secret mission to investigate an IP signal coming from Anchorage Alaska, Assante is assigned an Australian military liaison (Grant Bowler) and a scientist (Bryan Brown)and asked to turn his boat around in search of humanity's last hope. In his few days on land before this fateful journey, Assante befriends his liaison's family, developing a special affinity for his sister-in-law, the playful Rachel Ward.

My plot summary takes us about 1/3rd of the way through the story, but sets up all the major elements of On the Beach.

Why does this film work so well? The cinematography is good, but not excellent. The direction is excellent and the cast is exceptionally good. But more than anything else, On the Beach makes its point because the script and story are deeply humanized by the complex and bold characterizations. The characters have interesting back-stories and deal with their harrowing predicament in very different ways. You not only feel as if you know these people, but you like them and sympathize with them - even the more despicable characters.

This is a great piece of classic science fiction, recommended to all, but those with a limited attention span should opt for the 1959 version instead.

Raw Emotion that trumps Original

[dansview · 8/10 · 17 December 2013]

Seeing the young couple go out with their daughter and their love for one another made me think about how alone I am personally. If I had to go out in this situation, that is exactly how I would want to go..with my spouse and baby on a bed in an embrace. Beautiful.

At first I hated Rachel Ward's character and even her acting, but then I realized that she was real. She admitted that she was a floozy, but that doesn't mean that floozies don't have feelings or the need for genuine companionship. Her acting was actually quite good.

Armand Assante nailed this one. Very intense, real emotion. Loved it.

I think there should have been more if any, mention of the fact that the U.S. is not the bad guy in geopolitics. There was an implied guilt. I guess in this film it was the Chinese. That's fine, but make it clear.

I don't know about many people being from S.F. on the crew. That was just borrowed from the original. How many white guys in the marines are from urban S.F. in modern times? Even the black guy in this one was from the suburbs.

The photography/scenery is spectacular. The movie was a bit too long. They really drew it out, but I was never bored.Yes, there are some sappy love stories, but those exist in real life. If they annoy you in movies, this one will drive you crazy.

The most important scene involved the new rendition of the stopover in Alaska. They changed some things from the original film, but it was great. Armand had a break down and showed real emotion. The Gregory Peck character was very stoic in the first one. Some other commenter mentioned that men of the 50's weren't supposed to show emotion.

The Bryan Brown character was tough to take. I found it hard to believe that an award winning scientist was also a loudmouth playboy, even given the reputation of Australian men. It was like he was the guy from Cocktail again.

One thing that I kept on thinking about was the fact that we are all going to die anyways, with or without nuclear war. But I guess the heaviness was also about the fact that the world was coming to an end. We all wind up getting sick and dieing, so that's no different. Although granted, most of the people in this one were too young to die.

I really felt the desperation of the people when it showed them wanting to take one last look at the ocean or make love one more time, etc. It's so hard to accept death. Like bed time when you're a kid and there's company over, or a good movie on.

This one will stay with me for a long time. Nice job overall. Give it a chance if you like intense drama.

Imperfect but Impacting

[DanLives1980 · 6/10 · 30 March 2015]

It didn't take me long after 'Highlander' to see that director Russell Mulcahy had struck lucky in creating one of my favourite movies of all time. I've really not been a fan of his, so watching 'On The Beach' was a bit of a strange experience. Thankfully, it was filled with just enough originality and reasons to be liked for me to go the distance with it! Firstly, and most importantly to those looking for a thrill, this is not your movie. It's entirely character driven with a smattering of symbolism and it might be a bit too emotional for the action movie crowd. It's a show with an anti-nuclear message.

That being said, Mulcahy did infinitely more with $10 million than 'Blair Witch Project' did with $15 million in the same year and much of that comes down to the efforts and chemistry of the cast. That is a testament to the effort put into this production, though, as you really have to wonder; random camcorders and camping in the woods cost $5 million more than a submarine, a cast of international actors and a soundtrack? How? Moving on, I've never seen Armand Assante take the lead and now I'm looking to see what of his I can watch next. He was captivating from start to finish, taking up his character's mantle as though he'd been in the navy all his life. As for more tender and emotional scenes, it's quite endearing to watch such a gruff and edgy man portray all that he did. He carries much of the movie, but sometimes it's rushed outcome overshadows him.

Bryan Brown suffers an impatient or rushed cinematographer, not to mention a script that needed reigning in, whereas Rachel Ward and Grant Bowler came across as very natural and understated until it really counts.

As for any action, unfortunately it's the edgier scenes that Mulcahy was better known for that he consistently failed at. It really made me wonder what happened to him as a director because how could he mature as a dramatic director and then becomes so bad at what made him famous? All faults aside (including some horrendous editing), it's still a good effort and after all is said and done, if this TV movie and its culminating scenes don't blow your mind and leave you chilled to the bone, then I fear for the future. I think you have to want the message in order to want the film in this case!

Grimly competent

[KarlMaldensNose · 2 February 2001]

One can't help but compare this to the 1959 version and it stands up pretty well. At least there are Aussies portraying Aussies. Heck, there's even Aussies portraying Americans, some sort of indication of how advanced the Australian film industry has come since those far off days of the original.

I found this tv-movie more watchable than I first suspected it would be. Being Australian and made for tv I knew that there would be a very high romance factor to secure the female half of the viewing audience. And I was not disappointed in this presumption. Love interest was there in spades. True love in the form of the Holmes family, new love between Moira and Captain Towers the US sub commander, lost love between Moira and Professor Osborn (real-life married couple Rachel Ward and Brian Brown), and a more masculine love between Towers and his crew.

The expedition to Alaska to investigate the mysterious message was handled well, as was each aspect in general. From the breakdown of society, to the pathos of seeing the portrayal of the end of humanity. All assisted by clear camera-work, excellent sets, competent acting (in the case of Armand Assante as Towers bordering on the very good) and a competent presentation of the "message" of nuclear doom.

I note in some of the other comments here a technical question about nuclear warheads on the submarine. The most obvious goof I noticed in the movie was that there should have been no need for people to have resorted to horse and pedal power so soon. Australia being self-sufficient in crude oil and possessing refineries. This was probably not the case when Neville Shute wrote the novel in the '50's. That is just one of my own little observations.

All in all a very watchable made for tv movie, even tho it be one that put a downer on the rest of my evening.

Original Is Usually Best.

[screenman · 6/10 · 29 May 2008]

Well, we're on the beach again. And the first question that comes to my mind is - why?

What was so very wrong with Kramer's 1961 original that the whole thing needed re-jigging?

Here, we have Armand Assante replacing Gregory Peck as submarine commander Dwight Towers. Someone called Rachel Ward steps into Ava Gardner's shoes as Tower's love interest. And preposterously over-the-top Brian Brown - who got his big break in 'Murder By FX' - makes a determined but completely failed attempt to supplant Fred Astaire as the scientist. Various other B-movie nonentities cling fast to their ancillary parts.

I'm sounding a little scathing, I know; when in truth this is a very competent little movie in its own right. It just happens to be inferior to its original of nearly 50 years vintage in almost every respect. And that's the point. Modernisation does not necessarily mean improvement.

What does it add? Well, the first think to notice is photography in colour, instead of black-and-white. And I don't like it. For me; as a child, the cold war was represented in B&W. Not just on the movie screen but on television at home. Newsreels were always monochrome, and that is how my generation largely remembers that stark, terrifying period of history. Think of any cold-war movie, and you'll know what I mean. Moreover the social and political philosophy was also black-and-white: capitalist or communist, east or west, enemy or friend, right or wrong. There was no middle ground.

Secondly, and obviously; in the intervening time, special-effects have advanced in leaps and bounds. Here we get to see some of the nuclear destruction that was denied us in Kramer's slightly flawed masterpiece. It's breathtaking stuff. But does it advance the story? Not one jot. Does it make for a better, more shocking, more convincing experience? I think not. To me, those still, silent, deserted streets viewed from a distance in the original, spoke volumes. What both these movies demonstrate is the complete irrelevence of special effects compared to a good story well told, whilst at the same time, modern movies' almost-addicted dependence upon them to carry the day.

Then, we get to see the onset of radiation sickness. And once again it's more graphic in its presentation, with some good, hearty honking. But do we need it?

Finally, there is the love triangle thing. And that too is needlessly more graphic and hysterical in a way that detracts from the constrained and understated original. Frankly; it's unbelievable. To see this Rachel Ward character strutting about amongst men as though sexual desire were still the biggest story in town, and all of them in turn fawning over her, as if the universal thought of imminent hideous extinction could be completely eclipsed by the sight of a well-figured slut, is just too ludicrous to countenance. And if that were not enough, we have the Dwight Towers' character becoming petulantly jealous over this woman's sexual dalliance with the Professor, despite the fact they're all going to be dead in a week anyway. So how in hell can it matter? Might as well go for a threesome.

If there had been no Neville Shute novel, and if there had been no previous movie; this would have been the standard-bearer for the cinematic portrayal of nuclear extinction. And it would have been - and is - reasonably good. However, there was a novel and that was extremely good. And there was an earlier movie which both maintained an adequate fidelity to that novel and was quite excellent. Which brings me back to the original question: If you can't improve upon the original - why bother trying to replicate it?

Well; I guess you can read the book. And I guess you can watch both of the movies. I have, and my comments are here. Decide for yourselves.

Perhaps in the end, each is a movie of its time, and reflects the social mores of its generation.

First half bad, ending really good

[esarge · 7/10 · 26 November 2002]

I saw this movie across two nights on television.

I found that the first half dragged quite a bit with too much time spent on setting up the love triangle.

However, I found the ending really affecting and quite emotional. To put not too fine a point on it I was a little sleepless last night thinking about it. The acting in the ending is really quite good.

I also think that for its interesting premise - what would happen to society in its possible final dies - this film doesn't go into much detail. I would have thought that there would be lots of interesting things to would happen.

I think the stand out actors here are Jacqueline McKenzie (Mary Holmes) and Bryan Brown (Julian Osborne). They conveyed the emotion of their characters very well. I was quite disappointed with Armand Assante (Dwight Towers) as he didn't seem to have much of an emotional range.

Excellent, but probably the most depressing movie I've ever seen!

[cpto · 9/10 · 30 May 2000]

Nightmares are very personal things. Probably because I was in the military at a time when nuclear war seemed more probable than it does now I occasionally had nightmares involving nuclear weapons - the end of all things I hold dear. Regardless of what that says about me, it is a problem that has not been resolved with the end of the Cold War.

I had read some negative reviews about Showtime's remake of the classic picture, so I wasn't sure it was worth watching. That was a mistake as large as the one that frames "On the Beach." This version far surpasses the original in presentation, depth of character, and, of course, effects.

Quite simply, "On the Beach" is the story of the crew of the last surviving American submarine, an Australian Naval officer, and that officer's wife and friends. A nuclear holocaust has created a cloud of radioactive dust that destroyed all life in the Northern hemisphere and is gradually making its way south. Worse, the Australian survivors have a good idea of when the radioactivity will arrive and kill them. When it does, humanity, and presumably most other life, will vanish from the planet. We may as well not have existed.

I've felt up until now that the 1959 classic with Gregory Peck and Ava Gardner was the most depressing film ever made. However, director Russell Mulcahy and an excellent cast including Armande Assante, Rachel Ward, and Grant Bowler make the 1959 version seem stilted and pale by comparison. This remake - perhaps reinterpretation is a better word - gives the characters a depth that now seems missing in the original film. Commander Towers displays an increasing disorientation as the film progresses. Moira has more to her character than that of a lush. And Lt. Holmes is clearly not happy about the time spent away from his wife who, in this version, better illuminates her increasing disconnection from the real world.

Still, I find one thing missing from both films. Dylan Thomas exhorted us not to go gently into that good night. Yet Australians and Americans - at least those in Alaska - seem to have no trouble taking suicide pills (with injections for pets and children - seems like it should have been the other way around.) There is a great ethical issue in taking the pills and injections that is not explored in either version, and yet what deserves more ethical and moral debate than whether it is human, in the best sense of the term, to slip silently and uncomplainingly from life? Aside from the insanity of humanity eliminating all higher life on the planet, this lack of exploration of ethical issues is the point that most bothered me about "On the Beach."

I've not read the book so I can't comment on which picture is closer to it. I will say that I think the ending of the newer version seemed at odds with Towers' character - perhaps it was merely a fantasy of Moira while she was dying, or perhaps a critical scene was deleted for timing. I hope it was not just the tendency of modern film makers to sweeten the ending! The earlier movie is much more consistent with Dwight Power's character.

So. This is a movie well worth three hours of your life. Aside from occasional histrionics from Julian Osborne in both versions, it presents people going about their lives as best they can. You are left to decide the meaning behind it, as we always are as individuals. There are no simple answers here, and even the questions the movie raises aren't simple.

The movie will leave you depressed. That shows you're thinking. Perhaps there's no solution to the conundrum of stellar forces, chemicals, and biologics available as weapons. Some serious thinkers have postulated that the reason we don't receive any radio signals from others in the galaxy is that civilizations reach a certain level, and then, when they have learned to unleash powers far above what evolution trained them to comprehend, destroy themselves.

It's a serious thought and a serious movie. I recommend it highly. A solid 9+ from me.

As good as the original in most respects

[paul-henderson-2 · 7/10 · 2 September 2006]

Well another remake , however this one I liked , unlike the bow ties and crooked pictures of the original , the new remake of On The Beach justifies the modern genre of riots and uncontrollable street gangs ,mayem, murder in the streets, well, what would you do in the face of doom?, I guess the same thing. I really liked the Taiwan issue , could it happen? The acting was good as well as the settings, except for the stock footage of the submarine " caterpillar drive with propellers?" were not all ignorant!. I thought the makeup was extremely well done and I had nightmares. (the image of that poor newswoman and her radiation scarred face), I highly recommend this flick to the generation X folks.

I still get nightmares from it

[sydneysmike · 10/10 · 9 December 2002]

I saw 'On the Beach' on tv about 2 years ago now and I still have nightmares inspired by it. Bryan Brown, Rachel Ward, Armand Assante and Jacqueline Mckenzie are all credible actors in their own right and they all give fine performances. The film focuses around these people who come together in Australia after a world nuclear war through various predictable plot devices (see plot summary). The acting, direction and even the script don't really make an impact but it is the topic that hits home. I think the purpose of this remake is to remind the world of the horrible results of any nuclear war that could so easily take place. As an Australian, watching this is even more horrific perhaps because this is a rare movie where the world's end is focused outside the U.S.A for a change. Watch this horrific movie (really it is mini series) if you aren't scared by the "what might happen" scenario then frankly your head is in the sand.

10/10 for being a very welcome piece of anti nuclear propaganda.

Weak and distrubingly unlogical

[haggar · 6/10 · 23 November 2002]

As others have said, the romantic part of the movie is very bland, it detracts a lot from what might have been a good TV movie. For the average viewer, that is. But if you are one of those unlucky fellows that likes to use their brains a little bit, you'll be disappointed with the premise:

• Warning! Spoilers ahead -

So, the premise is, after a nuclear way, the northern hemisphere is polluted with radioactive waste, but one scientist suspects that increased UV might have removed the nuclear pollution near the North pole. Interesting, maybe even plausible. What is totally un-plausible is the following: they send a submarine to check this out, because all communication with the north has ceased and only a submarine can go there, avoiding the radiation. Now why wouldn't they just send a plane? Well, duh, because... hmmm... yeah, why not? In this movie, moreover, Australians are waiting for their destiny as the pollution from the fallout approaches, without even trying to use the time they have to build underground refuges, even though the supplies seem to be aboundant, as well as the time. Again, why not?

Contrast this movie to "The day after", which in a much shorter feature time describes all the doom humanity can bring upon itself, all the humane tragedy, even the romantic aspects, without spoiling it all, and all along keeping some scientific and logical sense.

Really awful rethink.

[grickards55-1 · 1/10 · 4 October 2007]

Quite frankly, I think that this television rethinking of Nevil Shute's superb, and very moving book is, for the most part, awful. The screenplay has, more or less, jettisoned all the tragic components, and appealing characters of Mr Shute's great novel, in favour of bringing the story up to date, so much so, that the producers might as well have commissioned an original story and screenplay. The 1959 version was, for the most part, much more faithful to the original novel than this sorry effort. 'Truth to tell, neither version does justice to the book, although at least Stanley Kramer's version tries it's best to capture the dignity and quiet heroism of the ordinary characters facing a tragic consequence. The only thing in favour of this rethink is that the facts are brought up to date and we are shown how the mob would react to the end of the world but, apart from that, I will stick to the original film version, despite nearly being driven to distraction with umpteen variations of a theme on Waltzing Matilda, and the terrible miscasting of Ava Gardner. And talking of miscasting, this TV version has more than it's fair share of that; Armand Assante, who has as much charm as the holocaust he is involved in, Rachel Ward who seems all at sea with her part and, like Miss Gardner, is totally wrong for the part of Moira and, surprisingly, the usually excellent Bryan Brown is another casualty of the miscasting department. A1, however, are the brilliant special effects; the scene of a devastated San Francisco makes one's jaw drop, the nuclear dust like falling snow, and the dead victims are the only memorable moments, and as for the end, ugh!!!! The scriptwriters should have been shot for writing such dross and slop, the ending in the book is much more powerful. Maybe one day someone will make a remake that does full justice to a magnificent novel that is just as timely today as it was in the late 1950's.

Heartbreaker better than the original movie.

[Ramses-8 · 9/10 · 27 May 2000]

A little on the long side, but the impact builds to a heartbreaking finale. Rachel Ward is spectacular as the boozy spurned woman played by Ava Gardner in the original 1959 film. This film has more emotional depth and the characters are more believably human than in that classic anti-nuclear film. However, without the Cold War raging the premise seems more imaginary than it did then, when nuclear war was an all too plausible scenario. But that puts the dramatic focus on the human story rather than the propaganda. It made me choke up a few times (but I am a softie about these things).

depressing, sickening, but can't watch it just once

[pmusson1 · 7/10 · 18 September 2006]

This is probably one of the most depressing movies of all time. That being said, in this time of terrorism and the prospect of nuclear terrorism it is not outside the realm of possibility that a terrorist group could as a result of a cowardly attack, unleash hell on earth. Throw in a couple of rouge military generals that want revenge for an attack at any cost and it is all over. I thought "The Day After" was medically graphic. At least the characters in this film had time for the government to issue suicide kits so you didn't have to die slowly from radiation sickness. I really hope this never becomes a prophecy. I am actually looking forward to watching "Jericho" and hope there is some pointers we can get out of it then maybe I would be persuaded to "survive".

Tiresome Balderdash

[gws-2 · 4/10 · 29 May 2000]

A poor attempt to recreate the magic of the original, this made for TV version of "On the Beach" is genuinely awful. I was immediately turned off by the film's inattention to military detail. For example, our hero is both a Captain USN and captain of his submarine but he is often called "Commander," a gaffe in any man's navy. His boat is designated a "SSN," the designation for an attack sub, but it is supposed to me a missle submarine. The mistakes don't end there but you get the idea. The writing is pedestrian: scenes that were genuinely moving in the original, in this one come off as either bathetic or laughable. In his veddy, veddy dramatic scenes, Assante sounds like George C. Scott doing an impression of Al Pacino. Save your time, or better yet, rent the original.

Two Words: Depressing and Haunting

[spacefan · 30 May 2000]

I found this movie depressing as hell. But I also found it haunting. I thought the acting and direction were really superb. And, by the way, I saw the original with Gregory Peck and Ava Gardner. If anyone thinks a remake can't approach the original in style and quality, you will change your mind when you see THIS remake. The other thought that you will mull over in your mind, as with the original, is how human beings could be so monumentally stupid as to allow this to happen. I came away from this movie with the same sensation I had after I saw the movie The Day After. Other than a few references to the nuclear war that got the cast of characters into this dilemma, the movie did not dwell on nuclear war--only the aftermath. The aftermath of such folly is what the movie DID dwell on and how a species, namely homo sapiens, become extinct. What stands out in this movie is HOW they die. Each character or couple ending their lives in their own way and on their own terms. This movie remake is a must see...

Good stuff

[petbarn · 7/10 · 1 February 2001]

Whilst I really did like this mini-series I thought the second half dragged on a bit. I would like to have seen more on the plight of the people rather than having 100% dedication to the major characters.

That said I thought the main characters were excellent, and it was good to see so many Aussie actors get a gig in such a major production.

It's pretty funky to think that if the world were going to end that your city would be the last one remaining but it's also chilling because it makes you think about what you would do if you were one of the last left.

I highly recommend this, but if you watch it on video there may be a few minutes of the second half that can be fast-forwarded.

uneven, thought-provoking, poignant; worth seeing

[catalyst-7 · 7/10 · 29 May 2000]

After an emotionally tough day, I saw a broadcast of the new On the Beach last night, and had strongly mixed feelings. I was born two years after The Bomb, and grew up during the most hellish years of fear about nuclear devastation. It left an indelible impression on me, having reached its greatest crisis when I was at my most vulnerable age. The risk of all-out nuclear war increased after the original novel and movie in the '50s, peaked in the '60s (the subject of many bad dreams when I was in junior high and high school), was still a nightmarish worry in the '70s, declined steeply in the '80s and then--thanks in no small part to the disorder following the collapse of the Soviet Union and the new availability of Soviet fissile materials and scientists--increased in the '90s. And although technologies change and antagonists shift, human nature is eternal. Now India and Pakistan detonate bombs within days of one another, and China is turning up the heat on Taiwan. I am getting disquieting feelings of 1962 again.

That is the background against which the remake of On the Beach is played. It is an uneven film, mixing flashes of brilliant and poor editing, excellent and bad acting, scientific inaccuracies and gorgeous scenery, and four love stories, two of which I found compelling. But I found it both poignant and thought-provoking despite its faults.

I didn't know Armand Assante. I missed Belizaire the Cajun, Gotti and whatever else he's done (that's the peril of having a life aside from being a movie reviewer!). But I had the distinct impression he stole his portrayal of a US Fleet Ballistic Missile Submarine Commander straight from Al Pacino's character in "The Scent of a Woman." Sad to say, Pacino did it a lot better. Assante was over the top in much of this movie. So was Rachel Ward--to much and too one-dimensional in her aging party girl portrayal. Bryan Brown was a disappointment--especially compared with his wonderful job in Gorillas in the Mist--but the writing for his character was ridiculous (He is portrayed as a super mathematician who also happens to be a race car driver serious enough to own both a Ferrari and a Formula I car who's a total dunce at love. I am a scientist, and although I have colleagues who are brilliant and dunces at love, none has even a touch of the Mario Andretti in us.) By far the best acting job--despite writing that made her denial seem hysterical--was Jacqueline McKenzie. If she gets good opportunities, she'd going places in film.

The movie strains credulity in its geopolitics and science. I have some difficulty imagining how Australia avoids being a target in an all-out nuclear war. A puncture of a radiation suit should be fixable by slapping a hand or some duct tape on the material to keep contaminated air out, and would give a modestly risky, not fatal exposure at radiation levels depicted in the film. But the San Francisco scenes of devastation were silly; nuked cities don't have standing buildings or bridges looking like that, and radiation levels that would kill people in a few days would kill conifers too; they're about as sensitive as we are.

There are four main love stories in the film. The triangle between the climate modeler and sub commander with the party girl (unconvincing), the one between the sub commander and his crew (medium), the one among the Australian naval officer, his architect wife and their daughter (wonderful) and the one between the camera and the Australian coast (wonderful). Along with the very disrurbing possibility that nuclear weapons will be used by nations or terrorists in our lifetimes, the latter two love stories are what gives this film its emotional resonance.

I also found the sub commander's comings and goings irrational. He changed courses and locations so many times in this movie without clear reason that I wondered whether he had the male equivalent of PMS. Someone with divided loylaties--in this case between his crew and his lover--showing such indecision was more silly than touching.

Despite and because of the problems, I gave it a 7.

The saddest film I've ever watched

[kabal-2 · 10/10 · 4 October 2004]

That film is definitely one of the most remarkable films I've ever watched! I really like to watch that kind of films - when U stare at the TV/movie screen and you just can't get up from the seat! I've watched many films and that is the one I LOVE THE MOST! The plot line is so real! Even after the film you sit and think over it again and again! The action - perfect! U don't know what will happen till the end! The acting - IT COULDN'T BE BETTER! It is not important how famous your actors are, but how charismatic will they appear at the screen! I recommend this film to everybody! The film is good, watch it!

More than an excellent movie, a really must see.

[Thuru · 9/10 · 29 September 2011]

This review have a very small spoiler.

There are many reviews what tells you the story over this movie. I don't. If you want read them, you can check the others.

This movie is a really must see for everybody. Specially government people, people in the militairy defence, terrorists (yes also those people) and all people who want to see a good movie.

If you haven't seen the movie, take your time. Sit back and watch the movie. It have also some very nice details, example the train you see. The movie ends bad. All human get die. A lesson to learn, thats also why this movie a must see.

I prefer this version over the original one because the 2000 version is one hour longer with also of course more details and scenes.

What happened? Inane telling of a great story!

[avatar6 · 2/10 · 4 November 2000]

Okay, where to start! This move was a BIG, and I do mean BIG disappointment! Nevil Shute would be rolling in his grave if he saw what a fine mess they made of his classic story. There was no need for improvement (of Shute's novel). I can understand modernizing the story, to create a greater impact on today's audience, but this was ridiculous! Only remnants of the original story are present. It says "based on the novel by Nevil Shute," but rather, it should have said "the screenwriter simply borrowed Shute's premise, and generated his own story!" Utter tripe! Plain and simply, a travesty of novel adaptation. The nuances of Nevil's book that lent it charm and effectiveness were completely lacking in the movie. I felt little for the characters, as there was no true development. We see a peek here and there of each person, and with the exception of Peter, I didn't like ANY of them! It's not supposed to be like that! If we take a peek at the book, we find that Commander Towers is an overwhelmingly faithful man who pledges his life to his wife and country, to the very end. He could not fathom being with another woman. But, in the movie, what do we have? Torrid love affairs, innuendoes galore, and a Commander who seems to get past that "spot in {his} brain" awful easy! There was no struggle to come to terms with the fact that his family is gone, as in the novel AND the 1959 version. No, instead they just portray Dwight as a much more unscrupulous fellow than in the book. It's not just that, though. The character of Dwight Towers is a noble one, in the book. He has depth, character, feeling, and a soft touch with people. Not so, in this movie. I wanted to smack Armand's character so many times, I was annoyed. He was a boisterous, obnoxious, and blunt captain, and nothing like the original character. I didn't care for him at all. I even like Armand, but his acting was part of it. He craned his neck too much, talked with his lips pursed together, and generally looked like he was sucking a lemon throughout. NOT his best work! Let's see, what else? There are so many things! If you've read this far and are intrigued, I'll tell you more! The character of Julian Osborne (who was actually "John Seymour Osborne" in the book) was never on an island. I have yet to figure out what that had to do with anything!

Moira was NOT related to anyone in the story, and in fact lived with her parents on a farm. The race scene in the book was completely alleviated, although there is a hint of it in the end. The way "Julian" died in the film was MUCH different from the book, and I thought this was a big mistake. The book's portrayal was a very poignant telling, and should have been included. If you haven't had the honor of reading it, it may be tough to understand, but let's just say it was a much more powerful scene. The scenes in the streets were not in the novel, other than the garbage. The rioting, violence, sex, and so forth, are a figment of the screenwriter's imagination. I don't think it added anything. I guess they felt like they had to have violence and hatefulness somewhere.

The helicopter in the film complicated things, and made the story even MORE different. It wasn't necessary either. In fact, because of its inclusion, the departure scene had to be changed. Not NEARLY as effective!

And of course, the big kicker that angered me more than anything else? The fact that they changed the ending!!!!!! What's up with that?! Wasn't Nevil Shute's version good enough, or was it "too outdated?!" How lame is that?! HELLO! I know I keep talking about "the book said this," or "the book had that," but I'm tellin' ya'... the ending of the book almost made me cry, while this made me think "Good riddance!" It was SO insipid! Nothing like the power the book had. NOTHING! It was a bad move on the part of the filmmakers. If nothing else, they could have salvaged the ending and made at least THAT scene a poignant one. It's not that I am basing my review solely on comparison with the book; it's just that it's not even a good film. When I do think back to the book, or even the old movie, this movie just stinks! It doesn't have the potency of either. Perhaps if I hadn't read the book, I wouldn't be so harsh. It's hard to get that book out of my brain, though. I have to compare just for the simple fact that this movie is supposed to be based on the book. I'll tell you that if you see this movie, you have no idea what the original story was. Very little of Nevil Shute's ideas exist. I know; you can't include everything from the book, in a movie. But, you'd think they could include SOME of it! Sheesh! The 2 hour, 1959 version with Gregory Peck and Ava Gardner was FAR more accurate in its portrayal, than this! They had 4 hours to do this movie justice, and instead chose to make it meaningless drivel!

EXCELLENT film!!! You will never forget it.

[upscale-2 · 10/10 · 22 August 2007]

This film is truly remarkable. The acting is wonderful, and the realistic portrayal of the end of humanity will affect you like no other film. The scenes of a destroyed and melted San Francisco and its Golden Gate Bridge in pieces will horrify anyone who has ever lived or visited there. This is a must watch for everyone, especially those who would like to stop the spread of nuclear armaments all over our planet. Buy this film, and keep a copy in your archives. Better yet, tell your congressmen and all politicians to see this film. Hopefully, it will help this horror from ever happening to the world in real life. You will truly never forget this film.

An Awful Remake and an Insult to Nevil Shute

[LeeRoss1 · 1/10 · 20 August 2007]

It is incredible how the novel by Nevil Shute has been corrupted and all power sapped from it's message. Subtlety, character, and the sense of hopelessness and horror are replaced by incredibly bad acting (sometimes just downright weird acting), questionable special effects, lots of corpses, and a plot that simply lacks sense. The novel still haunts me, the original film devastated me and gave me nightmares. This production was simply irritating, unnecessarily long, and populated by people I just could not care about. The issue of suicide seems to ignored completely and replaced by a passivity that's odd in the extreme. I suggest a reading of the Shute masterpiece and a viewing of the original film (seen in the context of the times, when nuclear war was all to real a threat and left many of us with nightmares about the horrible possibility.) This film is a travesty and a morbid curiosity at best. It lacks the powerful message and empathy of the intent of the author and producer of the source material.

Shocking. This movie lets you realise that the end of mankind is not unthinkable...

[marko-f · 23 February 2003]

What would I do when I was confronted with my certain death and the end of mankind? That question was getting more and more to me when I watched On The Beach. Very confronting and on the eve of a war in Iraq, not at all unthinkable.

The plot is simple: War has broke out (in this case between the US and China, but it could be Iraq or North-Korea too...) and the US strikes with nuclear weapons. Australia gets spared initially, but its inhabitants face certain death as clouds of radio active fall-out nears. Within two months, no one human will be alive. Unless... There is a chance that some people close to the north pole survived. An American nuclear submarine that survived the war is boarded by an Aussie liaison officer and a cynical scientist, that used to date the sister-in-law of the officer, to search for possible survivors.

Not much action, but for those who like to think while watching a movie, this film will stick to you. There are story lines that resemble soap opera's. That might be true on the surface, but it is completely different when you keep in mind that they all are going to die. You feel the difficulties in the way the characters choose to die.

The movie is played well, directed well and has great photography. The director uses several filming techniques that are rarely used so that the viewer gets time to think about the situation and feel the dilemma of the character.

Unless you cannot bear to be confronted with your own mortality, this is a must-see.

A remake that is far superior to the original

[m.p. · 10/10 · 19 November 2000]

The original version of ON THE BEACH has always been one of my favorite movies and I was very sceptical when I heard there was a remake, a TV version at that. In fact, the new version was so superior to the original that it took my breath away. All of the updates (like adding email and electronic broadcasting) were perfect. Also, all of the Australian characters were played by Australians (even as a kid I wondered why all the Australian characters in the original had American accents!) - except for Rachel Ward who's British but close enough. The casting was brilliant except for Armand Assante as the Sub Commander (not to mention him being about 4 inches shorter than his love interest, Rachel Ward). This role called for a Harrison Ford, or (young) Robert Mitchum or Gregory Peck type - it was the only sour note for me in the whole movie. I also don't think as many people would opt out they way they did - I think most of us will hang on to life until the bitter end - just as most terminally ill people do.

Very good

[codeman_nz · 10/10 · 19 July 2010]

This is simply brilliant. It shows you the futility of war and that the weapons that were made to protect us will eventually destroy us.

The scene at the end of the Holmes family dying together is one of the most heartbreaking scenes I have ever seen. I was in tears by the end of it. It really tugs at your heart and by the end you hope to God that nothing like this ever happens.

If after watching this movie, you think that this could never happen then think again. This scenario is very real and the threat of a nuclear apocalypse hangs over us all every single day. All it takes is for one lunatic politician to push the trigger and then the world will descend into chaos.

If everyone in the world watched this, they would all cry out to rid the world of not only nuclear weapons but all weapons and to stop fighting each other.

A must see.