On the Beach (2000)

Admirable film.

It's the kind of movie you'll want to see a second time with someone who hasn't seen it yet, to remember what it was like to watch it for the first time.

A great movie, one of the best of this year. There was a bit of confusion at one point in the plot, but nothing serious.

The film never slows down or bores, plunging from one harrowing sequence to the next.

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!

I cannot understand how this movie has managed to get a 6.9 . Have the reviewers actually read Neville Shute's novel ?I was really looking forward to seeing this 2000 remake because On The Beach is a favourite of mine and have read the novel many times. The 1959 movie really did not do the tale any justice.However the tone of this movie, its pacing and script are just wrong. Too much time is spent on the sub and little time developing the characters.Special effects...appalling , corpses that were supposed to be two years old blinking. Did the radiation preserve the bodies ? San Francisco and the golden gate destroyed but Sausalito sparkles in the sun without a broken window.Worst of all is Dwight Towers and the changed ending. In the novel Moira sits ill behind the wheel, dying from radiation sickness abandoned. In this we have an ending which destroys the whole tone of the original novel. I do not really like remakes per se but we need a decent director to remake this blockbuster story but one which sticks to the characterisation and tone of the novel.If the novel needs extending in anyway then that should focus on the ways in which radiation sickness destroys the body. this movie did finally become involving once the sub arrived back in Melbourne but it was a long and dreary wait. 4/10 at best

Both the original book, the first movie and this one ignore (probably for dramatic effect) the real effects of fallout and the movement of weather from northern hemisphere to southern hemisphere.In the real world fallout decays using a rule of 7/10. If you had a lethal radiation dose of 1000 rads one hour after detonation then 7 hours later the dose is down to 100 rads. 49 hours later down to 10 rads etc. It seems that a decreasing dose of 5-10 rads per day is survivable..not pleasant and with horrific genetic problems etc..but people would live. Also the air itself isn't radioactive its the dust carried in it. In the case of the Alaska mission by the sub, 2 years after the event the radiation would have been minimal. Also there isn't that much mixing between northern and southern weather systems. That much radiation would never reach Australia in the first place.Enough comments here on wooden acting...there should be a prize given for the worst American accent. The showing of 2 year old bodies was also strictly for daytime TV viewers..they assuredly don't look like the corpse of the unfortunate girl in the TV station with the famous solar powered laptop...The submarine used was apparently square in shape in some scenes..entirely studio based with stock photography used for outside views..would have been nice if the same class of sub had been used in all the shots. I counted at least 3 different vessels used.Some scenes worked but the hour or so of TV soap setting the relationship triangles was just tedious. Some scenes did work. The original book and movie were noted for how passively people accepted their fate. No riots, no social breakdown. Everybody just quietly went home to die. In this one we had riots, social mayhem etc.The endings of the characters were a mixed bag. Some worked, some were out of character. Scenes that did work were very very strong. The father walking around his house for the last time, carefully turning off the power before joining his wife to inject their baby girl with cyanide and them both drinking down the suicide pills, powerful powerful stuff.The final scene in both book and first movie works well. Moira, already dying of radiation sickness either sitting or standing by her car watching the submarine leave to be sunk out at sea and asking Dwight Towers 'If you are already on your way..then wait for me..' In this movie she was hale and hearty with what looked like a picnic in a basket. odd sort of scene. this leads onto captain Towers abandoning his command in their ultimate 'hour of need' is completely OTT. A captain would never do that.So a real mixed bag but worth a view.

The basic plot line is that the world came to an end due to a nuclear war, hitting only in the Nothern Hemisphere. As the film starts, there is a nuclear sub returning from a patrol, though not specified where it had been. The sub surfaces and gets in contact with some other survivors, but they are dieing out. I can't remember if they are already in contact with the Austtralian government or not, but they are asked to pick a local scientist and bring him in with them. The story revolves around the question: did someone survive the nuclear fallout in the north and if so, could those in Australia could also survive. The original story and film had a random Morse code message being sent, and the sub is sent to explore. This time, it is a Net broadcast, repeating itself. Other than this point, the film remains faithful to the book. One major difference between the films, the Austalians are played by Australian actors. In the first one, Americans played all the roles.