On the Beach (2000)

It's a movie as timely as it is provocative and amazingly, for much of its running time, it is weirdly funny.

It is neither dumb nor smart enough to be fun, and spends way too much time with its boring human characters.

Strong acting helps the film overcome an uncertain premise and create characters that hold our attention absolutely.

The acting in this movie is really good.

Have to admit I did not read the book nor did I watch the original movie from 1959.Screened as TV miniseries, the whole film runs three hours and is way too slow paced to be watched in one go. The subject itself is interesting, yet somewhat spoiled by illogical and unrealistic turns in the plot: A full nuclear exchange between China and US leads to "radiation poisoned winds". While certainly not beneficial for humankind, seems a bit far-fetched and will probably not lead to death within several days, but higher cancer rates or infertility. A biological or chemical hazard would have served the purpose better. And why seems everybody to have suicide capsule with them - Not they guys going on the mission, but obviously the people being caught in surprise as well? And none of the characters really developed to a point (a three hours movie!) I started to care about them.You are better off watching "The Day After" which is far more realistic. If interested on the subject how a conflict could escalate, give "Countdown to Looking Glass" a try. And if you are interested in "the world is coming to an end"-subject, see "The Last Night".

What can I say about this superb production that has not already been said ? The acting was superb, the direction was superb, the sad scenes, particularly at the end with a married couple having put their baby to sleep via injection, take a suicide tablet with a few words to each other, and a kiss, and then they lie on the bed to die, will have grown men weeping.I am in tears remembering this scene more than any other, as I write.Some people may find this film depressing, my wife and I just found it very sad, but ultimately a brilliant well put together movie.This is a long film, you get to know the sailors and everybody else, all good characters from all walks of life.It boils down to the "powers that be" finally cock it up for all of us, the power mad are no longer in control, what they had control of has gone.Somehow I don't think it could ever happen, but this films shows human being at their worst, and their best, if it did.If you watch this movie, have your friends and family round to watch it with you, it will make everybody weep, and provoke discussion.

Really thought provoking and pretty depressing as well. This is a movie that all world leaders should be forced to watch at least once per year. A bit long but riveting none the less, well directed and well acted. The scenario was a pleasant change as the bulk of the movie is set in Austrailia as opposed to the US where I live. It is of course an Austrailian film. It was sobering to see the city of San Francisco post apocalypse as well as Alaska where you can always go to drop out and escape your demons. The war itself was over and done with at the very beginning of the movie, leaving the entire 3ish hours to deal with the aftermath. There are human diversions to break up the overwhelming seriousness of the southern hemisphere's impending demise from the radiation cloud making it's way south from the utterly obliterated north. The final solution kits that were being handed out by public health services containing poison, (a syringe for kids and pets and a pill for the grownups) designed to offer a quick death as opposed to suffering through the radiation sickness to meet the same inevitable end pose a moral question. Well worth a look.

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.