The world has finally managed to blow itself up and only Australia has been spared from nuclear destruction and a gigantic wave of radiation is floating in on the breezes. One American sub located in the Pacific has survived and is met with disdain by the Australians. The calculations of Australia's most renowned scientist says the country is doomed. However, one of his rivals says that he is wrong. He believes that a 1000 people can be relocated to the northern hemisphere, where his assumptions indicate the radiation levels may be lower. The American Captain is asked to take a mission to the north to determine which scientist is right.
Similar titles
Reviews
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".
When I was a kid (about 10) my late Father used to ask me to get "On the Beach" regularly (well, maybe 3 times a year) when I cycled to the Warwick (UK) library to get my own kids books. Never understood his fascination with it. When I moved to Finland, 40 years later, one of my "hobbies" is ferreting through the local 'Salvation Army' shop, and the book was unbelievably there, paperback, in English. HUH??. 0.10!!! When I read it, and wept buckets, I understood why. I ordered both the 1959 and the 2000 version DVD's from Amazon. 2000 version vastly superior. (As an aside, delete if irrelevant - My Father also had a fascination with the song, "Waltzing Matilda". Never understood why, till I read the lyrics. Then I did. He served in the Somme, you see. This week is kinda appropriate.)
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.
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.
