FrogGlace In other words,this film is a surreal ride.

SeeQuant Blending excellent reporting and strong storytelling, this is a disturbing film truly stranger than fiction

Aneesa Wardle The story, direction, characters, and writing/dialogue is akin to taking a tranquilizer shot to the neck, but everything else was so well done.

Ezmae Chang This is a small, humorous movie in some ways, but it has a huge heart. What a nice experience.

Dan Ashley (DanLives1980) 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!

Royalcourtier This film ought to have been good. It isn't. It is far inferior to the 1959 original.Some people have said it is an improvement to have Australians playing Australians - and Americans, rather than Americans playing both, as in the 1959 film. I am not convinced that is an improvement. Americans played Australians reasonably convincingly in 1959. I am afraid that the Australians in this film sounded fake - even when playing Australians! The dialogue was phony, and far too contrived. The politics too obvious.Special effects were very weak, even for a TV movie. The Ferrari crash was unbelievably poorly executed.All-in-all not a pleasant experience - and that had nothing to do with the subject matter.

a-j-crofts 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.)

screenman 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.