Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Site Notices
10/20/2017 1:01:18 AM
9/22/2017 12:11:25 AM
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Posted: 9/21/2005 3:32:19 PM EDT
On the Beach (2000)



Available on Netflix for rental and Amazon.com:

On the Beach

The 2000 remake of the 1959 film, which aired on Showtime as a 2 part movie. Starring Armand Assante and Rachel Ward in the roles originally played by Gregory Peck and Ava Gardner.

As powerful as the 1959 film was the 2000 remake was one of the few films that actually effected me deeply. If this one doesn't harm your soul and rip at your guts then you aren't really human.

It's 2006 and China invades Taiwan forcing a US response. China escalates with a nuclear strike and the US replies in kind resulting in a massive exchange. A lone US sub makes it's way to Australia where the last remnants of humanity exist. However a massive life extinguishing atmophere of radioactive fallout is only a couple months away.

But a mysterious signal from Anchorage, where no life is suppossed to have survived, gives humanity one last hope.

While this doesn't have the production values this film deserves the story itself is powerful enough to overcome any such shortcomings and it is actually well made considering.

I most identified with the Peter Holmes character, played by Grant Bowler and originally portrayed by Anthony Perkins. There are so many profound moments in this film that I don't know where to start.

I can't strongly recommend this film enough.

Will get some screencaps up later.
Link Posted: 9/21/2005 3:34:58 PM EDT
Added to netflix que.....
Link Posted: 9/21/2005 3:35:21 PM EDT

Wasn't this also a book? I swear I read this along with (Tomorrow???) another 1950's nuclear holocaust book.
Link Posted: 9/21/2005 3:37:13 PM EDT
Cool. Added to my list for tomorrow's visit to Lackluster.
Link Posted: 9/21/2005 4:00:39 PM EDT

Originally Posted By desertmoon:
Wasn't this also a book? I swear I read this along with (Tomorrow???) another 1950's nuclear holocaust book.



Yes, both films are based on the book "On the Beach" - by Nevil Shute.
Link Posted: 9/21/2005 4:01:55 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Backstop:
Cool. Added to my list for tomorrow's visit to Lackluster.



Not sure if any of the stores will be stocking it. And Blockbuster doesn't have it on their website.

Definitely worth the $10 to buy on Amazon however.
Link Posted: 9/21/2005 4:03:13 PM EDT

Originally Posted By SteyrAUG:

Originally Posted By Backstop:
Cool. Added to my list for tomorrow's visit to Lackluster.



Not sure if any of the stores will be stocking it. And Blockbuster doesn't have it on their website.

Definitely worth the $10 to buy on Amazon however.



Bummer.

I'll have to look around.

Thanks.
Link Posted: 9/21/2005 4:04:03 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 9/21/2005 4:06:58 PM EDT by Hellhound]
That movie ROCKED!!!!!



The original is not as good.

The first time I saw the remake, I was captivated.



ETA: See this movie folks, I doubt you will be disappointed. A bit depressing, but a good movie!!!
Link Posted: 9/21/2005 4:06:44 PM EDT
I put it on my list for this week end
Link Posted: 9/21/2005 4:10:25 PM EDT
I love the book, I think I have read it 3 or 4 times now. I was always reluctant to see the movie because as we all know, movies rarely do justice to the books they are based on. But if you say this is a good one to watch, then I will add it to my queue.
Link Posted: 9/21/2005 4:12:00 PM EDT

Originally Posted By SteyrAUG:
On the Beach (2000)

images.amazon.com/images/P/B00004WI5P.01.LZZZZZZZ.jpg

Available on Netflix for rental and Amazon.com:

On the Beach

The 2000 remake of the 1959 film, which aired on Showtime as a 2 part movie. Starring Armand Assante and Rachel Ward in the roles originally played by Gregory Peck and Ava Gardner.

As powerful as the 1959 film was the 2000 remake was one of the few films that actually effected me deeply. If this one doesn't harm your soul and rip at your guts then you aren't really human.

It's 2006 and China invades Taiwan forcing a US response. China escalates with a nuclear strike and the US replies in kind resulting in a massive exchange. A lone US sub makes it's way to Australia where the last remnants of humanity exist. However a massive life extinguishing atmophere of radioactive fallout is only a couple months away.

But a mysterious signal from Anchorage, where no life is suppossed to have survived, gives humanity one last hope.

While this doesn't have the production values this film deserves the story itself is powerful enough to overcome any such shortcomings and it is actually well made considering.

I most identified with the Peter Holmes character, played by Grant Bowler and originally portrayed by Anthony Perkins. There are so many profound moments in this film that I don't know where to start.

I can't strongly recommend this film enough.

Will get some screencaps up later.



Well, as long as it didn't affect you all is well.
Link Posted: 9/21/2005 5:01:59 PM EDT
Saw it on TV a few years back
crashing the Ferrari was kinda cool
Link Posted: 9/21/2005 5:08:09 PM EDT
Link Posted: 9/21/2005 5:48:15 PM EDT
Pretty good flick...but the first one was a lot better IMHO. Very moving...and Ava Gardner even an old Ava was great eye candy.
Link Posted: 9/21/2005 6:00:11 PM EDT
Rachel Ward is smoking hot!
Link Posted: 9/21/2005 6:07:31 PM EDT
Read the book in HS and saw the 1959 movie - gut wrentching and sad.
Link Posted: 9/21/2005 6:19:10 PM EDT

Originally Posted By LWilde:
Pretty good flick...but the first one was a lot better IMHO. Very moving...and Ava Gardner even an old Ava was great eye candy.



+1 for the original.
Link Posted: 9/21/2005 7:43:53 PM EDT

Originally Posted By IAMLEGEND:


Well, as long as it didn't affect you all is well.



I wouldn't say that. This is one of the few films that can mule kick the hell out of me.

I imagine it's what Christians must feel like watching "The Passion" and what VN vets feel like watching "We Were Soldiers."
Link Posted: 9/21/2005 7:45:43 PM EDT
Tagd
Link Posted: 9/21/2005 7:46:34 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Sylvan:
et tu steyr?



Yeah, it got me too.

I'm not sure I can name 10 other films that can hit me as hard.
Link Posted: 9/21/2005 7:49:14 PM EDT
By far the most depressing movie I have ever watched -- the suicide kits they distributed, dead old couples in bed after they took their cyanide pills, kissed each other, and died in each others arms ... It is too depressing for me to watch very often.
Link Posted: 9/21/2005 8:08:50 PM EDT
The newer version is more graphic. They can get away with it now. As with most older movies, all the implied happenings in the original really get the mind working.


Ava Gardener was a hottie! Now if Maureen O'Hara were in it as well, I wouldn't be able to watch it...sensory overload.
Link Posted: 9/22/2005 5:59:20 AM EDT

Originally Posted By SteyrAUG:

Originally Posted By IAMLEGEND:


Well, as long as it didn't affect you all is well.



I wouldn't say that. This is one of the few films that can mule kick the hell out of me.

I imagine it's what Christians must feel like watching "The Passion" and what VN vets feel like watching "We Were Soldiers."



Damnit, man! I was making fun of your use of 'effect'.

Link Posted: 9/22/2005 6:15:03 AM EDT
I ordered it. Thanks for the heads up.
Link Posted: 9/22/2005 6:22:39 AM EDT
Thanks for the heads up...I'll have to get it...

BUT Steyr, tsk, tsk....this should be in the movie forum!

You have hurt Sylvan's feelings!
Link Posted: 9/22/2005 6:32:48 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 9/22/2005 6:57:01 AM EDT by Hellhound]

Originally Posted By jkstexas2001:
By far the most depressing movie I have ever watched -- the suicide kits they distributed, dead old couples in bed after they took their cyanide pills, kissed each other, and died in each others arms ... It is too depressing for me to watch very often.



+1

The part that got me was..... minor spoiler alert (maybe) .............

<­BR>

when the Aussie Naval Officer was home with his family and disconnected the power to the house.

A simple act, but it meant it was ALL over.

The final step was being with his family........


ETA: spoiler warning

Link Posted: 9/22/2005 6:39:50 AM EDT

Originally Posted By LWilde:
Pretty good flick...but the first one was a lot better IMHO. Very moving...and Ava Gardner even an old Ava was great eye candy.



first one came up when i was growing up. parents then made a big deal of making sure their kids didna see it. figured it would give them nightmares and such during the cold war period...

later when i saw it it was one of the most depressing movies i have seen....

still get creepy feeling when i hear waltzing matilda...
Link Posted: 9/22/2005 6:54:50 AM EDT
I didn't like the original. Chock full of half-truths about nuclear war.Very unrealistic weapon deployments (no one would use nearly all ground-bursts). While a nuclear war would be very bad, it'd be survivable for the prepared. Especially in the opposite hemisphere, and months after the fact.

A for drama and being depressing.
D for factuality.

Link Posted: 9/22/2005 7:14:50 AM EDT
That's great... no move it to the movie forum.
Link Posted: 9/22/2005 8:10:30 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Hellhound:
The original is not as good.



Yeah, I saw the original Gregory Peck movie and I thought there was too much romance for my tastes. I'll have to add the 2000 version to my Netflix list.
Link Posted: 9/22/2005 9:21:03 AM EDT

Originally Posted By IAMLEGEND:

Originally Posted By SteyrAUG:

Originally Posted By IAMLEGEND:


Well, as long as it didn't affect you all is well.



I wouldn't say that. This is one of the few films that can mule kick the hell out of me.

I imagine it's what Christians must feel like watching "The Passion" and what VN vets feel like watching "We Were Soldiers."



Damnit, man! I was making fun of your use of 'effect'.




Gotcha. I was too uffecteed to notice.
Link Posted: 9/22/2005 9:23:50 AM EDT

Originally Posted By pzjgr:
Thanks for the heads up...I'll have to get it...

BUT Steyr, tsk, tsk....this should be in the movie forum!

You have hurt Sylvan's feelings!



Ahhhh, that's what he meant.

I planned on posting it over there to but you know...traffic.
Link Posted: 9/22/2005 9:25:26 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Hellhound:

+1

The part that got me was..... minor spoiler alert (maybe) .............

when the Aussie Naval Officer was home with his family and disconnected the power to the house.

A simple act, but it meant it was ALL over.

The final step was being with his family........


ETA: spoiler warning




Yup that was the HARDEST part for me too. I can see myself having to do just that.

That part also floored most of the guys I know who made it throught all the other parts.
Link Posted: 9/22/2005 9:27:00 AM EDT

Originally Posted By billclo:
I didn't like the original. Chock full of half-truths about nuclear war.Very unrealistic weapon deployments (no one would use nearly all ground-bursts). While a nuclear war would be very bad, it'd be survivable for the prepared. Especially in the opposite hemisphere, and months after the fact.

A for drama and being depressing.
D for factuality.




Uh from what I understand we had the capacity the make the entire planet uninhabitable by humans then and now.
Link Posted: 9/22/2005 10:53:39 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 9/22/2005 10:56:54 AM EDT by billclo]

Originally Posted By SteyrAUG:

Originally Posted By billclo:
I didn't like the original. Chock full of half-truths about nuclear war.Very unrealistic weapon deployments (no one would use nearly all ground-bursts). While a nuclear war would be very bad, it'd be survivable for the prepared. Especially in the opposite hemisphere, and months after the fact.

A for drama and being depressing.
D for factuality.




Uh from what I understand we had the capacity the make the entire planet uninhabitable by humans then and now.



Yes, that's true if both sides used every weapon they had, and they were all groundbursts, which makes no military sense. Most non-hardened targets are better airbursted, which produces very little fallout. Make no mistake, things would be bad, especially in the Northern Hemisphere, but in the higher latitudes of the Southern Hemisphere, I'd bet good money they would get little fallout. Civilization-ending, yes, extermination of every lifeform, not likely.

If you haven't yet seen it, check out "Nuclear War Surivival Skills" by Kresson Kearney, available here: www.oism.org/nwss/
Link Posted: 9/22/2005 11:05:00 AM EDT
tag
Link Posted: 9/22/2005 11:05:45 AM EDT

Originally Posted By billclo:

Originally Posted By SteyrAUG:

Originally Posted By billclo:
I didn't like the original. Chock full of half-truths about nuclear war.Very unrealistic weapon deployments (no one would use nearly all ground-bursts). While a nuclear war would be very bad, it'd be survivable for the prepared. Especially in the opposite hemisphere, and months after the fact.

A for drama and being depressing.
D for factuality.




Uh from what I understand we had the capacity the make the entire planet uninhabitable by humans then and now.



Yes, that's true if both sides used every weapon they had, and they were all groundbursts, which makes no military sense. Most non-hardened targets are better airbursted, which produces very little fallout. Make no mistake, things would be bad, especially in the Northern Hemisphere, but in the higher latitudes of the Southern Hemisphere, I'd bet good money they would get little fallout. Civilization-ending, yes, extermination of every lifeform, not likely.

If you haven't yet seen it, check out "Nuclear War Surivival Skills" by Kresson Kearney, available here: www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/094248701X/qid=1127415306/sr=8-1/ref=pd_bbs_1/002-7292154-4874463?v=glance&s=books&n=507846



In the plot of these films it was a massive exchange (total commitment) and in the later film it was emphasised many Neutron bombs were used.

And as a regular reader of The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists I find the scenarios disturbingly plausible.
Link Posted: 9/22/2005 11:11:29 AM EDT

Originally Posted By SteyrAUG:

Originally Posted By billclo:
I didn't like the original. Chock full of half-truths about nuclear war.Very unrealistic weapon deployments (no one would use nearly all ground-bursts). While a nuclear war would be very bad, it'd be survivable for the prepared. Especially in the opposite hemisphere, and months after the fact.

A for drama and being depressing.
D for factuality.




Uh from what I understand we had the capacity the make the entire planet uninhabitable by humans then and now.




You understand wrong.
Link Posted: 9/22/2005 11:22:22 AM EDT

Originally Posted By guardian855:

Originally Posted By SteyrAUG:

Originally Posted By billclo:
I didn't like the original. Chock full of half-truths about nuclear war.Very unrealistic weapon deployments (no one would use nearly all ground-bursts). While a nuclear war would be very bad, it'd be survivable for the prepared. Especially in the opposite hemisphere, and months after the fact.

A for drama and being depressing.
D for factuality.




Uh from what I understand we had the capacity the make the entire planet uninhabitable by humans then and now.




You understand wrong.



The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists suggests otherwise and as they are the definitive experts I will defer to their opinion. You guys may wish to read a copy. Ones from the 1980s are particularly enlightening.
Link Posted: 9/22/2005 11:23:59 AM EDT

Originally Posted By SteyrAUG:
..and in the later film it was emphasised many Neutron bombs were used.
.]



The whole point of Neutron bombs is to have a small 'blast radius' but put out lots of radiation to kill only the people. Such weapons would be most effective as air burst devices - hence there would be little fallout.

As someone who claims to be up on this kinda stuff you should know that.
Link Posted: 9/22/2005 11:25:48 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 9/22/2005 11:26:47 AM EDT by IAMLEGEND]

Originally Posted By Forest:

Originally Posted By SteyrAUG:
..and in the later film it was emphasised many Neutron bombs were used.
.]



The whole point of Neutron bombs is to have a small 'blast radius' but put out lots of radiation to kill only the people. Such weapons would be most effective as air burst devices - hence there would be little fallout.

As someone who claims to be up on this kinda stuff you should know that.



+1

ERRB Enhanced Radiation Reduced Blast

The way the planet could do alright in a nuclear exchange. Well, maybe not alright but better anyway.
Link Posted: 9/22/2005 11:29:32 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Forest:

Originally Posted By SteyrAUG:
..and in the later film it was emphasised many Neutron bombs were used.
.]



The whole point of Neutron bombs is to have a small 'blast radius' but put out lots of radiation to kill only the people. Such weapons would be most effective as air burst devices - hence there would be little fallout.

As someone who claims to be up on this kinda stuff you should know that.



I was only relating the premise of the second film, I was not speaking to current military strategy.

And Neutron bombs used in sufficient number, combined with standard weapons in the megaton ranges would disperse quite a bit of radioactive fallout in a massive exchange (total commitment) between two superpowers (usually presemued to be the US and USSR).
Link Posted: 9/22/2005 11:32:33 AM EDT

Originally Posted By SteyrAUG:

Originally Posted By Forest:

Originally Posted By SteyrAUG:
..and in the later film it was emphasised many Neutron bombs were used.
.]



The whole point of Neutron bombs is to have a small 'blast radius' but put out lots of radiation to kill only the people. Such weapons would be most effective as air burst devices - hence there would be little fallout.

As someone who claims to be up on this kinda stuff you should know that.



I was only relating the premise of the second film, I was not speaking to current military strategy.

And Neutron bombs used in sufficient number, combined with standard weapons in the megaton ranges would disperse quite a bit of radioactive fallout in a massive exchange (total commitment) between two superpowers (usually presemued to be the US and USSR).



It sounds a little bit like anti-war, disarmament propaganda vilifying neutron bombs. Really ERRBs would be about the best we could hope for in a nuclear exchange.

I understand the concept of a massive exchange though.
Link Posted: 9/22/2005 11:36:16 AM EDT
Cool, added to my netflix. Thanks fer the heads up!
Link Posted: 9/22/2005 11:46:26 AM EDT
tag
Link Posted: 9/22/2005 12:00:23 PM EDT
i read somnething like this a LONG time ago- is this where he becomes a race car dirver- or something and just waits for the "cloud" to reach them in like Melborne?
Link Posted: 9/22/2005 1:03:04 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 9/22/2005 5:37:01 PM EDT by SteyrAUG]

Originally Posted By IAMLEGEND:

Originally Posted By SteyrAUG:

Originally Posted By Forest:

Originally Posted By SteyrAUG:
..and in the later film it was emphasised many Neutron bombs were used.
.]



The whole point of Neutron bombs is to have a small 'blast radius' but put out lots of radiation to kill only the people. Such weapons would be most effective as air burst devices - hence there would be little fallout.

As someone who claims to be up on this kinda stuff you should know that.



I was only relating the premise of the second film, I was not speaking to current military strategy.

And Neutron bombs used in sufficient number, combined with standard weapons in the megaton ranges would disperse quite a bit of radioactive fallout in a massive exchange (total commitment) between two superpowers (usually presemued to be the US and USSR).



It sounds a little bit like anti-war, disarmament propaganda vilifying neutron bombs. Really ERRBs would be about the best we could hope for in a nuclear exchange.

I understand the concept of a massive exchange though.



Well I don't think such a thing as a pro war or pro nuclear war movie or book exists. And it's hardly the "all bombs are bad" film some may assume it is. But it is a film that ponders the reality of a nuclear exchange that has passed the point of "no return" in commitment.

Now in reality we'd all hope and assume that after a few initial nuke strikes negotiations would begin in earnest to prevent the worst possible consideration. This film is based upon the idea that for whatever reason that doesn't happen (and it is brought up in the beginning). And I find it a plausable enough scenario that I wouldn't rule it out as "not possible."

I'd recommend you actually watch the film and then return with your thoughts.
Link Posted: 9/22/2005 7:36:53 PM EDT
I prefer the original. It isn't as accurate science and psycological wise but it had more of an innocence lost kinda feeling.
This is also the most depressing and sad movie I've ever watched. Don't see this late at night with a bottle of Jack and a 45 because you won't see morning.
My favorite scene was with Ava standing on the beach as the sub begins it's last voyage and Gregory Peck looks up into the beautiful, deadly sky.




Fritz

P-3/C-130 ResTycom NSA Mid South Det Elvis
Link Posted: 9/23/2005 7:04:47 AM EDT

Originally Posted By SteyrAUG:
... A lone US sub makes it's way to Australia where the last remnants of humanity exist. However a massive life extinguishing atmophere of radioactive fallout is only a couple months away.
..



So let me get this straight.

They have a US Nuclear Powered Submarine.

They have 2 months to prepare.

Uhh people a Nuke Submarine is the ULTIMATE in bug-out/Fallout shelters. Stock it with as much food as you can. Get your people inside and go hide under the water till the radioactiviy dies down.

Then again after 2 months much of the radioactivity would have died down (so I don't know why they are worried about the cloud). But assuming this cloud for some strange magical reason has lots of persistant radioactivity - go hide under the ocean water is a great barrier for radiation.
Link Posted: 9/23/2005 8:19:01 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Forest:

Originally Posted By SteyrAUG:
... A lone US sub makes it's way to Australia where the last remnants of humanity exist. However a massive life extinguishing atmophere of radioactive fallout is only a couple months away.
..



So let me get this straight.

They have a US Nuclear Powered Submarine.

They have 2 months to prepare.

Uhh people a Nuke Submarine is the ULTIMATE in bug-out/Fallout shelters. Stock it with as much food as you can. Get your people inside and go hide under the water till the radioactiviy dies down.

Then again after 2 months much of the radioactivity would have died down (so I don't know why they are worried about the cloud). But assuming this cloud for some strange magical reason has lots of persistant radioactivity - go hide under the ocean water is a great barrier for radiation.



OK again. The storyline of the movie is a nuclear exchange so massive that after 2 months "no place on Earth" will sustain life due to levels of radioactivity following a massive exchange.

An unlikely event? We'd hope so. An impossible event? I think if we went "use em or lose em" we could pull that off.

Again, I'd recommend actually watching them film and then returning with your opinion.
Link Posted: 9/23/2005 9:33:04 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 9/23/2005 4:04:17 PM EDT by Cope]
Dang, I used to have the hots for Rachel Ward. Especially in "Against All Odds".

Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Top Top