USS Charleston - Die letzte Hoffnung der Menschheit

One can't help but compare this to the 1959 version and it stands up pretty well. At least there are Aussies portraying Aussies. Heck, there's even Aussies portraying Americans, some sort of indication of how advanced the Australian film industry has come since those far off days of the original.

I found this tv-movie more watchable than I first suspected it would be. Being Australian and made for tv I knew that there would be a very high romance factor to secure the female half of the viewing audience. And I was not disappointed in this presumption. Love interest was there in spades. True love in the form of the Holmes family, new love between Moira and Captain Towers the US sub commander, lost love between Moira and Professor Osborn (real-life married couple Rachel Ward and Brian Brown), and a more masculine love between Towers and his crew.

The expedition to Alaska to investigate the mysterious message was handled well, as was each aspect in general. From the breakdown of society, to the pathos of seeing the portrayal of the end of humanity. All assisted by clear camera-work, excellent sets, competent acting (in the case of Armand Assante as Towers bordering on the very good) and a competent presentation of the "message" of nuclear doom.

I note in some of the other comments here a technical question about nuclear warheads on the submarine. The most obvious goof I noticed in the movie was that there should have been no need for people to have resorted to horse and pedal power so soon. Australia being self-sufficient in crude oil and possessing refineries. This was probably not the case when Neville Shute wrote the novel in the '50's. That is just one of my own little observations.

All in all a very watchable made for tv movie, even tho it be one that put a downer on the rest of my evening.

I found this movie depressing as hell. But I also found it haunting. I thought the acting and direction were really superb. And, by the way, I saw the original with Gregory Peck and Ava Gardner. If anyone thinks a remake can't approach the original in style and quality, you will change your mind when you see THIS remake. The other thought that you will mull over in your mind, as with the original, is how human beings could be so monumentally stupid as to allow this to happen. I came away from this movie with the same sensation I had after I saw the movie The Day After. Other than a few references to the nuclear war that got the cast of characters into this dilemma, the movie did not dwell on nuclear war--only the aftermath. The aftermath of such folly is what the movie DID dwell on and how a species, namely homo sapiens, become extinct. What stands out in this movie is HOW they die. Each character or couple ending their lives in their own way and on their own terms. This movie remake is a must see...

A little on the long side, but the impact builds to a heartbreaking finale. Rachel Ward is spectacular as the boozy spurned woman played by Ava Gardner in the original 1959 film. This film has more emotional depth and the characters are more believably human than in that classic anti-nuclear film. However, without the Cold War raging the premise seems more imaginary than it did then, when nuclear war was an all too plausible scenario. But that puts the dramatic focus on the human story rather than the propaganda. It made me choke up a few times (but I am a softie about these things).

Nightmares are very personal things. Probably because I was in the military at a time when nuclear war seemed more probable than it does now I occasionally had nightmares involving nuclear weapons - the end of all things I hold dear. Regardless of what that says about me, it is a problem that has not been resolved with the end of the Cold War.

I had read some negative reviews about Showtime's remake of the classic picture, so I wasn't sure it was worth watching. That was a mistake as large as the one that frames "On the Beach." This version far surpasses the original in presentation, depth of character, and, of course, effects.

Quite simply, "On the Beach" is the story of the crew of the last surviving American submarine, an Australian Naval officer, and that officer's wife and friends. A nuclear holocaust has created a cloud of radioactive dust that destroyed all life in the Northern hemisphere and is gradually making its way south. Worse, the Australian survivors have a good idea of when the radioactivity will arrive and kill them. When it does, humanity, and presumably most other life, will vanish from the planet. We may as well not have existed.

I've felt up until now that the 1959 classic with Gregory Peck and Ava Gardner was the most depressing film ever made. However, director Russell Mulcahy and an excellent cast including Armande Assante, Rachel Ward, and Grant Bowler make the 1959 version seem stilted and pale by comparison. This remake - perhaps reinterpretation is a better word - gives the characters a depth that now seems missing in the original film. Commander Towers displays an increasing disorientation as the film progresses. Moira has more to her character than that of a lush. And Lt. Holmes is clearly not happy about the time spent away from his wife who, in this version, better illuminates her increasing disconnection from the real world.

Still, I find one thing missing from both films. Dylan Thomas exhorted us not to go gently into that good night. Yet Australians and Americans - at least those in Alaska - seem to have no trouble taking suicide pills (with injections for pets and children - seems like it should have been the other way around.) There is a great ethical issue in taking the pills and injections that is not explored in either version, and yet what deserves more ethical and moral debate than whether it is human, in the best sense of the term, to slip silently and uncomplainingly from life? Aside from the insanity of humanity eliminating all higher life on the planet, this lack of exploration of ethical issues is the point that most bothered me about "On the Beach."

I've not read the book so I can't comment on which picture is closer to it. I will say that I think the ending of the newer version seemed at odds with Towers' character - perhaps it was merely a fantasy of Moira while she was dying, or perhaps a critical scene was deleted for timing. I hope it was not just the tendency of modern film makers to sweeten the ending! The earlier movie is much more consistent with Dwight Power's character.

So. This is a movie well worth three hours of your life. Aside from occasional histrionics from Julian Osborne in both versions, it presents people going about their lives as best they can. You are left to decide the meaning behind it, as we always are as individuals. There are no simple answers here, and even the questions the movie raises aren't simple.

The movie will leave you depressed. That shows you're thinking. Perhaps there's no solution to the conundrum of stellar forces, chemicals, and biologics available as weapons. Some serious thinkers have postulated that the reason we don't receive any radio signals from others in the galaxy is that civilizations reach a certain level, and then, when they have learned to unleash powers far above what evolution trained them to comprehend, destroy themselves.

It's a serious thought and a serious movie. I recommend it highly. A solid 9+ from me.

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!