Karry Best movie of this year hands down!

ThedevilChoose When a movie has you begging for it to end not even half way through it's pure crap. We've all seen this movie and this characters millions of times, nothing new in it. Don't waste your time.

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

Haven Kaycee It is encouraging that the film ends so strongly.Otherwise, it wouldn't have been a particularly memorable film

abloke36-158-984501 I cannot understand how this movie has managed to get a 6.9 . Have the reviewers actually read Neville Shute's novel ?I was really looking forward to seeing this 2000 remake because On The Beach is a favourite of mine and have read the novel many times. The 1959 movie really did not do the tale any justice.However the tone of this movie, its pacing and script are just wrong. Too much time is spent on the sub and little time developing the characters.Special effects...appalling , corpses that were supposed to be two years old blinking. Did the radiation preserve the bodies ? San Francisco and the golden gate destroyed but Sausalito sparkles in the sun without a broken window.Worst of all is Dwight Towers and the changed ending. In the novel Moira sits ill behind the wheel, dying from radiation sickness abandoned. In this we have an ending which destroys the whole tone of the original novel. I do not really like remakes per se but we need a decent director to remake this blockbuster story but one which sticks to the characterisation and tone of the novel.If the novel needs extending in anyway then that should focus on the ways in which radiation sickness destroys the body. this movie did finally become involving once the sub arrived back in Melbourne but it was a long and dreary wait. 4/10 at best

random_sample-549-85033 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.

upscale-2 This film is truly remarkable. The acting is wonderful, and the realistic portrayal of the end of humanity will affect you like no other film. The scenes of a destroyed and melted San Francisco and its Golden Gate Bridge in pieces will horrify anyone who has ever lived or visited there. This is a must watch for everyone, especially those who would like to stop the spread of nuclear armaments all over our planet. Buy this film, and keep a copy in your archives. Better yet, tell your congressmen and all politicians to see this film. Hopefully, it will help this horror from ever happening to the world in real life. You will truly never forget this film.

tom_amity It seems that a review of this teleplay is inevitably going to take the form of a comparison with the 1959 film of which it's a remake! So let me start out by saying: I don't agree with some of the reviewers at this site, who say it's a simple case of the remake being superior to the original, period. Both versions have their high points and both versions misadapt this or that detail from Nevil Shute's novel. If you have the time, the two versions are best seen in succession. And by all means read the novel.The most glaring fault of both versions are their violation of the character of Commander Towers, especially on the occasion of his fishing trip with Moira, the lady he has been companionating with during his Australian mission. Novelist Shute's submarine captain remains faithful to his wife, even though she's obviously dead along with everybody else in the northern hemisphere, and he registers himself and Moira in separate rooms at the fishing lodge. Why does he feel this way? Because he chooses to believe his wife is still alive, along with his family, in their cozy Connecticut home which is in reality an uninhabitable wilderness of radioactive crud. Moira, a somewhat vulnerable woman in need of affection, is somewhat hurt, but she respects Towers' feelings. And thanks to Shute's way of telling the story, we know that without his irrational belief that he's "going home when all this is over", the commander would not be such a source of strength to his crew and to the Australians he's lending his services to. Neurotic as his belief may seem, it's sensible because it works. And he's not pretending, he believes it--even when he finally takes his sub out to sink her with all hands, he brings along the presents he bought for his family in Connecticut. And he sure as anything isn't going to cheat on his wife.But the director of the 1959 version, Stanley Kramer, stupidly insisted that the film must "have some sex" and that no viewer would find Towers' restraint believable. Consequently, the film makes it clear that Towers and Moira do consummate their relationship. Gregory Peck argued with Kramer, and told him how wrong he was, but to no avail. Consequently, novelist Shute hated the film, and we too should hate this particular violation of Shute's concept. Particularly because the 2000 version made the same change, by default.The merit of the 2000 version is that it goes much more deeply into the characters and their motivations. It also updates the story, and I think Shute would approve of that, because the danger of nuclear Armageddon is actually much greater nowadays than it was in 1959, due to the increasing proliferation of these weapons, the instability of the world situation, and the irrationally warlike nature of the present U.S. leadership. The updating of the story helps to underscore the fact that the nuclear danger has increased. ** spoiler ahead **But the more recent TV version also contains extra badness, of which the most glaring example is the change in the ending. There is after all a reason why Shute's story must end with Moira standing at the headland, watching the submarine disappear into the mists for the last time, unable to share her last moments with her companion: "This is the way the world ends." I can't imagine why a conclusion so poignant - and in terms of the logic of the story, so inevitable - was replaced by a silly portrayal of a fantasy of Moira's, in which Towers fails to do his duty and deserts his ship and crew to return to her. Were the makers of this version afraid that using the real ending would make people think it too derivative of the 1959 film? I can't imagine.We certainly need a third version, one that will show Towers caught between his alternative reality (remaining loyal to his wife) and Moira.