Film Score Monthly
FSM HOME MESSAGE BOARD FSM CDs FSM ONLINE RESOURCES FUN STUFF ABOUT US  SEARCH FSM   
Search Terms: 
Search Within:   search tips 
You must log in or register to post.
  Go to page:    
 
 Posted:   Jul 4, 2005 - 1:11 PM   
 By:   David in NY   (Member)

The remake of Stanley Kramer's 1959 'On The Beach' is due out on Tuesday on DVD. I missed the original airing back a few years ago, and am asking for opinions from those who've seen this version that stars Rachel Ward and Bryan Brown. I do have Christopher Gordon's soundtrack on Varese and though markedly different from the (masterpiece) Ernest Gold score for the original, is quite good! Is this remake worth seeing (if I've loved the original version?)

 
 Posted:   Jul 4, 2005 - 1:29 PM   
 By:   JJH   (Member)

I didn't think it was that bad at all.

 
 Posted:   Jul 4, 2005 - 1:37 PM   
 By:   Eric Paddon   (Member)

Like so many remakes and reinventions, this one was lousy. Armand Assante is not credible as an American, Bryan Brown in the Fred Astaire role has nothing but a foul mouth in every one of his scenes and is thoroughly unlikable, and the altered ending totally destroys the poignance of the original.

 
 
 Posted:   Jul 4, 2005 - 1:55 PM   
 By:   Ford A. Thaxton   (Member)

Like so many remakes and reinventions, this one was lousy..

RUBBISH...


IMHO, the 2000 version is a wonderful updating of the story with a great cast that is on par with the original film in most ways....




Armand Assante is not credible as an American

I guess being born in NEW YORK CITY, NY doesn't make him a "Credible" American.....

:-)


Bryan Brown in the Fred Astaire role has nothing but a foul mouth in every one of his scenes and is thoroughly unlikable,

To be fair he has alot of reasons to be pissed off and if you think he has a foul mouth, I should introduce to some folks who make him look like choirboy in how the speak....



and the altered ending totally destroys the poignance of the original.

That is just a flat out lie.....

The only difference is...


SPOILER ALERT












That Armand Assante charter, the Captain of the Sub stays to die with the woman he loves (Rachel Ward) after his crews tells him to do so since it really doesn't matter if he goes with them or not, because they are all going to die anyway..

Other then that small difference, everything is the same and has perhaps even a bit more emotional impact.


Ford A. Thaxton

 
 
 Posted:   Jul 4, 2005 - 2:58 PM   
 By:   joan hue   (Member)

"That is a flat out lie."

No, it wasn't a lie and didn't deserve to be called one. It was a person's opinion. It is okay to disagree with an opinion, but to call it a lie is inappropriate.

Parts of the new version were effective. It has a solid score, but I thought "IMHO" that the original was more heart-rendering.

 
 
 Posted:   Jul 4, 2005 - 3:20 PM   
 By:   Ford A. Thaxton   (Member)

"That is a flat out lie."

No, it wasn't a lie and didn't deserve to be called one. It was a person's opinion.


No, it's a flat out LIE, I've seen the show and other then this rather small difference IT'S EXACTLY THE SAME as the film.

Saying otherwise is just dishonest.

IMHO of course.


Ford A. Thaxton

 
 Posted:   Jul 4, 2005 - 3:25 PM   
 By:   Eric Paddon   (Member)

"Exactly the same?"

Get real, Ford. Your nose has to circumnavigate the globe as you make that statement since that's a real case of lying (something your vicious little mind excels at). Here are some things the original did NOT have:

1-Foul mouthed jerks like Bryan Brown (go ahead and introduce me to your more foul-mouthed friends, Ford, and then I'll be glad to introduce you to a lot more decent people who don't use that kind of language as a general rule).
2-Imposing a political agenda by blaming America for the nuclear war, rather than keeping the politics effectively ambiguous (let us recall Fred Astaire's treatment of the subject of who started it in the original)
3-The aforementioned ending. I called it an altered ending and that happens to be the truth. The only person who lies is someone who says its a lie to call it an altered ending that changes the whole way of how we look at the character of Dwight Towers.
4-A bunch of silly angst of Assante going ashore to Alaska and finding the dead bodies and freaking out. Assante as an unemotionally unstable captain is not keeping true to the portrait of dignity that Gregory Peck was, managing to maintain his air of authority even amidst his own inner struggle.
5-I'll take the non-FX scenes of an empty San Francisco and one crewman going ashore to Seattle and finding the source of the signal to the dopey computer FX of nuclear destruction.

So much for your "exactly the same" ca-ca.

The remake was lousy, and the altered ending in my opinion was rubbish because it's more poignant to see Gregory Peck (who in contrast to Assante was perfect for the part) make the decision to stay with his crew and go home, and with Ava Gardner (a terrific performance) watching the sub depart. That's good filmmaking by my definition and I'll stand by it any day.



 
 
 Posted:   Jul 4, 2005 - 3:39 PM   
 By:   Ford A. Thaxton   (Member)

"Exactly the same?"

Get real, Ford.


I have...

The ending to the mini-series is exactly the same as the original, the only real difference is that lovers are reunited, which added to the emotional impact.

And if anyone has any doubts, go watch the mini-series and the original film and find out for yourself.

Eric, your madness is well known from the whole Galactica debate..




Ford A. Thaxton

 
 Posted:   Jul 4, 2005 - 4:12 PM   
 By:   Eric Paddon   (Member)

"I have..."

You must be enjoying your padded room then, Ford. wink

"The ending to the mini-series is exactly the same as the original,"

If it were "exactly the same" he'd be sailing off with his crew, fade-out. He didn't, so that's an altered ending, just as the original movie altered the book by having Dwight and Moira become actual lovers. Calling that "altered" is not lying unless one is a hyper-spastic jerk like you, Ford who always wants to pick a fight at the slightest opportunity.

"Eric, your madness is well known from the whole Galactica debate.."

Typical of a cornered rat to try and change the subject when he knows he's in trouble and the substance of his argument hasn't a leg to stand on. But when it comes to madness from that debate Ford, all I have to do is remind you of the time when you were so warped in your determination to spew hate at me that you kept saying "You've never watched it" long after a lengthy dissection of that end-product was made. wink

 
 
 Posted:   Jul 4, 2005 - 9:43 PM   
 By:   David in NY   (Member)

WOW! I really had no idea this was going to bloom into... well something. I truly LOVE the original film which I've seen many,many times. As well as reading the book more than twice. I will definately rent this new version. I'm not expecting to throw away my Stanley Kramer version, no one could possibly compete with Gregory Peck and Ava Gardner, and those scenes of nob hill in the original totaly devoid of life as was The Golden Gate Bridge (which was never allowed again after this film) won't be matched by special effects. Yet, I do want to see it. Thanks folks!
Oh, who has the Tony Perkins part? I did not read the notices where it said 'SPOILER ALERT'.

 
 Posted:   Jul 5, 2005 - 12:06 AM   
 By:   Dana Wilcox   (Member)

"I have..."

You must be enjoying your padded room then, Ford. wink

"The ending to the mini-series is exactly the same as the original,"

If it were "exactly the same" he'd be sailing off with his crew, fade-out. He didn't, so that's an altered ending, just as the original movie altered the book by having Dwight and Moira become actual lovers. Calling that "altered" is not lying unless one is a hyper-spastic jerk like you, Ford who always wants to pick a fight at the slightest opportunity.

"Eric, your madness is well known from the whole Galactica debate.."

Typical of a cornered rat to try and change the subject when he knows he's in trouble and the substance of his argument hasn't a leg to stand on. But when it comes to madness from that debate Ford, all I have to do is remind you of the time when you were so warped in your determination to spew hate at me that you kept saying "You've never watched it" long after a lengthy dissection of that end-product was made. wink



This is so entertaining...

 
 Posted:   Jul 5, 2005 - 12:18 AM   
 By:   Eric Paddon   (Member)

Entertaining it is to see Ford make an ass of himself for the umpteenth time, but the pity is that the thread just couldn't be an occasion for those that liked it and those that didn't like it to just say their respective subjective pieces about whether its good or bad and let that be the end of it.

Ava Gardner I always felt didn't get enough credit for her performance in the original.

 
 
 Posted:   Jul 5, 2005 - 2:14 AM   
 By:   Ford A. Thaxton   (Member)

"I have..."

You must be enjoying your padded room then, Ford. wink


I wasn't the one who was ranting again te new BSG for months..



"The ending to the mini-series is exactly the same as the original,"

"If it were "exactly the same" he'd be sailing off with his crew, fade-out.He didn't, so that's an altered ending,

It's at best a minor difference and makes Dramatic sense.

It hardly "changes the ending"...


"just as the original movie altered the book by having Dwight and Moira become actual lovers. Calling that "altered" is not lying unless one is a hyper-spastic jerk like you, Ford who always wants to pick a fight at the slightest opportunity.

This coming from the fanboy who attacked everyone who like the new BSG????

Amusing...



"
"Eric, your madness is well known from the whole Galactica debate.."

Typical of a cornered rat to try and change the subject when he knows he's in trouble and the substance of his argument hasn't a leg to stand on. But when it comes to madness from that debate Ford, all I have to do is remind you of the time when you were so warped in your determination to spew hate at me that you kept saying "You've never watched it" long after a lengthy dissection of that end-product was made. wink



Because as you recall you were pissing on something that you had not seen at that time...

A small, but very important FACT


Ford A. Thaxton

 
 
 Posted:   Jul 5, 2005 - 2:23 AM   
 By:   jamesluckard   (Member)

Yeesh. I avoided jumping in earlier when this thread devolved into another bickering rant. Now I'll add my 2 cents.

The novel is one of my absolute favorites. The 1959 film is not all that faithful to it, but then I don't necessarily think a film has to be faithful to a novel's every word to be a great work on its own.

I did think Ava Gardner was thirty years too old for her role, Moira is supposed to be in her early twenties, and I love that aspect of the book. The new TV film also chooses to make Moira in her late 40's, with Rachel Ward in the role, but she's pretty good, so again I'm not totally complaining.

Christoher Gordon's score is gorgeous, and worth getting from Varese. The script is intelligently done, on the whole, with some nice modernizations and changes from the novel.

Also a welcome change is having some genuine Australians in the film. In fact, every Australian role is played by an Australian, unlike the original, where only the young wife was an Aussie. They're all quite good, but most, like the guy in the Perkins role, are unknowns.

My biggest complaint is the direction. Russell Mulcahy directs it as another schlocky B movie, showing off all his music video tricks. He uses wild and showy camera work, when it's not called for.

He has one repeated thing that's especially annoying, where the speed of the film rapidly speeds up, then slows down, then speeds up again, all in the same shot. He takes what is meant to be a simple story and makes it tacky.

Still, there's a lot here that's worth watching if you like the book, although I agree that the changes to the ending don't work for me.

 
 
 Posted:   Jul 5, 2005 - 2:26 AM   
 By:   Ford A. Thaxton   (Member)

"Exactly the same?"

1-Foul mouthed jerks like Bryan Brown (go ahead and introduce me to your more foul-mouthed friends, Ford, and then I'll be glad to introduce you to a lot more decent people who don't use that kind of language as a general rule).


Whatever, out here in the real world, I hear such salty terms on a daily basis...






2-Imposing a political agenda by blaming America for the nuclear war, rather than keeping the politics effectively ambiguous (let us recall Fred Astaire's treatment of the subject of who started it in the original)


This film is set not in 1959, but rather 2007 and that element adds a subtext to the whole affair.

You are the first person ever to have a issue with this point.




3-The aforementioned ending. I called it an altered ending and that happens to be the truth.


Other then one small difference, the endings are the same.

I ask anyone who is reading this to just go and watch both and make up your own mind.





4-A bunch of silly angst of Assante going ashore to Alaska and finding the dead bodies and freaking out.


Because it causes him to remember his DEAD family, a very emotional moment





Assante as an unemotionally unstable captain is not keeping true to the portrait of dignity that Gregory Peck was, managing to maintain his air of authority even amidst his own inner struggle.


Different actors, Different eras, Different directors, different takes, that is what makes a horse race interesting..





5-I'll take the non-FX scenes of an empty San Francisco and one crewman going ashore to Seattle and finding the source of the signal to the dopey computer FX of nuclear destruction.


A matter of taste, nothing more..



So much for your "exactly the same" ca-ca.

Not really, none of these points change the fact that the ending is still the same in both verisons, other then the one difference that I have already discussed, which doesn't change the ending.



The remake was lousy, and the altered ending in my opinion was rubbish because it's more poignant to see Gregory Peck (who in contrast to Assante was perfect for the part) make the decision to stay with his crew and go home, and with Ava Gardner (a terrific performance) watching the sub depart. That's good filmmaking by my definition and I'll stand by it any day.


Your entitled to your opinion, but just to put said opinion in a proper context...

You were the person who attacked the new BSG without the benefit of viewing it before it aired and attacked anyone who disagreed with that view.

So, you'l forgive if your comments aren't very credible as far as I'm concerned.


Ford A. Thaxton

 
 
 Posted:   Jul 5, 2005 - 2:31 AM   
 By:   Ford A. Thaxton   (Member)


My biggest complaint is the direction. Russell Mulcahy directs it as another schlocky B movie, showing off all his music video tricks. He uses wild and showy camera work, when it's not called for.

He has one repeated thing that's especially annoying, where the speed of the film rapidly speeds up, then slows down, then speeds up again, all in the same shot. He takes what is meant to be a simple story and makes it tacky.

Still, there's a lot here that's worth watching if you like the book, although I agree that the changes to the ending don't work for me.


While I'll agree that some of his tricks are little odd, I have to say this is this is one of the best efforts I've seen from this director, it's vastly more assured and delicate then anything else I've seen him do before or since.

And Rachel Ward was just wonderful...


Ford A. Thaxton

 
 
 Posted:   Jul 5, 2005 - 2:43 AM   
 By:   franz_conrad   (Member)

On Bryan Brown - that character - the language and arrogance - is very typical of a lot of Australian men, so I consider it an appropriate character detail. I still prefer Fred Astaire, but hey, it's not like they went back and destroyed all copies of the original film, took the last remaining print and cut Bryan Brown in place of Fred Astaire. If you don't like it - the original it is for you!

 
 Posted:   Jul 5, 2005 - 3:08 AM   
 By:   Eric Paddon   (Member)

"I wasn't the one who was ranting again te new BSG for months.."

I wasn't the one licking Ron Moore's boots for months...or forgetting how to read by yapping "You've never watched it!" three posts after a review was posted. wink

"It's at best a minor difference and makes Dramatic sense."

Be that as it may, it isn't "exactly" the same. For to be "exactly" the same, it must be identical. If it isn't "identical" then it is perfectly legitimate to then say the ending has been altered. I heartily recommend a remedial course in the English language for you, Ford. wink

"This coming from the fanboy who attacked everyone who like the new BSG????"

My, my Ford, you do enjoy introducing non-sequitur points to cover your ass when you're in trouble? But let's just note that it was *you* who attacked every person who had a problem with the script and concept and refused to allow them to express themselves without being subject to your venemous blatherings. wink

 
 Posted:   Jul 5, 2005 - 3:17 AM   
 By:   Eric Paddon   (Member)

"Whatever, out here in the real world, I hear such salty terms on a daily basis..."

Good. That says a lot about the kind of company you attract, Ford. wink I'll stick to the real world of decent people who don't curse (not to mention preferring movies that were dramatic without that kind of juvenile language)

"This film is set not in 1959, but rather 2007 and that element adds a subtext to the whole affair."

Yeah, a subtext to bash America. No thank you! Far more dramatic to just focus on the human tragedy by leaving the matter of who started it ambiguous, because to summarize Astaire in the original, it didn't really matter.

"You are the first person ever to have a issue with this point."

Oh, you mean you've added the power of reading every single review or comment ever posted in this entire world of thousands of people who have at one time or another commented on this movie to your many other self-proclaimed skills? wink

"Other then one small difference, the endings are the same."

Not regarding the characters. Oh, I forgot, characters are always secondary to you, right? wink

"Because it causes him to remember his DEAD family, a very emotional moment"

Hardly the mark of someone who would have a shred of competency or believability as a sub captain. Gregory Peck was credible in the role having just gone through the same thing, and he kept his professionalism in high gear, which added to the dignity and nobility of his performance.

"You were the person who attacked the new BSG without the benefit of viewing it before it aired and attacked anyone who disagreed with that view."

Gee Ford, you are *really* big-time obsessed with that aren't you? wink But FYI, the reason things got nasty is because you threw a temper tantrum at any person who raised a legitimate objection to the *premise* of the project, which like it or not was a fair subject for debate given the context of the 25 year effort to get a continuation made. That's where the acrimony began and while I certainly put up a good fight on behalf of the original series, we could have had a civil discussion had you just set the kind of better example that is beyond your limited social graces. wink

"So, you'l forgive if your comments aren't very credible as far as I'm concerned."

Yeah Ford, as if I'm going to lose sleep knowing that. wink

 
 
 Posted:   Jul 5, 2005 - 3:31 AM   
 By:   Ford A. Thaxton   (Member)

On Bryan Brown - that character - the language and arrogance - is very typical of a lot of Australian men, so I consider it an appropriate character detail. I still prefer Fred Astaire, but hey, it's not like they went back and destroyed all copies of the original film, took the last remaining print and cut Bryan Brown in place of Fred Astaire. If you don't like it - the original it is for you!

that is the great thing, we'll have both versions to view on DVD.



Ford A. Thaxton

 
You must log in or register to post.
  Go to page:    
© 2018 Film Score Monthly. All Rights Reserved.