I was surprised to see how good Assante was in this movie. Was impressed and alot of the movie's benifit is owed to him here.
Overall, I was positively surprised by this movie. It think it was well made, and they didbn't screw it up by putting a happy ending on it.
Yeah. I also liked his performance in the movie.
share[deleted]
Are you guys crazy? I like Armand Assante but he was absolutely terrible in this travesty of a good book. I'll grant that a lot of this had to do not with the actor but with the role he was given to play. In this version, Towers is unbalanced, mentally unstable, professionally incompetent and responsible for the death of a fellow officer because of it, dirty and foul-mouthed. Here it is, just days after a nuclear war has destroyed humanity, including the crew's own families, and what does Towers shout into the sub's PA system? About how they're arriving in Australia, where all "the pussy" is great -- do you really think this is the mark of an officer, or that the crew -- shown here whooping like a bunch of baboons -- would give a damn about "pussy" when everyone and everything they've known and loved is gone and they're soon to die themselves? Is that all this Towers and his men are capable of thinking about? Plus he's a selfish, gutless, self-centered coward. Of course they gave the movie a "happy ending" (in the context of things), by having Towers desert his crew at the end just so he can stay a few extra hours with his slutty girlfriend. The character as re-written for this piece of crap was little more than an ape in a sailor suit. Assante wasn't responsible for how the part was ruined by the morons who wrote it, but he was the wrong actor for this role and made it even worse by acting like such a one-dimensional, thuggish, pop-eyed, grunting lout. The 1959 film is no classic and has many flaws, but the characters are a lot more realistic and multi-dimensional, and react to their plight much more believably and with a complex range of emotions, versus the half-wits who mostly people this garbage adaptation. Badly cast, directed like a music video (whence the director had just crossed over), poorly written, with phony effects, uninvolving and nasty, a disgrace to the Navy and contemptuous of its own characters as well as the audience. What a lost opportunity!
shareJust watched the 2000 version of On The Beach and was amazed by Assante's portrayal of Towers. He didn't try to out do Gregory Peck but deleivered a Dwight Towers for the 21st Century and I loved the ending. Have to say that Assante ranged from making me admire the character to feeling his pain. A fine job in a fine adaptation that equally stands alongside the 1959 Kramer version.
A moving film and one that does not fail to deliver, neither does Assante!
If the character of the captain as vulgarized for this junk is "a Dwight Towers for the 21st centruy", then we might as well disband the Navy here and now. If every officer was as indecisive, self-absorbed and out-of-control as the Towers drawn by the incompetent screenwriter here, then the US Navy would be an ineffective fighting force -- more than that, downright dangerous. How anyone could find anything remotely admirable about Towers, most of these characters, or this adaptation, is unfathomable.
Assante is ordinarily a good actor and I agree, he does not fail to deliver what he's been asked to. The only problem is he's been asked to deliver at a level of utter failure and imbecility.
"On the Beach" still awaits a suitable, logical and well-mounted adaptation.
So, mal Butter bei die Fische! (= Let's talk turkey now!)
I want examples here :-). Where is he indecisive, self-absorbed, out of control? So that we have something to discuss instead of throwing about meta-descriptions. And may I remind you of Osborne's description of Towers: "He's allright. Just a bat or two flying around the belfry." (quoted from the book off the top of my head).
--
"It's okay, losing to the Jerries on penalties comes natural to you English. You're part of tradition now!" (Bend it like Beckham, 2002)
I was hoping I was done with this stupid subject, and I haven't seen the thing since 2000, but off the top of my head, a couple of things....
Indecisive -- in Alaska, back and forth about going or not going into the house. In Melbourne, whether to do the right thing and stay with his men or go off to Moira.
Self-absorbed -- the resolution -- deserting his post to join his gal pal instead of sticking with his oath and his command and not abandoning his ship and crew -- which, by the way, constitutes desertion and is an exceptionally serious offense.
Out-of-control -- arguably throughout the movie, but the Alaska scene inside the house, tearing the place apart, is anything but the mark of a sane or controlled man. His actions result directly in the death of a fellow officer which he seems to get past fairly quickly (again, self-absorbed, and reckless). I'd argue his asinine introduction to the crew, that I wrote of in an earlier post -- bringing his sub into port after a thermonuclear war has obliterated the rest of the planet, killed their families, and doomed them, and thinking only of all the "pussy" that's available in Australia -- indicates a man completely out of control, a veritable lunatic to make such stupid statements in the face of the enormous personal tragedies everyone in the crew had to have just experienced. Do you really think that's what they'd be concerned about (and yahooing like a bunch of apes at the pronouncement) in such circumstances?
As I've said, the fault lies primarily with the moronic script and poor direction, but Assante's characterization, while it may be what the incompetent screenwriter called for, is of no help -- he fails to rise above the trashed material, instead just wallows in it, a real disappointment from someone who is ordinarily so fine an actor.
I recall that quote from the book, too, "a bat or two flying around the belfry". That referred to Towers's inability to fully acept his family's deaths, buying presents for them or talking about what his plans for his kids are. That was an offhand expression used by Moira and certainly not even remotely akin to any of the behavior in Assante's variation on the character. Where in the book does Towers behave as Assante does? Answer: nowhere. Gregory Peck's characterization in the '59 film was pretty close to the book's, even though I feel that film still leaves a lot to be desired, dramatically and logically. (Which is why I wrote that OTB still awaits a proper filming.) But the Towers of the book and theatrical film is a vastly different concept from the animalistic simpleton they gave Assante to work with. Nevil Shute would I'm sure be appalled at the liberties they took with the 2000 plot and characterizations.
If I'd seen the TVM more recently than when it first came out, I could certainly give additional examples of the shortcomings in Assante's take on Towers.
I was hoping I was done with this stupid subject,Hey, but you keep coming back .
Indecisive --Yeah, I'll give you that one. Actually more about Melbourne, than Anchorage (where they took their time to present Towers' flashbacks, rather than indecisiveness, IMO).
Self-absorbed -- the resolution -- deserting his post to join his gal pal instead of sticking with his oathI disagree. Who was there to court-martial him? Half of the crew had taken off already, and I think to decide where and with whom you are going to die is something every person should decide for himself (unless it is in actual battle, which this wasn't).
Out-of-control -- arguably throughout the movie, but the Alaska scene inside the house, tearing the place apart, is anything but the mark of a sane or controlled man.Well, something's gotta give...- I actually thought that the story arc of Towers grieving for his family and coming to terms with the loss, was pretty well done over the time of the film (going through the different stages).
I'd argue his asinine introduction to the crew, that I wrote of in an earlier post --Here, I agree again, partly. I didn't think that it was that bad, but also because I didn't get the full dialogue (I'm not a native speaker, and the sound isn't that clear), just something about spiders and then "huh?". So for me it worked with what I could get from the dialogue. But you are right, considering the full dialogue, that was a stupid move by the script people.
Well, it may be that we're somewhat close here. Regardless of whether you like the book or not -- and remember, it was published 50 years ago -- it's pretty clear that the character of Towers as written by Shute (which, by the way, I think is too straight and narrow) is clearly very at odds with the 2000 TVM conception. That doesn't mean one can't alter the character somewhat, but it's clear he was changed so drastically that any of the good in him was washed out under this characterization.
What I hope is my last word on the topic is just the observation that, while of course it's true no one would be there to court-martial Towers when he deserted his command and his men to grab a few last hours with his girlfriend, that's obviously beside the point. The fact is that his oath didn't say, you swear to do this and that except when you don't think it matters anymore. His officers and crew stayed on board and carried out their duties; of all people, Assante's Towers should have done the same. Even if you disagree because of the circumstances, an argument I don't buy as an excuse anyway, it was still incontestably a selfish, me-first act on the part of the captain.
A leather-bound copy of OTB? Where'd you ever get something of that quality? Let's hope we never have the chance to find out how a real-life version of "On the Beach" would turn out. The 1957 book took place in 1963, the 1959 movie in 1964, the 2000 TVM in 2006, so so far we've escaped all these deadlines!
Peace.
"A leather-bound copy of OTB? Where'd you ever get something of that quality? "
It's this one: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0688022235/. It's not real leather but a leatery look, with golden print on red on the spine and the front cover (a frame and some round designs in the corners). 1967 edition, but very nice condition :-).
--
"I was born to speak all mirth and no matters." (Much Ado About Nothing, 1993)
Thanks for the info. Enjoy it for the look AND the book!
shareI dunno. The USA no longer existed. The Captain had no orders. The decision to
take to sea again was not passed down through the chain of command, but was the consensus of the crew which the Captain adopted, although not requiring anyone to go who didn't want to, such as himself. Under the circumstances, there was no derliction of duty. (As to him being out of control because of the stress, in World War II the highest suicide rate among officers of any service branch was
submarine commanders.) I suppose if Assante had remained strictly military the posters would be complaining he was robotic.
The Captain was now the Supreme Commander of the US Navy, even though that was down to one ship and its crew. Granted the extraordinary circumstances, nevertheless, the Captain's standing duty -- his standing orders -- are ALWAYS to remain with his ship unless relieved. Therefore, he was in derelicition of his duty, under any understanding of military code.
Legal niceties aside, he should still have stuck by his crew, the vast majority of whom chose to stay with the ship. Gee, it's inconvenient for him? Too bad. He didn't join (or shouldn't have joined) the Navy for the sake of personal convenience. He was a simpering, self-absorbed, self-centered coward, and a loud-mouthed, panicky lout as well.
I don't blame Armand Assante for the way the character of Commander Towers was redrawn for this asinine TV adaptation. The fault lies with the inept script and moronic director, whose only previous credits were for ads and music videos (no wonder several scenes of Melbourne near the end resemble a Calvin Klein commercial). Everything they could do wrong, they did wrong. Still, even though I usually like Assante, I think he was terrible in this mess (as were most of the usualy talented cast), but he had little of quality to work with and no help from the incompetents in charge of production.
Given the shortcomings of the 1959 film (which is still infinitely superior to this piece of trash), the definitive adaptation of OTB still awaits someone who cares about his work, has respect for the source material, a modicum of taste and a good amount of talent.
The Captain was now the Commander in Chief of all US military forces, a position formerly occupied by the President of the United States, now deceased. As such he enjoyed plenary executive powers, and was empowered to order that he be absent from his ship, especially considering that his mission, to protect and defend the United States, had been nullified along with his country. Finally, there was absolutely no military basis or justification for the final voyage of the submarine, a sentimental journey not requiring the Captain's presence.
Anyway, as far as Assante's performance, his primary obligation as an actor portraying a military officer was to demonstrate command presence, command voice and all the other attributes of one in command. For the most part he did that.
Except when nearing Anchorage and the scientist wanted to stop and take more readings. Since all commanders enjoy God-like powers, and are accustomed to have their orders obeyed instantly and without debate, I don't think a sub commander under the circumstances would have become emotional or raised his voice or would have said anything to support his decision. He would have heard the scientist out and have stated very calmly but with firmness and finality that the sub was proceeding directly to Anchorage. If the scientist persisted, a commander would not have dignified the comments with a reply, but would have just stated to his XO to proceed to Anchorage, period. If you are in command, you must command.
For the most part, he certainly did NOT demonstrate the command qualities you suggest. He goes berserk in Anchorage, endangers his own and his crew's lives, actually costs his subordinate officer his life through his irresponsible and panicky actions, and goes completely off the wall emotionally throughout most of the TV movie. Not to mention most of the rest of the time he's acting like an uncouth slob -- an example I cited a while ago is his intercom introduction to the crew, men who've just lost everyone and everything they knew, their homes and country destroyed, the world ruined and dying, they themselves having only a few months to live...and what does this Capt. Towers think to say to them as they near Australia? Bellowing into the mike that Australia's a land of great "pussy". Are you f---ing kidding me? This is all this moron can say (and get his crew whooping like a pack of hyenas) in the light of a worldwide holocaust that has touched each of them directly? It's an insult to both the character of Towers and the men of the US Navy, not to mention that such writing and direction are further evidence of an absence of any talent whatsoever.
Sorry -- being a commander requires a great deal more than the surface attributes of "presence" and "voice". If that were all that were required, this country would have been defeated many wars ago. Real command requires toughness under pressure, considered and educated judgment, selflessness, and hard calculation -- absolutely none of which Assante's character demonstrated. Quite the opposite. He's a self-indulgent, sniveling, unstable quitter.
I don't agree with your legal analysis of Towers's position in the sense of his being invested with plenary executive powers permitting him to do whatever he wanted to. He was not the de facto president of the US and so his powers were anything but absolute (even the president's powers aren't absolute). I don't believe it's correct he could have arbitrarily waived whatever military codes or provisions he felt like. But regardless of his legal rights, he should have honored his command and his men instead of acting in his usual selfish manner and bailing out on them for his own interests. As you wrote, "If you are in command, you must command." Something at which he failed, ignominiously.
Again, the nature of the character of Towers as drawn in this imbecilic adaptation is beyond Assante's control. It was a poor role, poorly written and directed. But, probably unavoidably, he wasn't good in it.
If you study the film closely, you will see that the longer the Captain went without sexual gratification, the more irritable and erratic he became. Even with the destruction of Western civilization as we have known it, the only thing on his mind was hitting the fleshpots of Australia. And remember that he did not launch his missles -- the symbolism does not escape me. When he at last got a piece, he calmed down. But then he went on a long voyage to Alaska, and I admit he went a little wacko. Coming back to his girlfriend, he saw she was with another man, so he left, sexually frustrated. Finally, his mounting sexual tension, along being the target of jokes as he walked around the sub with a huge throbbing erection ('is that a Marlin Spike in your pocket or are you just glad to see me?') became too much to bear, and he abandoned his ship and his crew in order to satisfy his fiendish lusts.
shareNo wonder the Third World War broke out!
share"Except when nearing Anchorage and the scientist wanted to stop and take more readings. .... I don't think a sub commander under the circumstances would have become emotional or raised his voice or would have said anything to support his decision. ... If you are in command, you must command."
The problem in that scene was, IMO, not that Jules persisted on taking more readings. Towers had already told him No. The problem was that one of his officers (was it Wawrzeniak? haven't checked this now) then said something along the lines "The men surely would like to know". So he had two men asking him to revise his decision, with a load of other officers standing nearby and listening. Come to think of it, that is a rather uncomfortable situation, and I don't think he handled it right, in regard of what he decided before. At least we got some comic relief from that ("Hope springs eternal... How about a big white elephant..."[paraphrased]). Loved Bryan Browns face!
--
"I was born to speak all mirth and no matters." (Much Ado About Nothing, 1993)
I have to pout my two cents in...1) This is a MOVIE!!! 2)I saw both versions and I like the ending to the 2000 version better. 3) Armand Assante can come for me anytime, anywhere..
shareIf you do chuck the book can you send it to me , i'd give it a good home and might even read it ! :-D
shareI didn't mind Assante as Towers but neither he nor Peck in 1959 were given the right material to work with.
The basic story was about different people facing certain death and how they coped. Towers coped largely by denial mixed in with a fair portion of doublethink, for example buying presents for his children.
The character in the book was a far better and braver man than either of the movies portrayed him. (I blame the writers/ directors etc. much more than the actors for this)
He knew his family was dead but refused a sexual liason with a girl who would have him in an instant, because of his faithfulness to his wife.
He was by default, the highest rank in the U.S. navy and despite the fact that no one could tell him what to do he chose duty and sank the Submarine, while refusing to take civillians, (girlfriends) in the vessel.
Some may mock those attitudes and decisions, especially today, but they are what formed the character of Dwight Towers and the movies were poorer for that lack.
by having Towers desert his crew at the end just so he can stay a few extra hours with his slutty girlfriend.
In the book, and in the 1959 film, Towers did give every man the choice of where he'd like to die.
The problem is that a Captain has a different -- higher -- standard of duty and behavior than other crew members. He can't just walk out on them or his responsibility, or turn command over to someone else simply for personal convenience.
In the '59 film, the Captain (Gregory Peck) did want to stay with Moira, but doesn't because his crew wants to leave and he owes his first loyalties to them and his command. (In the novel the question never arose because Tower himself wanted to "go home", which also meant staying loyal to his duties and his command.) A measure of the man is his commitment to his duty and his crew, and on this score Capt. Towers in the 2000 TV movie failed miserably. Only if none of his crew wanted to go back to the States would he be justified in staying on. He's a self-centered fool from start to finish.
In fact the crew was probably better off sailing without him, given his manifest emotional instability and self-absorption, but any real officer of the US Navy would put his duty ahead of personal considerations, even at the end of the world. The character of Towers was badly written for this adaptation, but then the entire TVM is badly conceived, written, acted and directed.
(Right now, lenlarga, I'm trying to figure out how your reply to my post on page 1 wound up in the middle of page 3! I know that out-of-sequence replies to posts often end up at the bottom of a page or something, but in the middle of the page, two pages later? Kind of weird, even for IMDb)
but any real officer of the US Navy would put his duty ahead of personal considerations, even at the end of the world.
Well, I'm glad we agree on the instability of Towers's character in this version, which is decidedly at odds with the way he's shown in the book and '59 film. This movie was very badly written and directed.
I agree with you about the guy who played Peter -- he was easily the best actor in the movie. The woman who played his wife, by contrast, was terrible. And I actually do enjoy Bryan Brown's performance, even though I think the way the character is written is way over the top. But his is the only interesting character in the movie. There are a few cool bits in it but overall it's too offensively stupid for me, Assante's character in particular.
By the way, you made a couple of small mistakes in your post. It wasn't Anthony Hopkins, it was Anthony Perkins, in the 1959 movie. And the name of the Admiral and his aide in that film were Admiral Bridie (not "Birdie") and Osgood, without an H. Those characters weren't in the book either, though there was an Admiral of a different name.
I always confuse Hopkins and Perkins! Anyway, I am hoping for another, better version someday. The only thing I can say in defense of the 2000 version is that it felt more real in some ways if you leave Assante's screwy character aside. For example, the Americans being greeted with hostility by the Aussies felt closer to reality then the way the Americans were treated in the 59 version. On the other hand, the Aussies asking the Americans to swing by and pick up Julian from his island getaway seemed highly unlikely.
shareFor decades after World War II Americans were hugely popular in Australia because we essentially staved off the planned Japanese invasion of the country, and as they were (and still are) our allies, they would have been on our side in any conflict. The depiction of their friendly attitudes toward Americans in the 1959 film (and the book in 1957) would certainly have been accurate. This might not be quite as true if such an event happened today, but in the circumstances of this TVM I believe they would mostly have blamed the Chinese anyway.
I think asking the US sub to swing by and pick up Julian makes sense, since the Aussies may not have the ability to send a ship or plane and the Americans were nearby. Seems perfectly likely to me.
If you've read the novel, I always felt that the best way to do it full justice would be not in a film or made-for-TV movie, but in a miniseries, where you could devote an episode to each of the nine chapters of the book (maybe with some adjustments or overlaps). That would give enough time to develop the characters as well as convey a sense of time passing. The show could even begin each episode with a map of the Southern Hemisphere, with a descending red zone of radiation shown further and further south each week to orient the audience as to where things stand.
I can understand confusing similar names like Hopkins and Perkins. Just remember who came first! Anthony Hopkins was only 22 in 1959 and barely started, whereas Anthony Perkins, though not much older at 27, was by then a veteran of movies.
Assante actually had a pretty good facial resemblance to Peck, especially in uniform. And his delivery was similarly clipped and taciturn.
There were some things I thought were out of character -- Dwight Towers shouting about chasing chicks just didn't ring true.
Most of the movie was pretty good IMO but there were some scenes that were very weird, obtrusive, seemed like they didn't belong.
They seemed to overuse the F-word, as if they were trying to emphasize how much had changed in 40 years since the original.
I didn't like the change in the ending, but it didn't really BOTHER me -- at that point, Towers was the Commanding Admiral of the United States Navy, so if he saw fit, it was completely within his authority to delegate command of a seagoing vessel to a subordinate (and if he wasn't, who cares, was he going to get court-maritaled for desertion?).
In the 1959 movie there was some talk the Sawfish might actually make it back to the U.S. (or at least within sight of the shore) -- crewmen were not actively dropping dead as they boarded the ship -- so there was more reason for Towers to go. In the 2000 version, they were all already sick (Towers himself was shown coughing) and there was no way the sub was going to make it back to the U.S. -- they were simply going to go out into the open ocean and scuttle.
I agree, he was magnificent here. I was rooting for him all the way. He had such humanity, and his pain at the loss he suffered was very tangible.
--------------------
Duty Now For The Future
This was the first film I'd seen with Armand Assante. I thought he gave a good portrayal of Dwight. His accent sounded similiar to how I imagined him sounding in the novel.
shareI really enjoyed his performance in this film. Was he out of control at times and indecisive? Sure was. I wonder who wouldn't be considering he lost his country and his family AND was facing the possible end of his species. I think he played the role perfectly!
shareSteveResin,
Whether Assante was "magnificent" here is very much a matter of personal opinion. In my view his was one of the worst performances committed to film in years, and Assante (an actor I generally like) utterly miscast in what are admittedly a stupidly written role and badly directed movie...so he doesn't bear all the blame for how lousy he is.
However, I wanted to reply to your post because of the tag line you have at the end:
Duty Now For The Future
So, perhaps you can see why, under the circumstances, it's strange to see you display a tag line -- one which is very admirable -- so completely at odds with a character you seem to admire so unquestioningly.
I realize your signature has nothing to do with this particular movie -- IMDb sig's never do. My point was it's curious you chose such a line and yet somehow admire a character who is in every way the antithesis of its principles.
I'm sorry you liked Assante's dreadful perf and this generally low-class TVM. But, as you say, horses for courses. Have you seen the 1959 film? It's got a lot of plot holes and other issues but it's much closer to the feel of the book, and the actors vastly better, than this piece of trash. But the book is far better still. I'm guessing you've read it but if not, I recommend it. See you.
I've seen the 59 movie, many years ago now (probably over 30!) and I remember enjoying it, so I'll have to dig it out again see how it stands now all these years later. Haven't read the book though, but appreciate the recommendation, will try the Library soon
All the best!
--------------------
Duty Now For The Future
Hey, I'm glad you'll look for the book. It's actually still in print after 57 years, and having seen the two film versions I think you'll be pleasantly surprised at how much richer, more involving, logical and complete, the novel is than either movie. Of course it's of its time but it still holds up. There's so much more to it I think you have a treat in store -- well, a rather grim one, I agree.
Quick note: Nevil Shute wrote the novel at a time when many people believed the Southern Hemisphere would be spared any damage or fallout from a nuclear war that enveloped the Northern Hemisphere, since there were no real targets in the south and it was assumed such a war would be confined to north of the equator. His book served as a wake-up call that the effects of a nuclear war couldn't be confined. Many people say that what he envisioned isn't really possible, and perhaps not, but he did at least make people realize that such a war would have worldwide consequences.
I'd be interested in hearing your reactions to it.
The 1959 movie has a lot of logical inconsistencies and plot holes but it makes up for its lapses with a great cast and its suitably downbeat mood.
I also liked both versions but Ava was far better than Rachel just as Bryan was better than Fred.Another old movie overlooked with a similar type theme is " The Bedford Incident" with very strong acting performances.
shareAva may have been better than Rachel but Rachel was probably a bit closer to the character of Moira in the book, although that Moira was blond and 24. (Curiously, Rachel was 43 when they made this version, while Ava, who seemed older, was only 37 in 1959.)
But no way that Bryan was better than Fred. Astaire gave the best performance of his career and in the '59 film; he was so good in fact that many people mistakenly believe he was nominated for an Oscar for his work (he wasn't but should have been).
Oddly, while Brown was and looked younger than Astaire (53 vs. 60), the difference in their ages wasn't all that great. Astaire is also closer in style to the Osborne of the novel, though that character was much younger than either Brown or Astaire was. Brown is a good actor but like Assante his character was so badly written and directed that he just comes across as an obnoxious loudmouthed drunk.
Come to think of it, I wonder why most of the male characters in this film were written as yahooing morons. Lack of talent behind the camera is the main, though hardly the only, reason this version is so abysmally terrible.
You're right about The Bedford Incident, though. It's a very solid film.
They really are different films even if from the same book. I just found Rachel awful and thought Ava was very good. I did like Fred but thought Bryan Brown was the better in that part just as Gregory Peck was way better than Armand Assante could ever be. I never compare the movie to the book as they rarely can cover as much ground,as a matter of fact I recently saw a movie I thought was far better than the book "The Martian " . It was almost as if the book was written for a movie.
shareI mostly agree with you, especially about Peck vs. Assante (who is nowhere near as good an actor and in any case was dreadful here). I don't think Rachel was quite as bad as you think but I don't disagree that Ava was definitely better. But we'll have to agree to disagree about Bryan vs. Fred.
The book is useful as a guide to how they treat the subject more than what they include or omit. Both films have problems in this regard, and of course so many things were different by 2000 from when the book was written in 1957 (technology, public attitudes, etc.) that some changes would be expected. But this version just completely eviscerates the central themes of the book, with a stupid script, bad direction and (mostly) miscast actors. The '59 at least made a stab about being reasonably faithful to the source.
Nevil Shute attended the Melbourne premiere of the original on December 17, 1959, when it opened simultaneously in a number of cities around the world. He made his displeasure with it known in interviews soon after, and both Peck and Astaire said they agreed with his criticisms of the picture. Shute died of a heart attack just three weeks later, on January 12, 1960, five days before his 61st birthday. His wife made some rumblings about how stress from the movie had helped bring on the attack, which I think is nonsense, but I wonder how he would have reacted to the travesty they made in 2000, when he would have been 101.
Had the first film not killed him, of course.
Thanks for that interesting info.I had only recently even found out about the 2000 version actually quite by accident in IMDB when I was looking up something about Dr.Strangelove and in the "you may like " was this movie. I enjoyed it but it was different from the original and not a complete remake as there were a few differences. I may read the book after the 3 I have in queue but these types of movies and books are very depressing especially with a guy who may become president who could very easily start a war that can't be won.
shareIf you've never read the book you definitely should. It's quite good and while obviously the whole subject is depressing its somehow a bit more bearable in print. Anyway, the book is better than either film.
Hopefully that ignorant psychotic who's won the Republican nomination won't win the general election. As I write this there's a discussion on TV about Trump's dangerous ignorance and stupidity about foreign policy. Unfortunately there are a lot of stupid and ignorant voters in this country. If he does win, maybe the people who say they'll move to Canada should think about Australia instead.
I thought Assante was a poor choice. The character, unlike the novelistic Dwight, is "too East Coast" and wound 'way too tight. A bit puggish and thuggish. And weak and irresponsible - going off-mission to examine the irradiated American home, deserting his crew to be with Moira at the end (and how did he keep his dress whites so unstained, given that he has been regularly vomiting?)...
shareExactly right, word-for-word, bastasch.
Memory tells me I did see a stain or two on his dress whites. We did see some of the crew throwing up during his speech when he tells them he's bailing on them, but whether that's due to radiation, or nausea at their Captain's desertion and selfishness, is hard to say.
Thanks, hob. Sorry for this late reply. Just watched it again the other day - skipping the bad parts - for the photography mostly. What they could have been thinking with Assante boggles me. A long time ago the US news program "60 Minutes" (iirc) ran a show on a submarine captain who was rather salty and energetic - maybe the screenwriter thought that's how "Dwight" should also behave (but with a vengeance). In any case, a bad decision.
shareNo worries about the "late" reply, bastasch...no reply is truly late!
The makers of this film tried to re-imagine most of the story, but nothing and no one more so than the character of Captain Towers...and failed spectacularly. Assante is just a loud-mouthed, selfish, cowardly, boorish pig. Not "salty" or smart, as the skipper of a nuclear submarine needs to be (incidentally). A slob. This movie is an insult to American sailors and the men and women who run our military.
Amen to that!
share