Tsunami: The Aftermath (2006) User Reviews

Powerful and haunting

[evening1 · 8/10 · 12 May 2019]

Ah, vacation -- that idyllic break from the realities of life! Except when we're reminded of the shocking indifference of nature.

This HBO/BBC two-part miniseries could be the poster child for poet Robert Burns's famous "best-laid plans of mice and men" idea. It is a visually dazzling and gut-wrenching imagining of the week following the 2004 Indian Ocean tsunami, from the perspective of foreign tourists and local residents in and around a resort destroyed on the coast of Thailand.

The story hinges on the efforts of a family man, Ian (Chiwetel Ejiofor), to locate his six-year-old daughter, after the tsunami rises out of nowhere and tears them apart -- leaving Martha (Jazmin Maraso) clinging desperately to a tree trunk and Ian knocked out by torpedo-strength debris. Their wife and mom has her own perspective on the tidal wave's horrors, surfacing as she does from a scuba-dive trip to encounter corpses floating on the water. Susan (Sophie Okonedo) starts by blaming Ian for losing their only child -- "I should never have left Martha with you...You lost her, you find her!" -- but, having been out on a pleasure trip when disaster struck,she finally acknowledges that no one is at fault.

Other poignant stories unfold. There is another Western family that, through happenstance -- the dad and brother choose to sleep in the day after Christmas, rather than get up early for the scuba trip -- gets ripped asunder in a different way. Wife Kim (played rather blandly by Tina McKee) becomes a widow overnight, and, not having bought travel insurance, finds herself frittering precious time trying to fly her unconscious teenage son back to England -- "He will die if he's not evacuated tonight!" We also meet a young local man, Than (Samrit Machielsen), who loses his whole family in the wave but risks health and freedom to assist injured villagers or create funeral pyres for the less fortunate. "We burn them to free the soul."

The visual effects in this film are awe-inspiring yet seem realistic, beginning with Susan rises to the surface of the eerily still ocean. On shore, a first few fish flap oddly on the sand, prompting questions from the not-understanding. "What's wrong with the sea?" asks someone who has noticed that the strand has multiplied in size.

This film tries to grapple with the more macro issues following a natural disaster, like language and cultural barriers that make a near-impossible salvage job even harder. We witness the haplessness of a resort unable to account for more than 700 guests, and the chaos of provincial hospitals ill-equipped to handle the lost, maimed, and dead. A British ambassador (played a little flatly by Huge Bonneville), perhaps accustomed to an easy posting in a plum location, writhes uncomfortably throughout the film, showing himself ill-equipped to handle the emotional intricacies of a vast human tragedy.

We also witness the efforts of the press amidst a clashing of values; Tim Roth excels as a journalist who is appalled to discover the authorities are cremating bodies before identifying them, presumably in a desperate gambit to prevent the spread of infection. ("Go away -- respect!" urges the monk at a makeshift morgue.) Toni Collette also does well as a Thai-speaking, expat educator who improvises to relieve the misery that sprawls around her.

Along the way, the relentless and haunted Ian seeks counsel wherever he can. "She's only 6, but she's got a real strong grip," he tells the Roth character of Martha and the tree. The reporter surmises that Martha is still alive; however, a Dutch pathologist dourly challenges that possibility.

This movie ends far from happily. As in real life, questions remain. As land developers move ahead with plans to rebuild hotels, Ian and Susan create a candle-lit shrine on the beach for Martha, and we wonder whether they will ever leave Thailand and their daughter behind. Whatever their decision, we learn there are plans now for a tsunami-alert system. ("Next time, a 30-minute warning will make all the difference," says a scientist whose earlier clarion call had been ignored.)

CODA: We learn in this film's after-titles that the tsunami killed 227,023 people in 12 countries. More than 50,000 people remain missing.

Honorably concocted fictionalization looses some steam with extended dilemmas

[oneloveall · 6/10 · 22 April 2007]

This acceptable dramatization to the horrific Tsunami tragedy of late 2004, under-examined still in the States with mind boggling statistics recalling something out of a biblical nightmare, does a fine job at capturing many different perspectives witnessing and withering to global catastrophe, however protracted and misaligned the dignified project can be. In reliable HBO fashion, the made for TV film barely feels like it, boasting arresting production, reliable performances, and a well rounded script. What does misfire though, is a prolonged detailing of these painful aftereffects, even worse when split up on two separate DVD's while only clocking in just over 3 hours. In keeping with the original miniseries, a bland DVD transfer only illustrates an awkwardly resolute second part over the first part's initial effectiveness.

Starting with the brief but frighteningly executed Tsunami itself, the film proceeds to detail 4-5 different characters amidst the chaos for it's remaining 3 hours, utilizing plenty of research to intertwine a few fairly developed narratives of varied and conflicting natures to disturbing effect. The result at times feels necessary though in time merely competent. Although a wide array of perspective lends to a sensitive portrayal of so much horrific fallout for all those involved with this unprecedented event, any initial universal appeal the soulful disaster piece warrants became overshadowed by the disappointingly connected subplots insistence to overstay their welcome (and become more Babel then needed). The fact also remains that despite Thailand being represented in the film, the principal characters are a Western filter to understanding this tragedy that is assumed to be more engaging to your typical American television surfer. Anyone who would not feel insulted at it's slightly sensational leanings then should feel enlightened by a detailed, multifaceted chronicle that should remain the definitive movie on the event.

It does feel stretched out (getting the first disc is satisfying enough, though would definitely leave a few cliffhangers), but for the haunting location set design alone, Tsunami: The Aftermath will help take comfortable, middle-class citizens into the heart of physical and emotional loss with a click of their remote.

Mostly good film with Ejiofor and Okonedo providing fantastic performances at the emotional heart

[bob the moo · 18 December 2006]

A group of European scuba divers are out at sea off the coast of Thailand on Boxing Day 2004. They return to the shore to find destruction as far as they can see, an ocean full of bodies and no sign of the loved ones they left behind. Meanwhile, on the shore itself the survivors of the tidal wave flee for higher ground for fear of a second wave hitting. As the authorities struggle to return some sense of order or control, the survivors try to find their missing relatives whether they are dead or alive.

I wasn't sure about whether to watch this or not because I found it difficult to imagine how a film could adequately capture the sheer sense of horror and the loss of so many hundreds of thousands of lives. And of course, having watched it, the film doesn't really ever manage to give the viewer a sense of how destructive and devastating the disaster was. Of course this is not really the fault of the film but it is generally just difficult to picture that many people dead and difficult to look at footage of missing villages and understand what happened. So this leaves the film to try and deliver it the best it can and fill the film with a handful of characters that can be followed from pre-disaster into the aftermath of the title.

In doing this it was never going to be perfect but it does build a cross section of characters and also deal with the emotional impact of the disaster as well as the organisational nightmare that followed as well as the inevitable search for someone to blame or be angry at. The film doesn't manage to do all of these well and indeed some of the threads fall flat; Tim Roth's journalist as an example of one aspect that could have been scaled back a bit. The result of it trying to do a lot is that the film is a bit too long and does feel baggy at some points. The strongest thread is that of the couple played by Ejiofor and Okonedo. They convey the emotions of those who have lost relatives without knowing if they are dead or alive. This part is engaging because of their performances – both of which are wonderful and painfully convincing. Their relationship is real before and after and it hurts to watch what they go through – they are the heart of the film and, although they are European, they embody the loss and pain. The Peabody's (McKee et al) and Machielsen's Tan do this as well but it is not as raw and emotional. The rest of the cast are left with the other material to work with and they all mostly do good work. For all his character's relative unimportance, Roth still does well and he does provide a glue to hold the bigger picture together. Bonneville and Collette provide the organisational side with teeth and meaningful performances.

Although the plot wanders a bit in the second half, this film still has enough about it to engage and move. Occasionally baggy it is mostly interesting and holds the attention. The cast are mostly good but the emotional heart of the film is wonderfully delivered by two guttingly real performances from Ejiofor and Okonedo.

Tragedies on Film

[Bobbycenturion · 10/10 · 18 December 2006]

Tsunami: The Aftermath ranks up there with movies such as Titanic, Nicholas and Alexandra, and many other historical movies! This was a great protrayl of the tsunami tragedy that happened in Thailand 2004! The acting was great, everything was top notch! Seeing possible events occur in the film/mini-series was heart wrenching and sometimes made me angry or depressed! Anger at the Hotel Chains for being so greedy, and depressed and sadness at the loss of loved ones! This is a great movie and I hope it gets the recognition it deserves!! And the actors all deserve an award for playing such a diverse set of characters coming together in tragedy, especially Toni Collete, Chiwetel Ejiofor, Sophie Okonedo and many others!

Best Documentary yet!

[kevinalvarezp · 10/10 · 24 August 2007]

I was pleasantly surprised at how well the tsunami tragedy was re-enacted. The acting and the writing stand above the other craft.The execution is compelling thoroughly. It boggles my mind to find so many negative reviews on this site. This film in my opinion presents an honest and comprehensive account of the tsunami tragedy and its aftermath, it explores the causes, it attaches blame without luridness, it visits the foundation of the family as a institution in the midst of a life altering crisis, it is emotionally compelling, it is educational, it is thought provoking. This film made my everyday problems feel like a picnic at the park.

I didn't know Tim Roth was that good.

Too much dignified emoting

[paul2001sw-1 · 5/10 · 10 December 2006]

The problem with making a film about a well-known disaster is that the obvious line of dramatic development is precluded precisely because everyone knows it before the film starts. In 'Titanic', James Cameron spun a tale about the spirit of the age, which he bound up with the famous event at the heart of the film; but 'Tsumami: the Aftermath' tries no such tricks, and sells us a straightforward catalogue of human misery and suffering. It's all very earnest, and unclear what the point is supposed to be. Countless survivors (with missing relatives) are shown responding with a mixture of dignity and disbelief in reality. This may be one response to tragedy, but it's not the only one, and in this film appears to be celebrated as the highest expression of the human condition: epitomised when one man stands up at a public meeting and is applauded for his heartfelt but impossible demand that his (dead) child is returned to him. Liekwise, the film stresses a view that those on the scene in a non-personal capacity needed to emotionally empathise with the feelings of the suffering, whereas one could argue that, when it comes to the rationing of limited resources, one actually needs officials who can be completely dispassionate, and who can turn down the heart-rending (and conventionally justified) demands of those who cry loudest to meet instead the needs of those with even greater need. Finally, there is a political sub-plot, but this is presented more as a means to the redemption of a cynical journalist (who, as you might have guessed, learns to care) than as an end in itself.

The review may sound pretty cynical in itself, and I don't want to belittle the appalling human suffering of the real life tragedy in any way. But this film's obsession with dignified emoting puts a very strange spin on the human condition.

Terribly uninspiring

[wmontalv · 2/10 · 8 January 2007]

Bad acting, Over-reliance on emotions that don't get expressed properly, Offers no interesting/original story or point of view. I agree with others that it has too much of the inaccurate documentary and very little of the Thai people's suffering and grief. This film was truly disappointing for such an earth shattering event. One of the greatest natural disasters in history affecting millions of people seems truly small and the main characters concerns and tragedies feel like petty whining. The Tsunami was a much larger and important event than what this film manages to convey. It truly does not live up to the challenges set out for something of this magnitude.

Any amount of taste garnered by the dignified responses of the main characters is undermined by the films total focus on tourists as the main sufferers of this tragedy, totally bypassing what this event meant for the millions of locals who were affected.

As a person who is very well acquainted with the toll a natural disaster can take I was extremely bored and disillusioned with this portrayal.

A whole lot of twaddle

[mary-oc · 1/10 · 27 December 2007]

This was an awful load of old rubbish. Most of the acting was painful to watch, the characters unbelievable and unsympathetic with the possible exception of the British Consul or whatever he was. Were we supposed to feel sympathy for Mrs Peabody and her awful droning on and on about her son's leg. He lost a leg, 300,000 people lost their lives!!! and she wanted a medevac arranged just for him !!! I kept watching until the end to see if the story ran true to what I would have expected from this calibre of programme, and the 6 year old British girl be miraculously found. OK, it didn't run true to form!. I would also hope that the person who played Ellen Webb now realises she has no future in acting. Shame on the BBC for being a party to this rubbish. And shame on me for watching it until the end.

Went on 90 minutes too long

[mafdenver · 3/10 · 3 May 2020]

In their effort to provide one-of-each tragedy, they gave a caricature of each. I should know better than to try to watch fictionalized accounts of events "as seen through" the lens of a few supposedly representative individuals as microcosms. Considering almost a quarter million people died in that tsunami, it's almost an insult to pare it down to five people for entertainment's sake. Gina McKee - oh what an unlikable actress - as well as the woman who played Susan Carter. Grief and despair are communicated by hanging their mouths open in a dumb manner.

Surprisingly insignificant....

[indy-39 · 3/10 · 24 December 2006]

I'm sure the decision to do a mini-series(?) on the 2006 tsunami was not an easy one to make. In all fairness, I can't imagine any fictionalized account of a major disaster like this one not being inadequate in trying to examine what really happened. Although this wasn't as thoroughly offensive as Titanic (you can stop reading here if you're a big fan of that film), where the deaths of hundreds pale as compared to the lives of two fictional teenagers, this film falls far short of giving the dead their just do. Most bothersome of all, the film feels unfocused and uninspired...perhaps the project should have been given to someone with a real point of view...or better still shouldn't have been done at all. The actors give it their best, although truthfully most of it never rises above the level of soap opera. Every time a storyline pokes it's head out of the water it gets carried off in the undertow. Tasteful? Yes. Interesting? Sorry, Discovery Channel could do better in one third the time. Ultimately I found it surprisingly insignificant...this is not HBO, it's TV.

Waiting for the good news....

[AJBraxton · 4/10 · 26 December 2006]

It is television after all so I kept waiting for the good news. Where was it? Certainly in this story of massive human suffering there has to be some good news. Okay... I'll give the producer/director/writer some leeway in that they wanted to tell a story about the Tsunami for a western audience so that probably accounts for the seemingly bizarre absence of any Thai person of note in the movie with the exception of hard working kitchen staff boy. Thank god for the western NGO worker to help those poor villagers who had fled to the hills . . . and then the Brits who came to the aid of the villagers. I am living in Thailand now and find that the Thai are quite capable (despite a bizarre bloodless coup of a freely elected Prime Minister to restore democracy?) of doing some really good things.. and doing quite a bit for themselves. There was an attempt to show the difference in response to this disaster on the part of the Thai (why it was o.k. for them to burn bodies w/o identification). But.. please.. where was the good news in this movie?