 "Fail Safe" | 2008-07-16 |
| - Reviewed By htre2003 |
| Good movie. could possibly happen in the real world. A good visit to the war room. I enjoyed the scene when the general (Blackie) was getting up from bed and talking to his wife. I remember him sitting by the side of the bed and saying something like; "is it possible that our dreams are really what we live and what we think we live are only dreams." I don't remember the exact quote, however, if anyone knows exactly, I sure would like to know. I'v seen this movie more then ten times and I still enjoy it very much. |
| |
 "We have nothing to fear" | 2008-06-09 |
| - Reviewed By bekintex |
But perhaps the machines we have built to protect us.
"Fail Safe" was filmed in 1964 at the height of the Cold War nuclear anxiety. The premise is that our US technology mistakenly labeled a troubled passenger aircraft as an incoming Soviet bomb and scrambled our own Air Force fighters against Moscow. President (Henry Fonda) and the Soviet Premier must work together to try and diffuse the situation and ultimately to solve the problems our failed 'fail safe' system created.
I am aware this film was redone in color and I am not sure it could ever be as good. The starkness of the black and white adds to the drama and period authenticity of the situation. Plus, Henry Fonda is in my opinion one of the best US Presidents on screen. This film is a classic and well worth the cost of the disc to add to your collection if you are a political science or a war buff.
Rebecca Kyle, June 2008 |
| |
| "FEEL SAFE ?" | 2008-02-02 |
| - Reviewed By User: A1MX6D3JK6IKDW |
| A "cold war' chiller that still maintains one's attention today after 44 years.While a brilliant, but truly eerie professor (Matthau) is holding center stage at a symposium, pontificating on the number of "acceptable losses" in a nuclear war, a computer malfunction sends an American bomber streaking towards Moscow. As scientists scurry to contact the jet,Fonda, doing a superb job as American President,effectively uses the "hot line",trying to buy time and to allay the fears of the Soviets. The plane is finally contacted, but the pilot has been specifically trained to disregard any orders from anyone once he has flown past his fail-safe point.Fonda then relays an impromptu plan to the Soviets to avoid nuclear warfare. Stay tuned! I would assume that all age groups, once seated, will still find this film downright scary and absorbing. |
| |
| "A Great, Great movie" | 2007-12-21 |
| - Reviewed By mrl859 |
| Fail-safe happens to be one of the few books I've read. A great book and a fine theatrical adaptation. I feel that Larry Hagman and Henry Fonda gave some of the best performances of their carrers. Very true to the book, in my opinion. I would watch it, commercials and all, each time it would come on broadcast TV and finally checked to see if it was on DVD. An exciting cold war thriller. I highly recommend this DVD. |
| |
| "Exercise in Tension." | 2007-12-20 |
| - Reviewed By xterminalx |
Fail-Safe (Sidney Lumet, 1964)
That Sidney Lumet has traditionally been one of America's finest directors almost goes without saying; this is the man who directed 12 Angry Men, Long Day's Journey into Night, Serpico, Dog Day Afternoon, Network, and Equus, among many, many others. Fail-Safe came relatively early in his career; while he had done a good deal of television work, it was only his sixth big-screen feature. It takes the tension of 12 Angry Men and ramps it up another couple of notches.
The story: a series of mechanical mishaps causes a routine alarm to turn into a potential nuclear catastrophe when a flight of bombers doesn't receive a stand-down signal. With the bombers on their way to deliver a nuclear payload to Moscow, the president (Henry Fonda) gets into a frantic series of impromptu peace talks with the Soviet premier. Meanwhile, we're also given glimpses into the cockpit of the lead bomber, the control room where things went wrong, and a Pentagon war room whose cast have become last-ditch advisors to the President. Their job is somewhat complicated by the presence of a pundit (Walter Matthau) who believes this is the perfect opportunity to launch a strike that would wipe the Soviet Union off the map forever.
While it's never explicitly stated, the action seems to take place in real time. This is a tricky trope to pull off (and when it doesn't work, it really bombs, viz. Brian de Palma's Snake Eyes), but Lumet handles it perfectly. As well, Lumet, who is well-known for getting the best out of actors, wrings every last drop from everyone involved here. And there are many-- Fonda, Matthau (as with many comics, put Matthau in a serious role and he gets scary), Dan O'Herlihy, Frank Overton, Fritz Weaver, Larry Hagman, Dom DeLuise, and many others turn in fantastic performances. When filming a suspense movie, though, great performances can only get you so much; the director also has to have a sense of timing. Spend too long in one scene and you kill the pace; speed up too much and you've got an action flick where nothing happens. Lumet keeps it right where it needs to be. And, of course, you need something unforgettable, something that will stick in the viewer's mind for years after they've seen the film (and in 1964, you had to do it within the confines of the "we don't have a ratings system, but you'd better be family-friendly" atmosphere of Hollywood). Without giving anything away, that's the movie's final scene. You'll never hear a piercing electronic shriek in the same way again. Well, not that you ever heard it much before, but still.
It's probably impossible to put together a ranked list of Lumet's major films; you'd have too many tied for first, and Fail-Safe is one of them. **** ½
|
| |
| "A period classic" | 2007-09-16 |
| - Reviewed By mls373 |
This film is full of surprises, from the opening inside a dream to its unforgettable conclusion. The solemn twin to the brilliant parody, Dr. Strangelove, it has been overlooked and undervalued. |
| |
| "Perhaps The Best Cold War Film Ever" | 2007-09-06 |
| - Reviewed By robertjkeil |
| This film is truly a masterpiece of suspense with an all-too-real twist. Very much in line with the issues and fears of the 1950s and 1960s, but still a gripping story today. Henry Fonda's performance is incredible. The plot moves along very quickly but is not overly complex. The cinematography is beautiful and dramatic. Sidney Lumet's commentary is also very good and insightful. I agree with other reviewers that this film is in need of restoration due to very coarse grain, dirt on the print, etc. which could probably be solved with some combination of optical and digital techniques. |
| |
| "Fail-Safe Plot synopsis error" | 2007-08-01 |
| - Reviewed By User: AGNMMBA8HB164 |
| Sorry, but I feel I must make a minor correction to the Amazon Plot Synopsis since I am a former B-52 nuclear weapons specialist and now edit web sites. The synopsis erroneously states that the B-58 squadron is on a "routine training mission" when an error diverts them to Russia. Actually, the squadron is on a Combat Patrol. The USAF never carries nuclear weapons on training flights. They used to fly combat air patrols as they did in "Fail-Safe" (called "Chrome Dome")until 1966 when a "Broken Arrow" incident occurred. A B-52 collided with a KC-135 tanker during refueling and dropped its four Mark-28 thermonuclear weapons around Palomares, Spain. Since then the USAF ceased Chrome Dome. Incidentally, the B-52 intentionally released its nuclear payload as it is designed to do (in either a "safe" or "armed" configuration) in an emergency. I never understood why the film makers called the B-58 a "Vindicator" when its real name is "Hustler". |
| |
| "Fail-Safe" | 2007-06-27 |
| - Reviewed By jfarr02 |
| Of all the edgy doomsday thrillers that have unnerved us since the 1960s, nothing beats Sidney Lumet's chilling "Fail-Safe." Throughout the film, set in the control room of Strategic Air Command, Lumet expertly uses his camera to build claustrophobia and tension. The scenes with Fonda as the President and young Hagman as a petrified Russian translator are especially riveting. Walter Matthau also makes your blood run cold playing against type as a dispassionate nuclear-arms expert. Made when Cold War paranoia was at its height, this is a masterwork of relentless suspense. |
| |
 "Credible Plot Brought Low By Poor Technical Advice" | 2007-02-27 |
| - Reviewed By mvdooley |
While I guess the disappearance of Soviet Russia takes much of the continuing value out of movies such as this one [our current enemies will never be bothered with hotlines], those of us who remember those days will always be deeply moved by well done films of this genre.
This book, along with On The Beach and one or two others, were serialized in our local paper when they came out, and we all got to tremble and have nightmares one instalment at a time.
On the positive side of the ledger for the film version: (1)The basic story line,was quite conceivable to movie audiences at the time and therefore VERY frightening. (2) The script, the actors and the director keep the tension at a nerve cracking pace throughout. And (3) especially outstanding performances were turned in by the President, his translator, C-in-C SAC [though decidedly not the Curtis LeMay type] and the flight commander.
On the other hand, a good deal of the movie's credibility, to me at least, was destroyed by some layout decisions as well as technical errors. (1) While we have all since learned, along with President Reagan, that there is no 'war room' a la Dr. Strangelove, it seemed highly unlikey to me that the President would be compelled to make all his decisions completely isolated from his top advisors, not to mention maps, mock-ups and the video board everybody else had. There just seemed to be something important to credibility missing as he would hear the voices over the telephone in a totally unequipped room. There would be no opportunity for multiple speaker give and take as well as the chance to view faces, body language and visual and electronic data. While it heightened the sense of claustrophobia it diminished authenticity...so important in a story of this kind. (2) "Whitey" or "Blackie" [I think he was called both in the course of the movie] is supposed to be a pivotal character. Am I being unnecessarily niggling when I say he lost all credibility because he didn't know how to wear his stars correctly? He should have watched Sterling Hayden in the other movie. Sorry, but that was a real turnoff for me. He redeemed himself somewhat in the final scene he plays in his flight suit, but a multimillion dollar production should have hired somebody who knew that one. (3) Didn't at least one of the air police guys [all one and two stripers] have officer's capshields? It could just be the film quality of my copy, but I looked at that scene over and over and that's what I saw. And (4) How did the otherwise brilliant and believeable screenwriter get away with leaving a full colonel's parents in the basement? The social paranoia I saw in every full colonel I ever came close to made that scene laughable... as did the fact that he was kept in such a sensitive post with that sort of skeleton hanging in the closet. When I was in SAC you didn't get close to the nuclear alert area with a family situation like that, much less be in a position to influence what the guys in the nuclear alert area did.
I dunno... Just seems like a very artful production was brought low by blunders easily prevented. Three Stars |
| |
Expedited Available
