Fail Safe (2000)

You won't be disappointed!

Simply A Masterpiece

Let me be very fair here, this is not the best movie in my opinion. But, this movie is fun, it has purpose and is very enjoyable to watch.

An old-fashioned movie made with new-fashioned finesse.

I want to freely state here that George Clooney is capable of brilliance, and the live television production of "Fail Safe" is a prime example of this. Whether it needed to be produced in black and white... is an artistic judgment that a lot of people agreed with. I was "meh" about it - this is, after all, the 21st century, and the only reason that Fail-Safe was done in black and white originally was economics. Now color's as cheap as black and white, and nothing in the original Burdick and Wheeler novel "Fail-Safe" demanded black and white.One suspects Clooney is nostalgic for the 1960s, when so many moral questions seemed easier to plumb to us baby-boomers. But the black and white presentation's a relatively minor issue.One thing I missed from the first movie presentation and the novel was a stronger Prof. Grotescheele (the Herman Kahn-like character in the movie played by Hank Azaria, who cut a figure in Georgetown house parties by brandishing his knowledge and seeming insouciance about thermonuclear war). The character came across as oddly subdued in the Clooney adaptation, perhaps because his egotism was shown (in the novel) in places which may have been very difficult to stage for a live production (in one case, the inside of a parked car). That's ONE drawback to live productions - you're limited in staging.But these are minor cavils. The fact is, George Clooney shot for a very hard target - reviving live television drama - and hit it outstandingly. The atmosphere of tension and violently conflicting loyalties comes across as sharp or sharper as in the original movie.I recommend you view this film, and the original film, and read the novel "Fail Safe," for the problem it explores, the very unsteady nature of nuclear weapon command and control, is going to be even more important to us as the membership of the Nuclear Weapon Club passes ten and moves toward twenty nations. Eventually, how well Bangladesh can control its nuclear arsenal when North Korea sells them one will be a question that affects all of us personally.And I fervently agree with George Clooney's remarks in the end credits of his adaptation of "Fail-Safe" that the growing membership of the nuclear club is an ominous development. I disagree that arms control is imperative; we've had arms control and a Nuclear Non- Proliferation Treaty for almost fifty years, and in that time India, Pakistan, South Africa and North Korea joined the Nuclear Club,often with help from fully signed-up (on paper) opponents of nuclear proliferation. There are absolutely no simple solutions to this problem.

If you have never seen or never had seen the original 1964 film, you would find this an exceptional piece of television, both in the story and the acting, and in the live production. It fairly portrays the tension and seriousness of the Cold War, now so easily forgotten (which I am old enough to have lived through, in the Cuban missile crisis). But what I find one of the most interesting qualities of this film is how it illustrates the range and risk taking of George Clooney as an actor, who was the driving force behind making this film and doing it live (as in "real time") on network television. The number and type of roles he has acted in his career is amazing. One of the best out there, as proved again over and over in the ten years since Fail Safe was performed. See it if you can.

Tomaroon wrote: ..."when General Bogan and the Russian General are discussing their time... (the 1964 film), here the location has changed to Paris. I really can't see the reason why"The actor did NOT say Paris, he said Persia.The movie was great, the black and white was a great affect (and I'm generally prefer color) and I loved the fact that it was live. I do agree with those who said the lighting was bad, it looked cheaply made but that was because it was supposed to appear to look like the times (like when they make westerns with mostly brown tones, even though everything wasn't brown, it sets the atmosphere for the times). However this person unfairly knocked this movie and was bothered by things that he/she misunderstood (like the name of the city where the two people just missed meeting).See it and judge for yourself.

Well, frankly this is virtually a carbon copy of the fantastic 1964 version. Once again, we're in monochrome and the script is almost word for word, with just minor changes. For instance, when General Bogan and the Russian General are discussing their time in London (the 1964 film), here the location has changed to Paris. I really can't see the reason why.....Having seen the 1964 version,it is impossible not to compare the two as you are watching. The film tries hard, but ultimately comes up short through the inability of the actors to match the originals' screen presence. Fonda, O'Herlihy, Matthau and Hagman have no peers in this version.The fact that it was filmed in real time is to be applauded, but it is ultimately unsatisfying. Maybe if this is the only version you have seen, you will be impressed (and apologies for harping on about this), but this is one of those times where you can put two versions of a film together and one will knock spots off the other.