Fail-Safe (1964) Poster

(1964)

User Reviews

Review this title
145 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
" Maybe It IS Hell ... "
stryker-524 November 1999
It is 1964 and the Cold War is raging. If the US military's Strategic Command spots any unidentified object in the skies, American nuclear bombers are ordered to a series of 'Fail-Safe' points. Unless they receive the stand-down command, the aircraft will head for target cities in the Soviet Union. Once beyond the Fail-Safe Point, and locked onto their targets, the bombers cannot be recalled. Crews are trained to disregard all signals, whether they be commands or entreaties, and continue on their mission. After all, any plea to turn back may be soviet subterfuge. This perverse logic of nuclear warfare, as one pilot puts it, "eliminates the personal factor".

The film conjectures what might happen if the system buckles. Suppose a technical mishap allows a bomber group to stray beyond Fail-Safe. Would the soviets accept the anguished apologies of an American president? Or would they regard it as a treacherous trick? Should human beings place everything they hold dear at the mercy of electronic systems? What if the rationale of nuclear strategy parts company with human logic?

Made less than two years after the Cuba Missile Crisis, "Fail-Safe" is clearly very heavily affected by that trauma and what it revealed to us all. We see a decent American President in the bizarre context of a nuclear showdown. Cut off from the society he knows and understands, the president is locked deep in some claustrophobic bunker, his only real human contact being the 'enemy' soviet premier. The American is wise and morally sound, and equal to the emergency. His Russian counterpart is emotional and unpredictable, but rises above his indoctrination to attain real dignity when the chips are down. Another of the Cold War insanities is played out - these two foes will spend the last hours of life on Planet Earth locked together psychologically, far from their loved ones.

Henry Fonda is first-class as the president. He brings authority and dignity to the part, exuding Ivy League self-assurance. Larry Hagman plays Buck, the translator from Russian into English, who spends the crisis in the bunker at the president's side. A moment's thought would convince any intelligent viewer that huge liberties are being taken with the truth. In reality, the president would have a team of advisers around him throughout (as indeed Kennedy did during October 1962). There would be phalanxes of interpreters listening in, to insure against even the tiniest mistranslation, and whole companies of psychologists to gauge every nuance of the Russian leader's mood. However, for clarity and dramatic power, the film has the president relying solely on the nervous young Buck. Simultaneous translation is a good dramatic device, because it avoids the distraction of subtitles or the absurdity of a Russian leader speaking fluent English.

Walter Matthau, against type, plays a heartless nuclear expert. Professor Groeteschieler advises the Pentagon top brass on nuclear strategy. He is a ruthless cynic who represents the Barry Goldwater end of the spectrum, and Matthau acts the part consummately well.

Sidney Lumet is one of the great directors, and his stylistic signature is apparent all through this fine film. From the very start, our peace of mind is stripped from us. We see a bull dying in the bullring, and the film's title is flashed up almost subliminally. These broken, discordant images place us immediately in a world of troubled dreams where no comfort is to be had. The American pilots look more like robots than men, in their heavy facemasks which amplify their breathing - or is it fear which creates that rasping edge to their inhalations? When the order to proceed beyond Fail-Safe flashes up in the cockpit, the pilots look at it in motionless silence, their very stillness conveying the tragedy in all its emotional power.

In "Twelve Angry Men" Lumet cast Henry Fonda as the voice of America's liberal conscience beset by the darker forces of the human psyche. Part at least of that film's artistic success is attributable to Lumet's skilful use of lenses in order to flatten the image and intensify the claustrophobia of the jury room. Here, the director employs similar visual techniques to heighten the dramatic experience. With his director of photography, Gerald Hirschfield, he employs chiaroscuro lighting and extreme close-up to amplify the tension of the final minutes, and even shoots Fonda through a fish-eye lens to impart a sense of psychological dislocation.

By a process that is itself logical, nuclear confrontation brings us to insane conclusions. Once both sides comprehend what is happening, they co-operate fully, sharing military secrets, as the humans unite against their mortal enemy, The Bomb. General Bogan (Frank Overton), America's Cold Warrior, is distraught when the Russian missiles fail to destroy American aircraft. Finally, we have the absurdity of an American bomber circling over New York, preparing to destroy five million American lives at the president's command. Life must go on, so plans are drawn up to rescue not people, but the commercial records of American companies from the debris of the metropolis.

Colonel Black (Dan O'Herlihy) is the keeper of the liberal flame. By a cruel irony, he becomes Death itself, and his tragedy is the tragedy of progressive thought. The 'hotline', established post-Cuba, is used very effectively in this film. Shot in exaggerated perspective, the phoneset dwarfs the president, symbolising the way in which the technological behemoth has swamped human decency. In a grimly powerful coup de cinema, the president hears his ambassador's phone melting and knows that the worst has happened. "No human being did wrong," says the Russian premier, as disaster darkens the earth. The American leader counters with, "We let our machines get out of hand." And there, in a nutshell, is the moral of the film.
102 out of 116 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
10/10
Despite its limitations, A Thought-provoking Cold War drama
JAMES BROOKS28 November 2005
I mentioned in another comment about a series of movies made during the mid-1960's, that I call 'political noir'.

These films are easy to spot, in that there were made in B&W, dealt with a American institutional crisis and seemed to always feature Henry Fonda somewhere in the cast.

On all three counts, this film fits that criteria.

Because this film came out around the time of "Dr Strangelove", it was somewhat overshadowed, and because of the nearly identical plots, there was even talk of plagiarism, even though this film was based on a novel by two Washington-based journalists with a remarkable insight of the workings of government and was directed by Sidney Lument, one of the cinema's great directors.

Also, unlike "Dr Strangelove", which seemed to receive major studio backing, money and the freedom offered by being produced in Great Britain where this satire was more appreciated, "Fail-Safe" was independently produced in New York on a limited budget, without official backing by the Defense Department, which explains all of the flaws complained of by many viewers and posters on this site.

Yet in spite of these limitations, Lument pulls off a major coup by presenting us with an authentic piece of Armeggeddon.

In a real-time view, we watch as a million-to-one technical fault 'orders' a wing of American bombers to attack Soviet Russia, and the Defense Department and the President are helpless in trying to stop it.

We are also witness to how our military operates, trying to plan military policy, and debating theory and possible results.

Such things are sensible and harmless as far as these things go, until 'the day comes' when reality displaces theory.

Walter Matthau, who is more well-known for his comic talents ("The Odd Couple", "Grumpy Old Men"), than being an accomplished dramatic actor, is shown at the height of his powers as Prof. Groteschelle; a defense policy wonk, whose obsession with defense preparedness and Marxist theory reaches the point of detachment from human emotion, as he blindly recommends that no action be taken and the bombers be allowed to complete their mission, resulting in 'final victory' over Communism.

This is in direct contradiction to General Black, a compassionate Air Force officer who is also an intellectual, who desperately urges that every means be made to stop the bombers before it is too late.

However, it turns out to be too late, at least on the American side.

We watch how technology becomes a hindrance, as much as the distrust between the two superpowers seems to be, as the President and the Soviet Premier desperately try to seek a solution to this disaster.

The tragedy about this is that someone thought they should remake this in 2000, which in a way is flattering but certainly could not come close to the original work.

But, this only proves that the subject of 'accidental war' is still a concern.

However, how can one do better than Henry Fonda ???
56 out of 64 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
10/10
How do you show your good will when your own bombers are about to mistakenly nuke Moscow?
Calli-217 February 2000
Warning: Spoilers
That's the biggest moral dilemma this movie puts in front of its characters. It falls to the President (ably played by Henry Fonda) to make the agonizing decision of how to handle the situation without causing a global thermonuclear war.

From the Soviet point of view, here's what happens. The hot line in Moscow rings. The premier picks it up to hear the American president explaining that three unstoppable bombers are on their way to obliterate Moscow. Oh, but it was an accident. We didn't mean to send them out, sorry. And we can't call them back, because they're beyond their fail safe position (and thus are trained to maintain complete radio silence and ignore any communication they may receive), and we can't shoot them down because they're way out of our range. Sorry. Our bad.

The pacing of the movie moves from a calm, cool tone while various media figures are shown around the facility in charge of all the bombers. Then it picks up a tiny bit as the facility detects a bogie over Hudson Bay. And this is where the situation begins that eventually leads to the erroneous deployment of a nuclear strike against the Soviet Union. Although it seems small at the time, this is the metaphorical horseshoe nail that loses the kingdom. ("For want of a nail....") From this point, the movie steadily increases the suspence as progressively more drastic measures are taken in the effort to stop these bombers, with the situation growing more desperate by the moment. I started out firmly positioned on my seat, but by the end I had moved further and further forward towards the edge of my seat until eventually I couldn't even sit still. Too much suspense.

There are quite a lot of technical errors in the film (for instance, due to the Air Force refusing to assist in the film, they had to resort to a fairly limited set of stock footage for the shots of aircraft, which are thus extremely inaccurate) but it remains a good movie. If you can ignore the errors in set design and stock footage and concentrate instead on the dialog (which is where the action is anyway), watching people rise to the challenge or snap under the pressure, this is a movie you will never, ever forget.
64 out of 74 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
10/10
Superior Cold War drama
perfectbond10 February 2004
I was thoroughly in suspense throughout this magnificent film. I almost felt as if I was watching World War III unfurl like the Gulf War did on CNN, it was that convincing. Fonda as the President and Matthau as the Professor, in truly memorable performances, are superb in their roles and indeed the entire cast is strongly competent. Besides the unforgettable ending, by way of the President's unthinkable concession, are the arguments and attitudes of the Professor and Colonel Cascio. At the time it must have been very tempting to many hawks in Cold War administrations to end the deadlock whenever a seemingly decisive opening presented itself. I strongly recommend this film for its believablity and realism and even the final credits! 10/10.
43 out of 52 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
A masterly Doomsday film
jandesimpson19 July 2005
Warning: Spoilers
The neglect of this masterly Doomsday film is generally attributed to the fact that it came out at the wrong time, shortly after the appearance of Kubrick's "Dr. Strangelove" which somehow caught the viewing public's imagination far more. I find this one of cinema's greatest tragedies preferring in every way the dark seriousness of Lumet's apocalyptic nightmare to the black comedy of Kubrick's vision which somehow trivialises the subject matter. It seems to have been Lumet's lot never to have quite reaped the critical acclaim accorded to several American directors every bit as worthy such as Kazan, Kubrick and Scorcese or even lesser figures such as Ray, Coppola and Spielberg. Incomprehensible when one considers a prolific body of work that includes films as fine as "Twelve Angry Men", "A Long Day's Journey Into Night", "Fail-Safe" and "Equus" to name but a few, always purposeful and seldom less than engrossing. I wondered how "Fail-Safe", made at the height of the Cold War and very much a film of its time, would stand up to viewing today and can only say, with the delight that rediscovery sometimes brings, that I found it every bit as shattering as when it appeared in those uneasy mid-'sixties. The thing I found so remarkable is its savage attack on the paranoia that fanned the Cold War, not just on the Soviet side but on the American as well. Indeed, by making the Walter Matthau figure a mouthpiece for U.S. political bigotry, Lumet leaves us in little doubt of the States' equal culpability in aggravating a situation nothing short of lunacy. It must have been an extremely bold and brave statement to make in those crazy days. The power of "Fail-Safe" lies in the fact that it never resorts to frill. No music punctuates the action. It is filmed in a particularly dark and sombre monochrome. The settings, apart from an expansive control room, are often in claustrophobic bunker-like rooms and plane cockpits. As with the American war film genre this is a male dominated society with romantic interest completely absent. There are only the bare bones of a plot to focus on but a plot so diabolical in its implications that nothing more is needed. It seems there is nothing science or even human psychology can do to prevent an American warplane from detonating nuclear warheads over Moscow. In order to possibly circumvent a tit for tat helter-skelter ride to world annihilation the U.S. President, brilliantly played by Henry Fonda, is forced to contemplate an order to sacrifice New York as a sign to the adversary that the initial American strike was the result of system failure rather than premeditated. Possably only an actor of Fonda's stature could have conveyed so convincingly the strength of supreme statesmanship. What an irony that it was left to a second rate actor to actually make it in the real world!
38 out of 48 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
10/10
A Great Film!
Art La Cues23 January 2006
I have watched "Fail-Safe" more than once and consider it to be a classic film which shows the anxiety and fear which we faced with the Cuban missile crisis of 1962. The cast is top notch, Dan O'Herlihy, Henr Fonda, Frank Overton, Walter Matthau, and all the other fine performers. In comparison to "Dr. Strangelove, which I have also seen repeatedly, I must say that the main reason for my enjoyment of that dark comedy is the performance of Peter Sellers, as the Nazi scientist who is still devoted to the fuhrer; while in "Fail-Safe" I am involved throughout the film. It resembles a documentary and, interestingly, in some ways reflects Stanley Kubrick's tone in the "Paths of Glory", which I consider to be his greatest film.

Sidney Lumet direction is superb, maybe even excelling his direction in "Twelve Angry Men". I consider "Fail-Safe" as a thoughtful anti-war film in the company of "All Quiet on the Western Front and "The Paths of Glory". I recommend this fine film .
36 out of 46 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
8/10
Frightening
preppy-322 November 1999
I'm a child of the 1970s, but this movie still scared me. You didn't have to grow up during the 50s or 60s to appreciate this. Anways in the 1980s, when Reagan was in office, nuclear war seemed a very real prospect. This movie is deadly serious, NO humor at all, and lit very sparsely. The battles between Russian and US planes seen as blips on a huge screen, is just as scary as if we had seen it realistically. Frightening, harrowing...hard to believe this film still has that effect now. Well worth watching but it's very very grim. Also, Fonda is superb as the President.
36 out of 47 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
10/10
the only WWIII movie you need to see
claudemercure16 August 2002
When people talk about a 1964 cold war movie, they're usually referring to Dr. Strangelove. Meanwhile, this intense, nerve-wracking, cleverly written masterpiece has remained largely under-appreciated.

One way to create a powerful drama is to make it feel as real as possible to the audience, and Fail-Safe succeeds marvelously at it. The order of the day on this film shoot must have been 'stark realism'. This agenda manifests itself most effectively in the vivid dream sequence that opens the film, but also in the terse intertitles indicating time and place, in the very contrasty (yes, I made that word up) black-and-white cinematography, in the absence of any musical scoring, and in the solid, unfussy performances by the actors (Henry Fonda and Larry Hagman deserve special mention). Oh yeah, and it's really suspenseful. The devastating ending gave me shivers.

Kudos to director Sidney Lumet, for his uncompromising and artistically daring vision.
13 out of 15 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
7/10
Serious As a Crutch
bkoganbing9 April 2007
Interesting that both Failsafe and Dr. Strangelove both came out in 1964 the year that Barry Goldwater and his candidacy brought up the nuclear issue. After seeing both those films together with the flip comments Goldwater made about nuclear war, he was never to be anything other than a Senator from Arizona.

Everyone remembers Stanley Kubrick's black comedy Dr. Strangelove about a nuclear exchange. Failsafe which is as serious as a crutch is less remembered. Still viewed today it still has an important message, maybe more important now than when it was a bi-polar world. At least everyone then seemed to be on one side or the other.

My favorite performer in this film is Frank Overton who worked mostly in television. On the big screen he's probably best known as the small town sheriff in To Kill A Mockingbird. Though he did a lot of television work until he died in 1967, Failsafe turned out to be his last big screen performance. Overton does a great job as the general in charge of the Strategic Air Command in Omaha who is very reluctantly trying to help the Russians shoot down SAC bombers who've had one squad of them accidentally given the go ahead for nuclear war.

Henry Fonda is the beleaguered president of the United States who is issuing commands from a deep underground bunker beneath the White House with only Russian interpreter Larry Hagman there. The whole claustrophobic atmosphere adds to the desperation of Fonda's performance. By the way note the large closeups of Fonda as he's trying to order the SAC bombers back from their mission.

You might also note in a tiny role at the SAC command center Dom DeLuise in a very serious role as a sergeant. This may be the only time DeLuise ever had a serious part.

At the Pentagon is Defense Department consultant Walter Matthau also in a serious role as a Herman Kahn type, looking to 'win' a nuclear exchange. He's one frightening fellow.

The world is no longer bi-polar, but the lessons of Failsafe have yet to be learned.
22 out of 28 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
8/10
The Ultimate Moral Dilemma In Superior Cold War Drama
Michael Daly28 May 2003
The ultimate moral dilemma confronts the President of the United States when everything goes wrong with the strategic offensive power of a US Air Force bomber squadron, leaving viewers shaken at the end of a superior Cold war drama highlighted by its extraordinary claustrophobia.

Filming of Fail-Safe coincided with filming of Dr. Strangelove, and Stanley Kubrick succeeded in getting his film done first. The earlier publicity for Strangelove hurt Fail-Safe's exposure, and this is doubly disappointing because Fail-Safe is in most ways a superior film, telling its story straight and highlighting superior performances by the entirety of the cast, from Henry Fonda, Frank Overton, Fritz Weaver, and Dan O'Herlihy to a stunningly strong performance by comedian Dom Deluise in a rare dramatic role.

What begins as a routine albiet annoying tour for a visiting Congressman of Strategic Air Command's headquarters in Omaha turns into the ulitmate nightmare. An unidentified aircraft is spotted on a course toward Detroit and airborne bombers are scrambled to fixed points orbiting Soviet Russia until the UFO can be identified. The scramble is routine but this particular one becomes more dramatic as identifying the UFO proves more troublesome than usual, but eventually all is cleared up.

But replacement of a faulty componant in SAC's mainframe briefly flashes the base's plotting board, and activates an attack signal in Bomber Group Six under the command of old-school Colonel Jack Grady (Edward Binns). Attempt to contact Omaha runs into unexpected and mysterious jamming, and the attack signal is verified - Moscow.

It is here that the real nightmare begins, and the President himself must summon Peter Buck (Larry Hagman) down to the underground command shelter in which lies the direct "hotline" oral communication hookup to Soviet Russia's ruling chairman himself. From here the President must coordinate with the Pentagon and SAC HQ to try and stop the bombers, despite endless jamming and the crew's own orders not to answer further contacts.

The actions to stop the bombers drive the drama and bring out the excellence of the cast. Frank Overton is the SAC commanding general whose faith in his systems is shaken by the accident. Fritz Weaver is his XO, driven by shame over his upbringing (shown when he gets into a fight with his alcoholic father before being summoned to SAC HQ) and more likely to crack under the strain. Dan O'Herlihy is a Brigadier General harboring endless doubt about the sagacity of the US strategic arsenal - "We've got to stop war, not limit it," he says, against the better judgement of his peers - who plays a pivotal role in the crisis' outcome.

But even with the excellence of these and others, it is Henry Fonda as the President and Larry Hagman who drive the drama in their hotline conversations with the Soviet chairman; the pivotal angle of these conversations is Peter Buck's whispered comments about the intangibles of the Russian leader's words and expression of them - when the Soviet claims no knowledge of jamming equipment, Buck expresses belief that the Russian is lying - and also his analysis of arguments among the Russian leader's own staff; as the conversations continue on Buck takes on more and more of the role of outright surrogate for the Soviet chairman.

The running battle to stop the bombers leaves the President with a decision that is the only hope, should the bombers succeed, to prevent Russia from a full-scale retaliatory attack that will incinerate the world; the President's decision is of course outrageously implausible in real life but nonetheless works in the context of the film, and leads to a delicious bit of irony at the very end that ties in a bizarre fixation with a matador.

Among the liberties the film takes to tell the story, aside from the hotline telephone (the actual hotline was a teletype transmitter, continuously updgraded over the years), are the types of bombers used and the speed and weapon capability of these craft. Such focus on hardware often hurts dramatic pull, but here it is kept to a minimum and only serves to help move the story along, a nice balance that exemplifies the strength of the story and the performances within.
38 out of 53 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
6/10
An Earnest Period Piece
tmg38025 January 2008
Warning: Spoilers
"Fail-Safe" has always been overshadowed by its famous contemporary, "Dr. Strangelove," and most would agree that the latter is a much superior piece of work. Though the plot mechanism that sets the film in motion is really rather implausible "Fail-Safe" has its virtues, including a literate script and some excellent performances.

When the failure of an electronic component results in the transmission of a false attack order to a group of US Air Force nuclear bombers on airborne alert, Soviet jamming prevents the group commander from confirming the order verbally. But the fail-safe system has transmitted what appears to be a valid attack order. So Group Six, with its load of ten 20-megaton hydrogen bombs, heads toward the Soviet Union. Target: Moscow.

The balance of "Fail-Safe" recounts the increasingly desperate efforts by US officials to prevent Group Six from reaching its target. The action takes place in four locations: Strategic Air Command Headquarters (Omaha, Nebraska), the War Room of the Pentagon, the presidential bunker under the White House, and the cockpit of the lead bomber of Group Six itself.

Why does it prove so difficult to recall Group Six? Well, that Soviet jamming prevents SAC from issuing a recall order by voice radio—an order that must be sent within ten minutes. After that, in accordance with standard operating procedures, Group Six will disregard any order transmitted by voice, even if it purports to come from the President himself. The nuclear war planners reasoned that the voices of senior officials and officers could be imitated; therefore, Group Six can only be recalled via the fail-safe system—which has now malfunctioned.

You see the problem. When I watched "Fail-Safe" recently, I found myself asking why there was no provision for a coded verbal recall order. In the real world, this would surely have counted as an extraordinary oversight. Indeed, from what we know of US nuclear war plans, redundancy is hardwired into the system at every point. "Accidental war" of the kind envisioned by "Fail-Safe" was always an extremely remote possibility. (Far more plausible is the premise of "Dr. Strangelove": that a rogue officer in control of nuclear weapons might touch off a war.)

Despite this gaping hole in its plot, "Fail-Safe" succeeds on a number of levels. For the first-time viewer, there is genuine suspense: Can Group Six be stopped? And without doubt, the film's Cold War atmospherics hold the mirror up to nature. In the early Sixties, when "Fail-Safe" was conceived, written and turned into a movie, the bipolar world order seemed immutable and eternal. Neither the United States nor the Soviet Union was going anywhere, and both were armed with thousands of nuclear weapons. Constantly intensifying superpower rivalry, punctuated by repeated crises, made global thermonuclear nuclear war seem inevitable. "Fail-Safe" is a fitting memorial to that bygone era.

Of the performances, my favorite is Larry Hagman as Buck, the President's Russian translator, who, on the hot line to Moscow, becomes the voice, and assumes the persona, of the Soviet premier. Walter Matthau is also outstanding as Professor Groeteschele, a political scientist and expert on nuclear war who happens to be present in the War Room on the day of the crisis. The familiar character actor Ed Binns turns in a solid performance as Colonel Grady, the commander of Group Six. Frank Overton as General Bogan, the SAC commander, is also a treat to watch. Henry Fonda's portrayal of the President is typically stoic—workmanlike if not particularly inspired.

The weakest performances are by Fritz Weaver as General Bogan's aide, Colonel Cascio, and Dan O'Herlihy as the tragic General Black. Mostly the trouble is that their parts are over-written. Cascio is the obligatory weak link, the man who cracks up under the stress of the crisis; Black is the martyr who must commit the film's final, terrible act. The implausible melodrama of Cascio's crack-up sounds a jarring note that reminds you of the fact that you are, after all, watching a movie. A quieter species of madness was called for here. And General Black? He's a tortured soul from the start—the uniformed apostate who questions the fundamental assumptions of nuclear war strategy. The astute viewer soon realizes that whatever happens, Black is going to be sacrificed. Perhaps if he'd been portrayed as a carefree flyboy, in love with all that technology and less conscious of its ultimate purposes, that sacrifice would seem more heroic. But we rather expect a Christ-like character to be crucified, don't we?

The look and sound of "Fail-Safe" are appropriately gritty—everything black and white, with a soundtrack full of spooky electronic noise. It's interesting to see what counted as cutting-edge technology in 1964: toggle switches the size of your thumb, huge consoles, ticker-tape readouts, stick-drawing Big Board graphics, etc. Owing to the non-cooperation of the Defense Department, the aerial footage is pretty lame. But this is a minor flaw.

Some assessments of "Fail-Safe" are colored by politics—and it's true that the film's scenario and message bear more than a tinge of old-time Ban-the-Bombism. On the other hand, the grotesque anti-military prejudices of contemporary progressivism are absent. The world of "Fail-Safe" is a world in which good men find themselves trapped in an impossible situation. No one can really be called a villain, not even the sinister Groeteschele. Like everyone else, he is a prisoner of history, a bit player in a cosmic tragedy.

"Dr. Strangelove" is a work for the ages; "Fail-Safe" is merely an earnest period piece. Still, for those of us who can remember the coldest season of the Cold War, this film still has the power to send a shiver up the spine.
15 out of 19 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Brilliant
XRANDY25 November 2001
I saw this movie via two instances of serendipity. First I just happened to be living in an area that offered The Disney Channel in the basic cable package (which is all I ever get) and that as a Bruce Springsteen fan I was excited that the Disney Channel was going to broadcast a special concert short on The Boss. Of course I'm an older Springsteen fan, so instead of staying up late to watch it I just put a tape in and pressed record. The next day I enjoyed the concert, but forgot to hit stop when it ended. What followed next was "Fail Safe". After a few minutes it caught my interest, and now is one of my favorite films.

I'm not sure if this was a precursor to "Strangelove" or vice versa, for they are both listed as 1964 releases. Oddly they both have the same texture about them which leads me to believe that there was more than coincidence in their respective productions. Both are piece de resistances in Cold War studies. The main sundering is that where "Strangelove" excels in parody, "Fail Safe" is rich in tension.

Of course an anxious film about nuclear war on the brink can easily invoke tension (remember "War Games"?), but this film exceeds a good plot. The filmmakers use a backdrop of soceital depravity to create neurasthenia and presentiment; as shown by the strange and erotic scene with Walter Matthau and the woman in the car (kind of a mass-sadisim, lust thing) and the implied domestic violence in the apartment scene. The movie is also deliciously philosophical (the clever "criminals and file clerks will survive" theory) as well as adroit phsycological character development for all the main characters.

The picture is also darkly filmed, remarkedly minimalist and low-budget as if to show the limits of technology, in order to symbolize the sophistry of our trust in it. BTW I love the Matthau character's (the political science professor) line as he explains the faults of missles that have no human intuition. "The rockets have the defect of their virtues" he says in explaining how they cannot make a conscious decision to abort after receiving an order. But the message in this film is clear; even if technology breaks down it is only a symptom of our doom, ultimately it is humans who are responsible.
17 out of 22 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
10/10
One of the very best movies ever made.
tikiman17055 October 2005
I just bought a copy of this movie after hemming and hawing for several years. I have both read the book and seen the film several times.

This is without a doubt one of the very best motion pictures ever made. The cast is exceptional and features actors that went on to be type cast as either comic or hack, Dom De-louis, Walter Matthau, Larry Hagman, in some unbelievably well done dramatic parts.

Along with Henry Fonda as the most realistic president ever put to film, The entire cast is magnificent.

Just as an aside try getting both this film and Kubricks Dr. Strangelove and watch the both. Fail Safe first the Strange Love and enjoy the juxtaposition. Basically the same story, but with a wildly divergent take on the situation.

Get some popcorn and enjoy.

Btw: 1. FAIL SAFE is a very intense film. watch it early in the evening.

2. Dr Strangelove is a comic masterpiece but pails in comparison.

3. Read the book of FAIL SAFE as well. It will chill your soul.
23 out of 33 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
8/10
"Dr Strangelove" after a laughectomy
rhinocerosfive-114 September 2007
Warning: Spoilers
It might seem odd that two identically storied, charactered, and plotted films should be produced at the same historic moment; but then, in both cases it's the historic moment that's under examination. What's interesting is that post-Kennedy America embraced the farce, rather than the morality play, as the proper genre for its most serious theme.

I saw "Fail-Safe" at the Egyptian Theater forty years later, with a curmudgeonly Dan O'Herlihy assenting to a Q&A after the screening. He spoke uncharitably of the success of "Dr Strangelove" and expressed bitterness that his version, which he felt the moral superior of its comic sister, had fared so badly with audiences and critics upon its first release and ever since. It is not pleasant to see an old man clutching to his disappointments, and there is no shortage of on-the-record bitching by this former Mercury Player about the various ways his career didn't pan out as it ought. (You should hear him rage about the indifferent reception of his "Robinson Crusoe" under Luis Bunuel.) In this case, at least, O'Herlihy has good reason to feel slighted. Not that "Dr Strangelove" isn't a vivid, near-perfect classic; certainly it is that and more. But "Fail-Safe", in its bleak way, deserves better than the lower track where it's been shunted.

Sidney Lumet likes long takes that crawl with mounting tension. At the top of his game, from the early 60s to the late 80s, he could do more with a static shot of a few good actors than most directors could with a convoy of cranes and all of Central Casting. The stock scenes inherent to political thrillers here might seem a little less inventive than some of their inheritors - every time the NORAD alert level rises, we are harassed by an absurd series of alarms, right up to the dive horn of a submarine, and the same set of doors opens to admit the same set of twin officers rushing conscientiously to their duties. But the action in these cattle corrals is always clearly focused downstage on some intimate dynamic more interesting than Busby Berkeley choreography.

O'Herlihy is technically and emotionally excellent as the belated conscience of the military-industrial complex, and Fritz Weaver has a heartbreaking debut; his descent into madness is directed with theatrical economy. Walter Matthau is a revelation as a vicious, elegant policy adviser, but he too has lots of help: early on Lumet sets up the Groeteschele character as a brutal warhawk, then softens him when he rejects the advances of a nihilistic socialite. We think there may be some humanity in him, some hope for his soul and so for the heart of our own darkness; then the story plays out and we get to watch a paper bag implode as the political barometer drops.

But it's Henry Fonda as the President who really nails this drama down. He grasps the gravity of the moment even as the wheels of posterity spin behind his cold eyes, and his basic Tom Joad decency is challenged by a series of decisions that, at best, will incinerate only his career. Lumet uses all the tricks in the 1964 version of his kit bag, from sudden lighting changes to wacky camera angles to new-wave editing, to convey the burdens carried by those slender, Brooks Brothers shoulders.

Lumet also gives us one of his best opening moments - we are title-carded into a dark "New York City - 5:30 AM", then shoved to the center of a blown-out bullfight arena and menaced by a strange electric whip. Not until "Serpico" would this quintessential mid-century Gothamite again introduce a movie with such a shocking and disorienting image.
8 out of 10 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
10/10
An early Terminator
Christian H-N22 August 2006
Warning: Spoilers
This is a cold war film, and several times the issue of machines taking over the decisions is mentioned. My point is, that it addresses many of the same issues, that Terminator 1 and 2 does. Many other people have written comments about this movie, I agree with most of them. This is an excellent film, still scary today.

One detail worth noting is, that it is real time. When the pilot of the planes says, that there is 14 minutes to the target, then it is 14 real minutes. Many modern films cheat with this time, if you see a bomb counter getting very close to zero, then the hero always have 5 minutes anyway and stops the bomb at 00:00:01.

This one is true in time - which makes it more realistic and scary - but there is no hero able to defuse the bomb.

Sic transit gloria mundi (That's how the glory of the world ends).
7 out of 9 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
10/10
One of my top five all-time favorites.
SethGekko16 August 2006
This movie deals in a gripping and real way with the implications of a run away arms race and two nations at the height of Cold War tensions. As a former Air Force NCO who served during the Reagan era (82-88) I must say that I clearly could identify with the Ed Binns and Frank Overton characters. Unless you have been there, it is hard to understand men that are duty bound to commit actions which any sane person would consider madness. It is true the effects might leave something to be desired, but they are not terrible and fit within the story quite well. Also, the lack of budget keeps the effects from overwhelming both the powerful story and the incredible acting of the principals. This movie should be required viewing for any school History class when covering the Cold War.
7 out of 9 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
8/10
A cold war classic
johno-2120 March 2006
This cold war era classic certainly made you think if it's storyline was possible. The plausibility of the solution to avert an all-out retaliatory nuclear war that the American and Soviet leaders decide on in the film is still debated but this film captures the essence of the cold war paranoia in this film directed by Sidney Lumet. This was Lumet's seventh film of his career and he was known for his dramas that were screen stage plays with 12 Angry Men, Long Days Journey Into Night and The Pawnbroker. Henry Fonda heads up an excellent cast including Walter Matthau, Fritz Weaver, Larry Hagman, Dan O'Herlihy, Ed Binns and Frank Overton. In 1958 author Peter George wrote the novel Red Alert and would go on to win an out of court settlement over the authors of Fail Safe, Eugene Burdick and Harvey Wheeler, on plagiarism charges. Interestingly the dramatic novel Red Alert would serve as the basic premise for this dramatic film and in the dark comedy Dr. Strangelove which were both released in the same year by the same studio. Good tension and drama from this script by Walter Bernstein. Weather it could or couldn't have happened as it did in this story it's still a compelling film 42 years later. I would give it an 8.5 out of 10.
3 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Henry Fonda's political career
schappe113 April 2002
Four great films of the early 60's are good looks at the political concerns of the era, most of which are still with us. Advise and Consent, (1962), shows the machinations in Congress when Henry Fonda is nominated for Secretary of State. He eventually has to withdraw his nomination. The Best Man has Henry, who is now Secretary of State, running for President. We get to see the political machinations of a party convention. Henry again withdraws his nomination. Seven Days in May has General Burt Lancaster trying to take over the country as we see the machinations of the Pentagon. Somehow Henry isn't in this one but Frederic March fills in admirably as the President. Henry gets to be President, however, in Fail Safe.

All are excellent films and would make quite a good marathon if you like to visit the video store to put on your own little films festival,. as I do. I just have one question: how does Henry get all these jobs without anybody's permission?
3 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
9/10
Shocking, brilliant, frightening, wonderful.
iisaiah31 January 2002
See "Fail- Safe."

I couldn't sleep without the light on after I saw this fantastically fabricated film. When a machine malfunctions and signals a U.S bomber to drop atomic missiles over Moscow, the Soviet Premier and the U.S President struggle to save the world from nuclear holocaust. The last three minutes are among the most powerful I've seen in a movie.
3 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Intensely Powerful
izzy4reel7 November 2001
This movie was great. It may seem boring to many younger teenage crowds, but you need to take into consideration the era in which this was made. The SFX were terrific for 1964. It was heart pounding and very scary at times. The acting skills of the entire cast are superb. I highly recommend this movie to anyone who wants to know more about the cold war. 4.5 of 5 stars!
3 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
8/10
Historical Parable.
Robert J. Maxwell29 June 2009
Warning: Spoilers
In 1964, a congressman is being shown around the War Room in Omaha -- you know, the one with the huge screen showing symbols of our airplanes and their SAMs? It's all run by a computer the size of Greenland. A module in the computer fails, there is a flash on the screen, and a flight of our nuclear-armed Vindicator bombers is ordered irrevocably to attack Moscow.

At the time, a hawkish professor, Walter Matthau in a thoroughly dramatic role, is giving a presentation to a dozen generals and high-echelon Secretaries in Washington. The subject is limited nuclear war. They have The Big Screen too. The diversion of the rogue flight towards its target interrupts Matthau in mid sentence.

Deep down under all the cement and soil and dead reputations of Washington, the president, Henry Fonda, is alone with only his translator, Larry Hagman, and a couple of phones, including the hot line to Moscow, for company. His job is to see if the six misguided bombers can somehow be recalled. If not, if Moscow is obliterated, what to do next? It's all very tense, of course, and the director, Sidney Lumet, handles it as well as possible, given that it is after all a tragic story. One bomber does get through of course and it's the president's decision to remove New York City from the map to prevent an all-out nuclear war. Fonda shades his face from the overhead light (and the camera) when he gives the fateful order. Immediately after he puts down the phone, he and Hagman sit silently in medium shot, Fonda staring into space. That's one example of why I say it's "handled well." How easy it would have been to avoid understatement.

The film had the misfortune to be released at about the same time as the wildly popular "Dr. Strangelove," a fashionably done and excruciatingly funny take off on the same subject, containing some almost identical shots. Well, "Fail Safe" dwelt in the shadows, financially and critically, but it was just bad luck. In 1964, the last thing we needed was another tragedy. Kubrick's movie tickled our funnybones at a time when they badly needed medical attention.

Speaking of "strange," the potential disaster of nuclear war -- accidental or otherwise -- was reduced to almost nil almost overnight with the collapse of the Soviet system sixteen years later. President G. H. W. Bush happily ordered our fail-safe bombers and our missiles to stand down. I expected dancing in the streets. Instead, the quidnuncs lost interest; there were a few weeks of pleased follow ups on the news, and then the crisis quickly faded into the mists, a welcome but essentially humdrum historical incident. It was replaced by a great deal of talk about "the peace dividend", which never materialized.

"Dr. Strangelove" is the more inventive film. It's an outrage. But "Fail Safe" should be seen by everyone now and then, particularly students in schools and universities for whom "the Cold War" is little more than a definition that must be memorized from their history texts. (In your Blue Books, describe in one page or more the meaning of "Remember the Maine." Twenty points.)

All Western nations, most particularly the US, have reckless and suicidal enemies but the threat they represent is of a different order. The policy that contained the USSR was acronymed as MADD -- "mutually assured destruction" -- and it no longer exists, thank God.
5 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
10/10
Amazing and chilling
quinnox-113 May 2007
Just rented this recently and was blown away! Great movie from the 60's that is still thrilling today. All the actors are superb and the tension keeps building until the end. How did I miss this before? Henry Fonda is especially good as the president who is faced with a monumental and terrible decision. This is one of the best movies I have ever seen. Emotional story with a chilling ending. An important message about humanity and the potential for self-destruction. Although more than 40 years old still relevant today. I hope the director received highest award for this film.

A masterpiece.
6 out of 8 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
10/10
Great performances Hagman and Deloise
jrb104sc200128 July 2010
Two actors who became better known years later were great in this film.

Larry Hagman as the young interpreter plays off wonderfully with Henry Fonda. Very few young actors of that time could have done as well. Seems to be forgotten as he never gets credit for this role. He was a lot of fun in Dallas, but after seeing this movie, you wonder how good he could have been.

Dom Deloise is excellent in a small but crucial part. Although he obeys orders, he shows the pain of doing so and he senses the rejection of his fellow soldiers. A fine comedian doing drama as a young actor.

Seeing actors when they were young and relatively unknown is one of the great joys of watching movies.
4 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
10/10
Brilliant Reresentation of what can go wrong when we depend on technology
ozthegreatat4233016 April 2007
During the cold war years (1960-1990) There were three excellent films which demonstrated what could go wrong and trigger a nuclear war by accident beyond human control. The first of these was a tense blank and white chiller called Fail Safe, taken from the Air Force's Go/No Go point beyond which bombers would be launched to attack Russia. The film stars an excellent cast led by Dan O'Herlihy as a General of the Air Force who warns that we need to step back and examine what we have created. Walter Matthau is a political scientist who argues that we should strike first as a prevention of future wars. Henry Fonda is the President of the United States who must come up with a solution when the unthinkable happens and an equipment malfunction sends bombers to bomb Moscow. Riviting suspense!
4 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
9/10
Powerful film, still relevant today
planet_mamoo24 April 2005
When this movie was released in 1964, it scared the crap out of millions of people. The threat it explores -- an accidental launching of a nuclear attack due to a technical error -- seemed all to real.

By placing characters in key positions on the chain of command, from the White House to the Pentagon, Strategic Air Command and, by voice, the Soviet leadership, the filmmakers do an excellent job of following events, and the effect those events have on completely believable characters.

Everything in this movie is fallible: the technology, the systems, and the human beings. And that, perhaps, is the most frightening thing of all -- the reminder that the terrifying power of nuclear weapons (of which thousands remain in existence) will always be at the mercy of imperfect beings.

The casting is perfect, the acting fantastic, particularly the late Dan O'Herlihy as General Black. Walter Matthau, in an uncharacteristically serious role, is chilling as a hawkish, Kissingeresque adviser.

I won't include a spoiler, but the ending was unexpected and entirely terrifying.

All in all, an excellent film -- the choice of making it without any music at all was very smart. If there is a shortcoming, it's the fault of the Pentagon, which refused to cooperate in the making of the movie. The director therefore had to use stock footage of military planes that rarely matched what the characters were saying. Only a minor shortcoming, though, and easy to overlook.

As a side note, a lot of people wonder about the similarities (and identical time-frame) between this movie and Dr. Strangelove. The answer is the simple fact that by the early sixties, many "nuclear thrillers" had been published, so it's no surprise that three of them got made into films at around the same time (the third is Seven Days in May).

Thousands of nuclear weapons remain in the world today -- and more are being built. And all of these weapons are overseen by fallible technologies and fallible human beings. Fail- Safe is therefore still relevant today.
5 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
loading
An error has occured. Please try again.

See also

Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews