Fail Safe (2000)

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.

With the end of the arms race between the United States and Russia this film does not have the urgency of the earlier production. While the cast is composed of some very talented actors, they are simply not a match for the original cast. This goes to prove my point that some films should not be remade. Richard Dreyfus just doesn't come across as the president. And most of the other cast members were miscast as well. The story was close enough to be the original, and the look of shooting in black and white was a good choice. It is only in that medium that the stark horror of what has happened could be told. While this was certainly not a bad film or an awful film it simply misses that something that the 1964 feature had. I have rated it 7 out of 10.

I was born a month after the Berlin wall was torn down, so the Cold War for me was just an event in a history book.This TV movie, along with the original film, helped bring me the cold, horrific realities of a world where hundreds of millions could be hours away from certain death (interesting side note: look up Stanislav Petrov on wikipedia).It's scary, very scary, and I think that shows the fear that everyone lived with, even those who had to cover it up to get on with their lives.I hope more movies and TV series like this one are made, films that educate my generation about what the world had to face for half a century, and how things might have been different if only a few things had gone wrong.

Previous comment says comparing this to the '64 film should not be considered, and for good reason. It pales in comparison. The fact that it was live did not help me get interested in the least. I felt I was watching actors playing roles. Not that it was their fault that Henry Fonda was unavailable, but I never felt I was watching the President. I felt I was watching Richard Dreyfus playing the President. Why would Clooney remake this? Did he think he could do it better? Did he think the story needed to be retold? The Cold War ended 20 years ago and such a situation today seems completely implausible. Contrarily, the impeccable timeliness of the original kept you riveted. If the viewer, unlike me, is somehow able to remain seated throughout this whole production, there is little doubt they will ever sit through it a second time.