planet_mamoo
Joined Apr 2000
Badges2
To learn how to earn badges, go to the badges help page.
Reviews9
planet_mamoo's rating
This movie is absolutely magnificent. The choice of black-and-white was smart, as it ensures the action melds perfectly with the frequently-shown footage of the hearings and interviews from the period. In fact, one scene, showing Roy Cohn tarring a witness after McCarthy has left the room, is so magnificent, with panning between witness and Cohn (and the senator who attacks Cohn). It increased the drama of the scene, while heightening the drama of the film as a whole.
The directing is also spare, with no soundtrack -- aside from brief, and lovely musical interludes -- and the reliance on studio sets rather than location shots was also a good choice. Clooney also struck the perfect balance between showing closeups of actor's reactions, without dwelling on them. And indeed those reactions are often not explained -- you just know there's ugliness going on.
The acting was also first-rate. Very understated, with lots of low talking, and characters with doubts -- as any human being would be in their place -- without any of the usual Hollywood cardboard cutouts. Clooney was strong, and nicely understated; in fact there wasn't a lot of scene-stealing, though Patricia Clarkson is, as always, luminous.
No review would be complete without fulsome praise of David Strathairn. He captured Edward R. Murrow magnificently. The magnificent delivery of beautifully-written words, with the quiet, observing -- almost watchful -- behavior off-camera (the guy wasn't the life of the party, it seems) came together fantastically.
If there was a shortcoming, it was the lack of a what-happened-afterward finish. However that's a very minor quibble, and it's hard to complain about it, because the choice to not include that makes the movie very much of a self-contained unit -- like a great TV documentary (and hey, maybe people will want to go do some research).
All in all, a great movie. Well done, Mr. Clooney!
The directing is also spare, with no soundtrack -- aside from brief, and lovely musical interludes -- and the reliance on studio sets rather than location shots was also a good choice. Clooney also struck the perfect balance between showing closeups of actor's reactions, without dwelling on them. And indeed those reactions are often not explained -- you just know there's ugliness going on.
The acting was also first-rate. Very understated, with lots of low talking, and characters with doubts -- as any human being would be in their place -- without any of the usual Hollywood cardboard cutouts. Clooney was strong, and nicely understated; in fact there wasn't a lot of scene-stealing, though Patricia Clarkson is, as always, luminous.
No review would be complete without fulsome praise of David Strathairn. He captured Edward R. Murrow magnificently. The magnificent delivery of beautifully-written words, with the quiet, observing -- almost watchful -- behavior off-camera (the guy wasn't the life of the party, it seems) came together fantastically.
If there was a shortcoming, it was the lack of a what-happened-afterward finish. However that's a very minor quibble, and it's hard to complain about it, because the choice to not include that makes the movie very much of a self-contained unit -- like a great TV documentary (and hey, maybe people will want to go do some research).
All in all, a great movie. Well done, Mr. Clooney!
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.
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.