fenevar

In 2013, two remarkably similar films released in theaters at around the same time. Both were about a takeover of the white house, Olympus Has Fallen and White House Down. Both were phenomenal critical flops, and deserved to be so. However, back in 1964, two films that dealt with identical subject matter were released in theaters, one after the other. Both of these films are tremendous and memorable, but they take distinctly different approaches to the subject.

These films are Dr. Strangelove (or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb) and Fail Safe. They both deal with the topic of mutually assured destruction during the cold war. In both films, a false alarm is sent out to bomber planes, which are flying two hours away from their targets. In both films, all attempts are made to stop the planes from attacking once it is discovered there is no need for attack. However, Dr. Strangelove tackles the topic from a dark comedy angle, while Fail Safe takes a serious, sorrowful, and devastating angle. Both do so as well as is possible, and both are stunning.

Fail Safe stars Henry Fonda as the unnamed President of the United States, who takes control of the situation in a tremendous performance. His character has several discussions with the Russian president, in another scene which shows the definite difference between this and Strangelove. In Strangelove, the president's conversation is quite amusing ("You know how we've always talked about the possibility of something going wrong with the bomb?") whereas here it's deadly serious and quite realistic.

Neither of these perspectives is the right or wrong perspective, and both are directed by masters of the craft of filmmaking. Sidney Lumet, the director of Fail Safe, is known most for films like 12 Angry Men, Dog Day Afternoon, Serpico, and more recently Before the Devil Knows You're Dead. Here, reminding us of 12 Angry Men is not only the director but the star, Fonda. Also, there is the atmosphere, the tension in the air of an impossible decision which needs to be made, and the most certainly deadly outcome will undoubtedly weigh heavily on the shoulders of those who make it.

Fail Safe doesn't make it to the ten star mark for me, personally, because of a decidedly slow start. The opening ten minutes or so are unpleasant and dull in my memory, and keep it from being a great film from start to finish. But once the plot gets on the road, this film is absorbing, tense, and everything a cold war thriller should be. Highly recommended.

This movie is trash. If I owned the DVD, I would apologize to the person that gave it to me, and I would toss the DVD in the trash. It's disgustingly horrid. The acting is trash. The writing is trash. The cinematography is trash. The character development is trash. The trashy music is trashily arranged, and put in trashy places of a trashy story. It's simply trash. This movie isn't just formula, it takes the formula, spits on it (not out of disrespect, it does this because it believes it will make the formula better) rubs it into dirt, and tosses it into a blender, and then it puts it's own arm in the blender for a bloody terrible taste. I cringed throughout the film, and there were no laughable or tasteful moments. The film isn't emotional, it's just simply DISGUSTING. The characters are as stupid as the person who wrote the script. Don't watch it. Sometimes critics watch bad movies to criticize them, this is one I wouldn't watch even to criticize.

Paul Thomas Anderson directed the film Boogie Nights in 1997, 1998, something like that. He's known for directing such masterpieces as Magnolia and There Will Be Blood. After directing There Will Be Blood, he took his longest recorded break from film: Five years. Now, he returns, with this film, the study of a new religion. The Master echoes Boogie Nights. A newcomer to a sort of cult, a group heavily burdened by controversy. In Boogie Nights it is pornography, in The Master, it is a new religion, very much like Scientology. The newcomer is welcomed. The newcomer comes to love the people in the cult. The story is played out fantastically, with all the acting being absolutely splendid. And the way the film looks on 70mm, is nothing short of mind-blowing. I love Nolan, but honestly, Anderson makes better use of the film. Every single shot is absolutely perfect, and amazingly filmed. The dialogue is amazing, as always with Anderson films. Hoffman's character, the leader of 'The Cause', leads well, and truly defines the word 'Master', with strong words, along with unyielding vocals. Some say the film is pointless. I disagree. It is meant to show the beginning of a religion, it's rising, and it's founding, and the strength of it's leader. It's a spectacle. Watch, and be amazed. The Master says a line near the end, (and I'm trying to keep this spoiler free, so this is rather vague) describing how no one can live without a master of some kind. And he does make a point. Anderson isn't in support of Scientology in the film, he's using it as an example. And he does so splendidly.