list http://www.spout.com/ Recent community activity around Fail-Safe on Spout Copyright 2005-9 Spout, LLC Spout RSS http://www.spout.com/images/SpoutLogoRSS.jpg http://www.spout.com/ 136 30 http://www.spout.com/films/Fail_Safe/11036/default.aspx Title: Fail-Safe
Year: 1964
Director: Sidney Lumet
Plot: Based on the novel by Eugene Burdick and Harvey Wheeler, Fail-Safe is set for the most part at Strategic Air Command headquarters, where a misguided transmission sends a squadron of bombers hurtling towards Russia, fully prepared to drop their atomic weaponry on Moscow. Air Force commander Frank Overton desperately tries to establish radio contact with the bombers, but once the pilots have passed the "fail safe" point, they've been instructed to disregard any reversal of orders. Racing against time, US President Henry Fonda, through his interpreter (Larry Hagman), informs the Russian premiere of the impending nuclear disaster. Working in concert with SAC, the Russians send up interceptors to shoot down the American bombers, while some of the planes run out of fuel and crash. Unfortunately, one aircraft, piloted by Edward Binns, manages to escape destruction and continues on its fatal mission. Realizing that Moscow is doomed, the President must decide how to avert World War III. Featured in the cast of Fail Safe are Walter Matthau as a hawkish scientist, Fritz Weaver as a round-the-bend colonel, and Dom DeLuise (billed as "DeLouise") as a weeping sergeant. Fail-Safe is followed by a government-dictated disclaimer insisting that the events leading up to the nuclear disaster depicted in the film could not possibly happen. ~ Hal Erickson, All Movie Guide
Number of Lists: 6
Number of blog posts: 1
Number of discussion threads: 1
SpoutRating: 3
]]>Wed, 01 Aug 2007 18:00:01 GMTFail-Safe1964Sidney LumetBased on the novel by Eugene Burdick and Harvey Wheeler, Fail-Safe is set for the most part at Strategic Air Command headquarters, where a misguided transmission sends a squadron of bombers hurtling towards Russia, fully prepared to drop their atomic weaponry on Moscow. Air Force commander <a href="/players/P____54477/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Frank Overton</a> desperately tries to establish radio contact with the bombers, but once the pilots have passed the "fail safe" point, they've been instructed to disregard any reversal of orders. Racing against time, US President <a href="/players/P____24097/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Henry Fonda</a>, through his interpreter (<a href="/players/P_____9336/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Larry Hagman</a>), informs the Russian premiere of the impending nuclear disaster. Working in concert with SAC, the Russians send up interceptors to shoot down the American bombers, while some of the planes run out of fuel and crash. Unfortunately, one aircraft, piloted by <a href="/players/P_____6257/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Edward Binns</a>, manages to escape destruction and continues on its fatal mission. Realizing that Moscow is doomed, the President must decide how to avert World War III. Featured in the cast of <a href=/films/151647/default.aspx style='text-decoration:underline'>Fail Safe</a> are <a href="/players/P____46456/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Walter Matthau</a> as a hawkish scientist, <a href="/players/P____75130/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Fritz Weaver</a> as a round-the-bend colonel, and <a href="/players/P____87126/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Dom DeLuise</a> (billed as "DeLouise") as a weeping sergeant. Fail-Safe is followed by a government-dictated disclaimer insisting that the events leading up to the nuclear disaster depicted in the film could not possibly happen. ~ Hal Erickson, All Movie Guide6113http://www.spout.com/ProductImages/t082178kunj.jpghttp://www.spout.com/films/Fail_Safe/11036/default.aspxFilm http://www.spout.com/groups/Top_5/Re_Top_Five_Movies_with_Budgets_under_10_million/190/17020/1/ShowPost.aspx Post By: Risselada
Post To: Top 5
Post Date: 8/1/2007 2:00:01 PM
Body: [quote user="joem18b"][quote user="Jymkata"] 1. 12 Angry Men - $350,000 in 1957, about $ 5.6 mil. in today's dollars according to your rules. This is one of my favorite films. Yeah, the setting is a couple of rooms, but the direction is taut and wow, what a cast![/quote]Lumet's first puts me in mind of Kubrick's early career. "The Killing" was made in 1956 for $320,000. [/quote]And not only that, Kubrick and Lumet were making a movie at the same time that had pretty much the exact same plots. Dr. Strangelove and Fail-Safe.
]]>Wed, 01 Aug 2007 18:00:01 GMTRisseladaTop 58/1/2007 2:00:01 PM[quote user="joem18b"][quote user="Jymkata"] 1. 12 Angry Men - $350,000 in 1957, about $ 5.6 mil. in today&#39;s dollars according to your rules. This is one of my favorite films. Yeah, the setting is a couple of rooms, but the direction is taut and wow, what a cast![/quote]Lumet&#39;s first puts me in mind of Kubrick&#39;s early career. "The Killing" was made in 1956 for $320,000. [/quote]And not only that, Kubrick and Lumet were making a movie at the same time that had pretty much the exact same plots. Dr. Strangelove and Fail-Safe. http://www.spout.com/blogs/jj79/archive/2007/6/26/12222.aspx Post By: JJ79
Post To: JJ79 Blog
Post Date: 6/26/2007 3:00:00 PM
Body: Cold War Communication Released: October 7, 1964Director: Sidney Lumet*****Good, old fashioned paranoia. That's what Fail-Safe deals in. Why is it "good" paranoia? Because of the no win situation the American President (Henry Fonda) is thrust into when an early warning computer system mistakenly sends bombers to take out Moscow. Because there is an atmosphere of distrust between the Americans and Soviets...and indeed within each group. Because, for every "out" the characters try to take, another problem springs up. Whether it be jet fuel, standard operating procedure or the desire to avert all out war, these people are damned if they do and damned if they don't.Told from the vantage point of Americans in different sectors of the government-the President, the Pentagon, military command-Fail-Safe morphs from an everyday thriller to something we don't expect, especially the last move the president has left. We know the bombing run is a mistake and everything possible has been done to recall the planes, but it isn't enough. Not for the Russians, who think this is a "my bad"-type of action designed to take out Moscow and absolve the US of any responsibility. One of the best things about the film is we never expect the eventual outcome. The good guys always find ways out of their current predicament, manage to save the world and ferment a deeper understanding between different cultures. As much as they try here, it can't happen because of the mutual distrust between all the parties. Could a deal be hammered out if they were sitting face to face? Is there another option besides the only one left? What does this teach us? On the latter, it's a distrust of computers and a strong lesson for the ability of people to make informed decisions. If the bomber captain had not been trained for radio blackout, could he have been recalled? But I've said too much already.When people don't trust one another, this is what happens. Long conversations, frayed nerves, people at each other's throats. And death. Without so much as showing an explosion, the president describes what will happen when the bombs get dropped on Moscow: phones melting, people dying, the sound of the bombers in the air. It's a particularly well done moment in the film, forcing the audience to think about the stakes. Obviously, there are more subplots with hawks and doves and one peculiarly out of place sequence with an army officer. But to give them all away or to talk about them in any context would ruin what is a solid piece of work from everyone involved. Especially the ending. (spout.com) Originally posted on:TheMovieRambler’s blog
]]>Tue, 26 Jun 2007 19:00:00 GMTJJ79JJ79 Blog6/26/2007 3:00:00 PM Cold War Communication Released: October 7, 1964Director: Sidney Lumet*****Good, old fashioned paranoia. That's what Fail-Safe deals in. Why is it "good" paranoia? Because of the no win situation the American President (Henry Fonda) is thrust into when an early warning computer system mistakenly sends bombers to take out Moscow. Because there is an atmosphere of distrust between the Americans and Soviets...and indeed within each group. Because, for every "out" the characters try to take, another problem springs up. Whether it be jet fuel, standard operating procedure or the desire to avert all out war, these people are damned if they do and damned if they don't.Told from the vantage point of Americans in different sectors of the government-the President, the Pentagon, military command-Fail-Safe morphs from an everyday thriller to something we don't expect, especially the last move the president has left. We know the bombing run is a mistake and everything possible has been done to recall the planes, but it isn't enough. Not for the Russians, who think this is a "my bad"-type of action designed to take out Moscow and absolve the US of any responsibility. One of the best things about the film is we never expect the eventual outcome. The good guys always find ways out of their current predicament, manage to save the world and ferment a deeper understanding between different cultures. As much as they try here, it can't happen because of the mutual distrust between all the parties. Could a deal be hammered out if they were sitting face to face? Is there another option besides the only one left? What does this teach us? On the latter, it's a distrust of computers and a strong lesson for the ability of people to make informed decisions. If the bomber captain had not been trained for radio blackout, could he have been recalled? But I've said too much already.When people don't trust one another, this is what happens. Long conversations, frayed nerves, people at each other's throats. And death. Without so much as showing an explosion, the president describes what will happen when the bombs get dropped on Moscow: phones melting, people dying, the sound of the bombers in the air. It's a particularly well done moment in the film, forcing the audience to think about the stakes. Obviously, there are more subplots with hawks and doves and one peculiarly out of place sequence with an army officer. But to give them all away or to talk about them in any context would ruin what is a solid piece of work from everyone involved. Especially the ending. (spout.com) Originally posted on:TheMovieRambler&rsquo;s blog http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/bomb/MemberTagFilms.aspxbomb
Number of films tagged: 455

Number of people who tagged: 32

Number of times used: 45

]]>Wed, 28 Oct 2009 17:27:51 GMT4553245Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/president/MemberTagFilms.aspxpresident
Number of films tagged: 808

Number of people who tagged: 21

Number of times used: 46

]]>Tue, 30 Jun 2009 13:07:18 GMT8082146Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/russia/MemberTagFilms.aspxrussia
Number of films tagged: 485

Number of people who tagged: 20

Number of times used: 39

]]>Sat, 20 Jun 2009 16:27:22 GMT4852039Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/coldwar/MemberTagFilms.aspxcoldwar
Number of films tagged: 203

Number of people who tagged: 16

Number of times used: 23

]]>Tue, 12 May 2009 13:09:30 GMT2031623Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/nuclearweapon/MemberTagFilms.aspxnuclearweapon
Number of films tagged: 272

Number of people who tagged: 6

Number of times used: 10

]]>Fri, 31 Jul 2009 13:03:15 GMT272610Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/worldwar/MemberTagFilms.aspxworldwar
Number of films tagged: 881

Number of people who tagged: 3

Number of times used: 3

]]>Wed, 12 Aug 2009 13:02:59 GMT88133Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/headquarters/MemberTagFilms.aspxheadquarters
Number of films tagged: 17

Number of people who tagged: 0

Number of times used: 0

]]>Thu, 07 Dec 2006 23:16:31 GMT1700Tag