The films are nearly identical in terms of plot, pacing, and scenes, but the execution is slightly different.
The movie is set in the 1960's at the height of the Cold War. It's actually weird to think that there are now living adults who were born AFTER the Cold War, so I don't know if the mindset of those times can ever be known by future generations. Looking back, of course a nuclear arms race is madness, so its easy to see why a film like Failsafe catches on with certain crowds. The central theme of the film is that humanity was/is playing with fire. Nuclear weapons are a threat to all humanity and it only takes one mistake for the worst to happen. That mistake happens through a series of events, any one of which could have been corrected of prevented. What follows is a tense blow-by-blow of trying to correct those mistakes and prevent even worse tragedies from occurring. This is told from the point of views of a bomber crew, the men at NORAD, the Pentagon, and the President. All the actors do a good job in their roles; there are no villains in the film. Everyone has justifiable reasons for their actions.
My complaints are that the role of the doctor was either intentionally or mistakenly watered down. In the original, Walter Matthau played an incredibly smart and pragmatic expert who actually makes good points about nuclear war. I felt like the doctor in this one was made to be a farce and a punching bag for the Left Wing.
Anyway, this version of the story is good, but not as good as the original. Its still full of suspense and it has that cold realism that most thriller films lack.
The movie is set in the 1960's at the height of the Cold War. It's actually weird to think that there are now living adults who were born AFTER the Cold War, so I don't know if the mindset of those times can ever be known by future generations. Looking back, of course a nuclear arms race is madness, so its easy to see why a film like Failsafe catches on with certain crowds. The central theme of the film is that humanity was/is playing with fire. Nuclear weapons are a threat to all humanity and it only takes one mistake for the worst to happen. That mistake happens through a series of events, any one of which could have been corrected of prevented. What follows is a tense blow-by-blow of trying to correct those mistakes and prevent even worse tragedies from occurring. This is told from the point of views of a bomber crew, the men at NORAD, the Pentagon, and the President. All the actors do a good job in their roles; there are no villains in the film. Everyone has justifiable reasons for their actions.
My complaints are that the role of the doctor was either intentionally or mistakenly watered down. In the original, Walter Matthau played an incredibly smart and pragmatic expert who actually makes good points about nuclear war. I felt like the doctor in this one was made to be a farce and a punching bag for the Left Wing.
Anyway, this version of the story is good, but not as good as the original. Its still full of suspense and it has that cold realism that most thriller films lack.