Fail Safe (2000 TV Movie) User Reviews

Exceptional Drama, Great TV

[BStu · 8/10 · 9 April 2000]

I only heard about this program a day before it aired, and I am very glad I did. The acting was absolutely amazing all around. There was not a single performer who didn't rise to the occasion in this picture. It is all the more amazing since it was performed live on national television. Particularly strong were Richard Dreyfuss, Harvey Keitel, and Hank Azaria, but it is difficult to break away any actors from the strong ensemble.

The whole effect of the production very well captures the sense of a Cold War drama. From the set design, costumes, performances, direction, and the choice to air in black and white, the atmosphere is as much a player in "Fail Safe" as the actors. One really gets the feeling that they are watching a 1950's era live broadcast.

I must say, that I knew nothing of the original story or film, and I really feel I benefited from that. The story is amazingly suspenseful. I did not know the ending going in, and I won't ruin it for you either. Just trust me that it is unquestionably the best way to view this picture. I was on the edge of my seat throughout the film and was honestly moved by the ending. The script is excellent, and the story even better. While it is clearly a cautionary tale of nuclear war, it never tries to beat its purpose into the viewer. It lets the story tell the story, which is always the best.

If you missed the live broadcast, be on the look-out for a re-broadcast. This is a real accomplishment from CBS, and its a shame that it was not more widely promoted.

Worthy of a re-broadcast, or a 2nd look if you taped it

[iam-1 · 8/10 · 9 May 2000]

This was something I was fascinated to see since I had first heard about it: a live broadcast in real time of an already produced story (twice, if you count _Dr. Strangelove..._) in Black & White, on National TV, using old-style equipment & lighting restrictions, with an absolute stellar cast. Woah! And it works. I was, in a way, looking for mistakes or wrong steps from the actors and crew who are used to being able to go back & do it a second time, but there were so few that it makes no point in listing them. Generally everyone gives what is needed to the effort, and the dedication of the cast to the text is obvious to even the untrained observer in the audience. The story is paramount, and the only thing that suffers in this adaptation is the lack of tension and complexity of some of the characters' sub-plots -- but I may be remembering the original novel which includes all the back-stories for everyone, and the original movie has more tension because that was done in the time of the Cold War Insanity so it is infused with the immediacy of disaster being constantly present, and that's not something you can put into two hours of TV done in the year 2000. Darn fine camera work, direction, acting, and lighting. All of it gives the feel of a Playhouse 90, or Hallmark Hall of Fame, or any of the other 'great TV Drama' shows of the late 50's and early 60's. The only thing that could make it more evocative would be to put that weird hi-contrast halo around the image, but that would get in the way of the great camera work, and wouldn't fit with the wide-screen letterbox of the frame. Even if it hadn't have been done live, it would have been an amazing piece of work, but as it is, it's even more stunning to realize that all of those fine actors were truly 'in the moment' at the same time, and everyone made the same movie for the same two intense hours. This really needs to be re-broadcast, and win Emmies, and be hailed as a return to Acting and Quality on television. MOW's *can* be quality, if you put this kind of effort into them. Watch this to see how.

A nailbiter.

[bat-5 · 8/10 · 12 July 2000]

As you view Fail Safe, you can feel the tension mounting as a nuclear nightmare unfolds in front of you. The story deals with a squadron of bombers who receive a go code as a result of a mechanical error. The rest of the movie is filled with anticipation and tension as the president tries to convince the Russian premier that the bombers are there because of a mistake, and the only way to preserve Moscow is to destroy the bombers. To talk about this movie to those who haven't seen it would ruin the story. What I can say is that once you start watching, you will not be able to turn away. The acting from all the performers keeps you watching as they propel the action forward. The black and white format gives it a feel of reality, and the omission of music adds to the effect . You know it's fiction but something in the back of your mind says that this could happen, and thus you're compelled to watch. For those who didn't see this in April, watch for a re-airing. Better yet, wait till it hits the home video circuit. That way, you'll be able to watch this captivating, tension filled, nailbiter with no interruptions

What's the problem?

[Kane III · 24 December 2000]

I just watched this on DVD. I'd already read some of the lukewarm comments by some here but bought it anyway - not having had the chance to see it on TV.

I simply can't fault it. It was well done in every department, it was just as tense as the original and just as well acted. Far from over the top scenery chewing, Dreyfuss's performance was on the money. What, he wasn't "statesman" enough? How many *real* presidents are?

Maybe it was the fact that most of the reviewers had to suffer the standard multitude of commercial breaks wrecking the tension, but viewed in one sitting on DVD, this thing packed a wallop.

And I'm not easily pleased.....

A look and feel different from any other TV production I have seen

[Figaro-8 · 10/10 · 10 April 2000]

I was totally blown away by this production. Despite the fact that the material has been filmed before, I felt like I was watching something totally new and original. This is due in no small part to the fact that director Stephen Frears and crew had the guts to do this as a live production AND film it in black and white. It made me feel like I was watching an old news broadcast. It also had a bit of a glossy look to it, sort of like the black and white films of the '30s and '40s. The performances are uniformly excellent, especially Richard Dreyfuss, Noah Wyle and Hank Azaria. There is no musical score, so you are either hearing dialogue and a few SFX or dead silence, which only adds to the eerie effect. The scary thing is that a scenario like this one could happen. If this is repeated or comes out on video, RUN to see it. You won't see another like it.

Numbing Drama-Thriller

[wig2160 · 10/10 · 19 December 2005]

--Contains spoilers-- Excellent mind numbing drama-thriller, a must see film for everyone. Superb acting, from a fabulous cast. Fail Safe tugs at your very core and evokes emotions from love to the vary basic instincts of survival and extreme sacrifice in a climax that will not disappoint. There are many many emotional moments in this film ,but near the end ,when the Airforce pilots son is pleading to his own father not to proceed with his mission, a mission that has been en-grained in his soul to complete no matter what the cost is perhaps the most heart wrenching moment I have experienced in film. I watched this with a heavy heart and was so engrossed that I just sat there at the end of the movie numb from its effects, now thats a great movie.

Not a match for the original film

[ozthegreatat42330 · 7/10 · 16 April 2007]

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.

Great LIVE TV. WOW!!!!

[Pat1973 · 10/10 · 9 April 2000]

All I can say is was live and ready to go. From start to finish it was suspenceful and very edgy and entertaining. There were no mistakes in this great tv event. The acting was flawless and exciting. The drama of this heart pounding story was about fighter pilots bombing Russia. It was a war story true and through. I highly recommend this great tv movie. All I can say is it's so honest and very scary to even think about this even happening. Just watch and see this great acted film. I can't wait till it's on DVD. For now it was on CBS channel 2 on April 9th. It's been 39 years since a live tv event has happened. It was great. All I can say is just watch! Staring George Clooney, Don Cheadle, Harvey Keitel, Richard Dreyfuss, Noah Wyle, Sam Elliott, Hank Azaria, Brian Dennehy, James Cromwell and John Diehl, and directed by Stephen Frears.

The Original Was Better

[culmo80 · 6/10 · 29 August 2013]

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.

We'll do it live! WE'LL DO IT LIVE!

[Rodrigo_Amaro · 10/10 · 17 September 2010]

Everything can happen on live television from TV anchors losing their temper over a subject or a mistake performed by someone in the crew; funny things happening behind cameras; and the most common a tragic event filmed just in the moment shocking many of us. What would you think of a film broadcast Live on TV, almost like a play where actors perform in the moment with the possibility of making mistakes, forget their lines and all that? "Fail Safe" remake of the 1964 classic starring Henry Fonda and Walter Matthau was the example I'm mentioning and it was filmed live in 2000 starring a great ensemble cast featuring names like Richard Dreyfuss, George Clooney, Harvey Keitel, Brian Dennehy, James Cromwell, Don Cheadle, Sam Elliott, John Diehl and Noah Wyle.

It might be an awkward experience now that is available on DVD, it's gonna look like there's nothing exceptional except for being a good movie (better than the original I must say) because you won't notice that it was something performed live. Those who watched while it was happening in front of their faces must have loved the idea. One of the funny and troubled aspects of filming live is the use of actors in many different sets at a time e.g. Harvey Keitel had to run from one set to another in order to have his performance captured in time. The concept behind the scenes must have been very difficult, with many rehearsals along with a complex text that didn't make it easy on the actors, not to mention the whole crew behind this project and their almost impossible tasks. But in the end it all works great!

Beautifully filmed in a HD camera in black and white by the wonderful cinematographer John A. Alonzo and directed by the great creator of "Dangerous Liasons" Stephen Frears, "Fail Safe" is a story set during the Cold War with the nuclear hysteria among Americans and Soviets (not based on a true story though). The biggest event here happens when a American Military plane invades the Soviet Union accidentally after receiving orders of attacking the communists but this order was a fail delivered by the new computer system on board of the plane. And worst than this is the fact that the military on the plane can't answer to the American President (Richard Dreyfuss) and or their own superiors simply because their voices can be faked, they think that this could be a false warning. So in this chaos the military crew believes in the lie and doesn't trust the truth.

If the plot sound familiar it is. It is "Doctor Strangelove" but without the funny jokes. In case you don't know this but "Fail Safe" (the one directed by Sidney Lumet) and Kubrick's film were released in the same year and by the same distributor which caused a clash between these two films and the rest is history, Kubrick film was acclaimed and Lumet's dramatic story was something laughable at the time. So don't expect humor and too much cleverness in this film, it is a more serious approach of the mass hysteria caused by possible attacks with atomic bombs during the bitter days of Cold War.

I really wish that the idea of TV movies being broadcast live become something more recurring. After all this experience was great, every actors were wonderful with no exceptions (Dreyfuss and Dennehy were outstanding) and it was very well made. 10/10

Well made, interesting and gripping, but...

[buiger · 7/10 · 7 August 2011]

Very, very good! Also interesting id the idea to film it live, so it is basically a theatrical piece... A good screenplay, great acting and a gripping premise!

The only reason it doesn't get a higher grade is because it is basically a copy of older films, films which have been done better in the past by both Sidney Lumet (also called 'Fail Safe') and Stanley Kubrick ('Dr. Strangelove or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb')...

All in all, this movie was fun to watch and maybe this 'rerun' is a great opportunity for the younger generation that hasn't seen the original movies to become familiar with the subject.

quality TV, for a change

[Sam_Gray · 10/10 · 26 April 2000]

It's taken me a while to get around to commenting on this, but I have to say, this is the best thing to have hit TV in a long time. I can't remember the last time I thought that any feature-length, made for TV product was actually good. Knowing that this was done live only impresses me more.

And I've got a say, I've never been a big fan of George Clooney. I've never much watched ER, and From Dusk Till Dawn and Batman & Robin both left a bad taste in my mouth. But, knowing the prominent role Clooney played in getting this on TV, I'd actually be interested to see what he does next. This is that good.

If Fail Safe ever comes on TV again, I'll surely record it. I'd advise you to do the same. 10/10

Daring Live TV Production is Very Good

[mrb1980 · 7/10 · 14 December 2008]

This live TV-movie is an update of the 1964 theatrical thriller. While not quite as good as the original, it was the first live TV drama in about 40 years. Several U.S. bombers miscommunicate due to Russian radio jamming, and mistakenly head straight for Moscow with their nuclear weapons. The rest of the film primarily takes place in Strategic Air Command headquarters and in a small room where the U.S. President and the Soviet Premier try desperately to avert a global nuclear war via telephone link.

Like the 1964 movie, it's a very tense, claustrophobic film which shows just how easily a global crisis could occur due to human failing. Richard Dreyfuss as the President, George Clooney as a bomber pilot, Sam Elliott as a visiting congressman who watches the drama unfold, Harvey Keitel as a general who is trying to understand the crisis, are all great. Walter Cronkite introduces the production, which is shot beautifully in black and white.

The movie has earned my respect for its daring live production, in an age in which everything is shot on videotape and all acting and directing mistakes can be easily corrected. If you're too young for truly live TV, please take time to watch this once.

The Fail Safe 2000 version does not match the 1964 masterpiece's acting or drama

[darkstar1940 · 1/10 · 2 March 2006]

The Fail Safe 2000 version simply does not match the 1964 film masterpiece's acting or drama.

I'm an USAF veteran who worked with the real Fail Safe system (not the correct name by the way) and the 1964 version rang all too true to me.

Henry Fonda's acting was right on target, so to speak, and brought back some memories of a very tense time in world history.

The 2000 version just seemed like a half-hearted remake without the compelling drama and performances of the 1964 original film.

Food for thought: The USAF command and control authority kept the largest arsenal of weapons in the history of mankind under perfect control for decades--without a glitch--until it was no longer needed after the Soviet Union's collapse. The movie dramatized the effects of accidental --or deliberate--use of nuclear weapons which is commendable. It is not a topic to be taken lightly.

Felt like the "old days"

[TC-4 · 10 April 2000]

I really looked forward to this live TV special and I was not disappointed. I also liked the black and white presentation. I remember quite well the live Playhouse 90s and Studio Ones of the fifties. When tape and film came along a lot of the edge was taken out. I hope that this starts a new trend. I would like to see one once a month. I would like to see how many new stars that rely on film and retakes to be good enough to be in a live show.

Another Remake

[JayPatton88 · 8/10 · 14 November 2019]

I enjoyed this as much as the first one, same plot, different actors, retro produced cinematography

A great production on its own

[schielkesspp · 9/10 · 26 December 2011]

If you have never seen or never had seen the original 1964 film, you would find this an exceptional piece of television, both in the story and the acting, and in the live production. It fairly portrays the tension and seriousness of the Cold War, now so easily forgotten (which I am old enough to have lived through, in the Cuban missile crisis). But what I find one of the most interesting qualities of this film is how it illustrates the range and risk taking of George Clooney as an actor, who was the driving force behind making this film and doing it live (as in "real time") on network television. The number and type of roles he has acted in his career is amazing. One of the best out there, as proved again over and over in the ten years since Fail Safe was performed. See it if you can.

Noble but flawed attempt to recreate the original.

[rixter · 6/10 · 10 April 2000]

This was a noble but flawed attempt by producer George Clooney to recreate the tense Cold War drama of the 1964 production. I liked the black & white photography but because it was broadcast live, the dialogue seemed painfully fragmented with stretches of dead air at times. It would have been better if it were taped and edited in the usual manner. Not as tense as the original but still a valiant effort. Nevertheless I think some classics should never be remade. See the original.

The very best thing George Clooney did or will ever do.

[vfrickey · 10/10 · 28 August 2013]

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.

A decent try, could be a lot better

[Angeneer · 7/10 · 1 May 2001]

The heavyweight cast shows it's an expensive production. This automatically removes this film from the low budget category and cannot forgive it for the plethora of inconsistencies and technical deficiencies. The plot is not well deployed and the flow is somehow problematic. It still remains an interesting subject and its airing on CBS helps promoting awareness for nuclear safety. Or at least I hope so. Unfortunately, once more, it cannot avoid praising American supremacy, but we're now used to it. At least Russians are presented smarter than the average cold war movies.

Really good

[tatamata1 · 9/10 · 25 July 2007]

I wasn't even aware that this was a remake when I watched it on TV. At one point I even thought it was an attempt to make a serious version of Dr Strangelove. Not something that should be boasted about, I know, but it's true and important for the rating I gave to this movie. I was a bit surprised to see such a good piece have only average 7, but learning about the 1964 version from the comments here on IMDb explained a lot.

I'll definitely try to find and watch the original. Surely people who saw it cannot be as taken with the 2000 movie as I was, seeing the story for the first time. Especially if the original really was that good. But for me, it was one of the best movies I have recently seen. The story does not sound unrealistic at all, and that's probably the most scary part of it. The director and the actors did a great job. The film got my undivided attention from the beginning to the very last scene. I am not even sure if I blinked once for the whole time ;)

I also liked the idea to make it look as a movie from 1960es - shot in b/w and all... E.g. in some scenes computer screen in the background was obviously just a piece of glass with planes drawn on it and some lights turning on and off.

Anyways, I give it well deserved 9. It is possible that I would have given it less if I had a chance to see the original first. But maybe it's good I didn't - I guess I enjoyed the movie much more this way.

Didn't deliver

[sarastro7 · 6/10 · 19 November 2005]

I was excited to find the Fail Safe DVD because of all the great actor names involved. An absolute power-house cast. However, this was one movie which should have been done primarily with unknowns. It had a moral message to deliver, and most of the actors had very little reason to be there. I liked Dreyfuss, Elliott and Dennehy (and Keitel, a bit, and Clooney, a bit), but the rest were wasted and had hardly anything to do. The movie was very low-key, sporting an outdated narrative style. A disappointment, overall.

Turning to the moral message; for a President to order the nuking of one of his own major cities is totally unbelievable. However, the movie was like a stage play with the message that the only truly ethical thing to do in such a situation would be this. Which is, I think, an acceptable message for the movie to have, even if it is rather far-fecthed in terms of the real world. So the plot itself was okay, but the style of execution was no success as far as I am concerned, and my disappointment in a project so packed with great actors remains substantial. It was an interesting exercise, but I can't recommend buying the DVD. Maybe catch the movie on TV sometime instead.

My rating: 6 out of 10.

George Clooney and this phenomenal cast do an Excellent job! First Rate!

[kubrick4277 · 8/10 · 9 April 2000]

I have not yet had the pleasure of seeing the original "Fail Safe" with Walter Matthau and Henry Fonda, but I was exceptionally pleased with this version. It was chilling. It was thrilling. I never thought that a TV movie could have me on the edge of my seat! George Clooney and Harvey Keitel gave one of their best performances since they last worked together on "From Dusk Till Dawn." I hope this has a repeated viewing so that people can see how great this was. It takes a lot of talent to do a live broadcast of a movie and these actors used their talents in stride! I could watch this over and over again. George Clooney was a genius to decide to do this. I hope it does well in the Nielsen's!

OK, just OK

[pilot1009 · 6/10 · 14 May 2021]

A reasonable effort but fall way short of the original movie, acting was good but many scenes were missing anf the depth of development was poor. The ending lacked the impact (no pun intended) of the original.

Laudable But Badly Miscast

[TanakaK · 5/10 · 30 April 2010]

I see some very high ratings and praise for this version of a real classic. I suspect that many of these comments are coming from young people who have not seen the original film.

This was a very laudable effort in revisiting live television production, basically propelled by George Clooney. My hat's off to the cast and crew, as this is a technique that's not been seen since the 1960's. There was no editing in what you see here; it was performed (on separate stages) exactly as you see it recorded on the DVD. Even in the heyday of live television productions (1950's) this would have been an ambitious undertaking.

Unfortunately the casting made this look like a college play. Richard Dreyfus doesn't make it as the president. Noah Wylie doesn't make it as the translator. Brian Dennehy is fine as General Bogan, as he has the dramatic chops and the physical stature required. But despite the actors' earnest efforts you yearn to see the original cast in the production. This crew seems to work too hard to mimic the performances of actors who stand just too far above them.

If you've not yet seen this production or the original film, I suggest viewing this first.

I look forward to future live television performances (although I'm not holding dinner for them). Ideally they'd be original productions.