-
Message Boards

Just Movies!
Anyone see FAIL SAFE remake?
Archive of old forum. No more postings.
Please visit our new forum, The MovieMusic Lobby, to post new topics.
Author
Topic: Anyone see FAIL SAFE remake?

HAL 2000
Standard Userer

I wonder why they did it. I watched and it was almost exactly the same as the Lumet film. It was supposedly performed live and was broadcast in the same stark black and white style as the original. I'm tellin ya they LITERALLY remade the thing.I respect them for remembering one of the greatest films ever made on the subject of cold war paranoia and I would hope that seeing last night's version would move some younger viewers to seek out Lumet's brilliant original but it all seemed so strange to me. And for the record, Richard Dreyfuss' president didn't hold a candle to Hank Fonda's sincere and agitated portrayal.
Also, like the original, they wisely left the film unscored. The original Fail Safe is one of the few examples I can give of a film that benefitted greatly by having no music underscore at all.
posted 04-10-2000 07:10 AM PT (US) 
Howard L
Standard Userer

You're right, Dreyfuss was terribly miscast; either that or the memory of Fonda was just impossible to shake or both. I thought Hank Azaria was terrific in the Matthau role, Keitel just so-so as Blackie. It also seemed like poor Noah Wyle was unable to coordinate the listening & translating. I swear early-on he started translating before the Russian started speaking! But what a neat change to have the son instead of the wife plead with the bomber (Clooney). It was heartbreaking and terrifying at the same time.Nothing though can possibly compare to the ending in the original: The images on the streets of New York, the zoom-cuts...whew.
posted 04-10-2000 07:50 AM PT (US) 
Chris Kinsinger

Standard Userer

I REALLY wanted to see this, but circumstances prevented me from being anywhere near a TV last night.
I agree, Lumet's FAIL SAFE is a truly great film that benefits from black & white photography, and no music. It gives one the feel of a documentary!Sorry I missed it...I like Dreyfuss, but he ain't no Fonda.
posted 04-10-2000 07:50 AM PT (US) 
SEBULBA

Standard Userer

I haven't even seen it yet, though my company worked on it. It was a huge undertaking, let me tell you. We did all of the radar and computers throughout the entire movie. We've been building graphics for it since January. Beginning March 29th, we started blocking and doing all of the technical aspects, then April 4, began rehearsals. Clooney was so gung ho after doing ER live, that he wanted to do another live project. If this goes over well, he already has another live project planned. Another black and white. Well, I recorded it last night, so I need to see how it turned out.
posted 04-10-2000 07:54 AM PT (US) 
HAL 2000
Standard Userer

Yes Howard, the gritty zoom-cuts of Lumet's ending was spot-on. I didn't see the very beginning of the remake last night so I wonder how it started. The beginning of the original is one of the most brilliant openings I can remember to any film. Those surreal images of the bull being slaughtered. Great stuff.I think that last night's show was an ambitious and gutsy undertaking and it mostly succeeds... but I can't help but compare.
The live thing was just a gimmick. I would have liked to have seen it shot in film with perhaps a slight grain and higher contrast. That would have given the program a dirtier, more urgent look. But it was very good.
posted 04-10-2000 08:45 AM PT (US) 
John Maher

Standard Userer

I watched it live, and it was fun to see them do a live drama, again. However, I'm not so sure that they should. It isn't a movie, it isn't a play, and it isn't a tv show. It's something in-between; and it was abandoned for a reason. Back in the "golden age" of television, live productions were many. However, that was due more to the fact that they couldn't afford to film them, and they didn't have video tape. Once they did, the pretty much stopped doing them. The next planned live drama, is "On Golden Pond", on CBS, in November. I'll certainly be looking forward to it; but I hope these things are done, few and far between. At least that way, it will make them special. I agree that Dreyfuss was miscast; but it was Harvey Keitel, who I thought was completely out of his league. He was horrible. Hank Azaria was great! Overall, I thought the cast (and particularly the crew), did a great job.
posted 04-10-2000 09:00 AM PT (US) 
Marc Flake

Standard Userer

I would really have rather spent my time watching the original.Truthfully, I did watch the last hour. Caught the new X-Files first -- which was very good, written and directed by Gillian.
I didn't have anything else to do while I worked on my hobby, so I switched over to Fail Safe.
I won't go into my rant about why they keep TELLING THE SAME STORIES OVER AND OVER AGAIN that I got into when we talked about the "Planet of the Apes" remake. It's all been said before.
Yada Yada Yada.
Deja Deja Vu.
Marc
posted 04-10-2000 09:05 AM PT (US) 
dantoris

Standard Userer

Was it really live? I mean, broadcast and acted live at the very time we were watching it, or was it just recorded live, in that everything was just one take? I did notice that John Diehl(sp?) seemed to stumble through a couple of lines, but did a pretty good job at recovery, but a couple times it looked to me like some of the actors were a second or two late. The camera would cut to them, a moment of silence, then they would say their line.
posted 04-10-2000 10:11 AM PT (US) 
John Maher

Standard Userer

dantoris - yes, it was really live, as we watched it. That's what made if fun to see. The west coast saw it on tape delay, and I suppose that wasn't quite as exciting.Marc, Turner Classic Movies did show the original film, last night.
posted 04-10-2000 10:22 AM PT (US) 
Marc Flake

Standard Userer

Yeah, it was live. I guess the mistakes were good for entertainment value.At one point the Russian Premier hangs up, then tells a puzzled looking President that he'll call him when he's safely out of Moscow.
And after the bomb hits New York there's a lot of intentional silence in each scene. But the in the briefing room, the old balding gent starts to say a line (you can see his hand open, then close), but waits a while longer (then you get the same hand gesture, this time with a line behind it).
About the lack of a soundtrack, did anybody else notice the minimal hawking as the end credits rolled? Oh, there were a few lines, but not like you'd get if there were music playing.
I'll stop ranting :^{(
Marc
posted 04-10-2000 10:24 AM PT (US) 
dantoris

Standard Userer

They showed the original anyway? WOW! What a bunch of liars. From what I heard, when they announced they were going to show the original, at the same time as the live one, George Clooney called them and asked them to air it at a different time. They agreed and said they'd air it the night after. But it was aired last night?Anyway, I caught about 40 minutes of it and wasn't too impressed. (Sam Elliot always looks so dang funny without his mustache!) It just didn't have the same feel of being live as ER one was. Let's hope Clooney's next live project is better.
posted 04-10-2000 10:25 AM PT (US) 
HAL 2000
Standard Userer

Amazing how something that was once so terrifyingly relevant is now view merely as entertainment.
posted 04-10-2000 11:20 AM PT (US) 
Marc Flake

Standard Userer

John:Don't have cable, just broadcast.
Marc
posted 04-10-2000 12:39 PM PT (US) 
H Rocco
Standard Userer

Didn't get a chance to see this, alas.Was surprised it was done in B&W, and that Clooney would want to do it at all ... he must be trying to prove something, and more power to him. I mention this because if you look at blooper reels of, for instance, FROM DUSK TILL DAWN -- a movie in which he's ultimately very good -- he's flubbing his lines CONSTANTLY. (I wondered if the very assembly of the reel wasn't some kind of submerged revenge against him.) I'd have been TERRIFIED either BEING him or WORKING WITH HIM on a live production on the evidence of that (although the ER episode did go smoothly.)
Additionally, as far as Lumet basically carbon-copying his original ... it's been said he carbon-copied Franklin J. Schaffner's original TV version of 12 ANGRY MEN when he made the theatrical version (they came up together on all the same live TV shows).
Why not, Lumet's basically been making the same movie over and over again for at least twenty years (less the odd gimme-the-money job like that Rebecca DeMornay/Don Johnson thriller.)
I wonder if they shouldn't have recast Larry Hagman in the same part he played in the original (the nervous translator ) ... that would've been surreal and fun, and great for ratings as well.
posted 04-10-2000 12:58 PM PT (US) 
dantoris

Standard Userer

You can see him flub some lines in the "From the Cutting Room Floor" segment of the Peacemaker DVD, one of the best DVD presentations ever, by the way.
posted 04-10-2000 01:19 PM PT (US) 
Howard L
Standard Userer

Gotta admit the live angle was great, even if there was a lot of jumping from one set to another. Many moons ago I got through a radio call-in show in NY and got into a neat conversation with Michael Moriarty (sp.?). It was nice, they let us go on for a while. Anyway, I mentioned his work in a TV version of The Glass Menagerie and asked him if he would have liked the challenge of doing it live like all the TV productions in the 50s. He thought that was a neat idea and welcomed it wholeheartedly. Perhaps last night's show could start the ball rolling again. For all the flaws noted above, there was still lots of excitement in the immediacy of the thing.
posted 04-10-2000 02:26 PM PT (US) 
John Maher

Standard Userer

dantoris - The "ER" episode seemed live, because there were cameras and people speaking to them, all over the place. I happen to think that that show was horrible, and a real cop-out, as far a live television goes. The pressure of last night's undertaking, was far greater, and so was the accomplishment. It's far easier to cover mistakes, when there appears to be no script, and the cameras are present and visible to the viewer. To present a narrative drama, where camera's aren't suppose to be there, it much more difficult. Turner didn't show the film, at the same time, but much, much later. Around 2:30 or 3:00 AM, this morning.
posted 04-10-2000 03:44 PM PT (US) 
otten

Standard Userer

The consensus here is interesting. I only caught the last half after the X Files, but unlike the majority here, I really enjoyed it. I thought all the acting was great. The fact that they did it live added tension to each scene that was great. Having not seen the original, I was completely shocked by the ending. I was sitting thinking, "Whoa" (Keanu Reeves impression). Perhaps that's why I liked it so much. I never saw the original. My parents thought this one was good, but the original was better.
posted 04-10-2000 05:36 PM PT (US) 
Bel366

Standard Userer

I only caught bits and pieces of it, but I did think that some of the casting choices were interesting, especially Hank Azaria.I LOVE the original movie. The acting, direction, writing, set design, lighting, etc. were all superb.
Speaking George Cloney remakes, anyone have any information on the new version of OCEAN'S 11 that he is in? I cannot imagine doing it as anything but a period piece, but I think that it begs the question: why?
posted 04-12-2000 04:35 AM PT (US) 
Greg Bryant
Standard Userer

I thought the stuff cut for time for the most part didn't hurt...Cascio's alchoholic parents and how he thinks Bogan disparages him for this; Cascio's mutiny; the woman attempting to seduce Grotteschelle and he proving what an arrogant jerk he is.But the missing part about Black's dreams of the bullfight and matador and it's subconscious meaning to him should have been left in...perhaps it was the difficulty of recreating his dream in a live production that was the culprit.
NP: Indy II
posted 04-12-2000 09:12 AM PT (US) 
H Rocco
Standard Userer

Apparently OCEANS 11 is going ahead ... and I agree, why? And more importantly, WHY -- is -- director -- STEVEN SODERBERGH -- DOING IT? I'm not saying he's too good for the material, no filmmaker is ultimately too good for any kind of material -- it's what one makes of it -- but still I wonder, God, this, WHY?(Those of you who have yet to see Mr. Soderbergh's 1993 masterpiece KING OF THE HILL, consider yourself advised. I may not wish to speak to you if you've come back here not having seen it.)
Of such weird-ass odds-and-ends is the history of the flicks ever, ever made.
NP: VOLCANO (OST, Alan Silvestri, as heard on Varese's "Towering Inferno and Other Themes" -- I love this so much, I really must track down a copy of the complete VOLCANO)
posted 04-12-2000 09:15 PM PT (US) 
Greg Bryant
Standard Userer

Steven Soderberg, for the most part, seems unable to overcome the "Sophomore Curse" (other well-known sufferers include John Singleton and Michael Cimino). He held much promise in his first film (I caught sex, lies and videotape again last week and it's still outstanding). But with the exception of the great work he did on Out of Sight two years ago, I haven't found much that measures up to his first film. His stuff is okay, but not as good as his first feature. I haven't seen Erin Brockovich, but given it's star, I don't care to.I did see King of the Hill and thought it was good, but did not approach greatness.
posted 04-13-2000 09:18 AM PT (US) 
H Rocco
Standard Userer

Soderbergh is a weird case, and I can't even bring myself to see a few of his pictures, but on the basis of KING OF THE HILL and OUT OF SIGHT alone, I'm keeping my eye on him. THE UNDERNEATH was an oddball, not entirely coherent but still kind of interesting. An early signal that he was interested in genre ... who'da thunk it. (Actually KAFKA is probably the earliest signal of that, except that's fallen into the "ones I can't bear to watch category. Although I probably ought to give that one a shot.)
posted 04-13-2000 11:02 AM PT (US) 
Howard L
Standard Userer

It's interesting to note that several live TV productions were later remade into very successful films (Marty, The Miracle Worker, Days Of Wine & Roses, e.g.) but with Fail-Safe the process was reversed. And I think this made all the difference i.e. the live production was at a terrible disadvantage because of the existing (and great) film version.[This message has been edited by Howard L (edited 14 April 2000).]
posted 04-14-2000 09:05 AM PT (US) 
John Maher

Standard Userer

You're right, Howard, and the exact same thing is going to happen in November, with "On Golden Pond". Although I'm not sure that I would call that film definitive, in any way.
posted 04-14-2000 10:12 AM PT (US) Old Infopop Software by UBB
