MovieChat Forums > Seven Days in May (1964) Discussion > This film is crying out for a modern rem...

This film is crying out for a modern remake ...

posted 9 years ago by norwell-services
22 replies | jump to latest

I must have watched this film a dozen times and it never fails to tick all my boxes ...
Two of my all time favorite actors;; Burt Lancaster and Kirk Douglas.
A great supporting cast ... Mostly dead now ...RIP
Really beautiful leading lady in Ave Gardener ... Xxxxx
Really fantastic plot line well executed and suspenseful ...

But just recently I've been thinking ... Heck ... This film deserves a modern remake ...
Just think of the intreague that can be created with leaked emails and mobile phone calls intercepted ...

Which all got me thinking ... Who would be cast as the main protagonists ?
The President ... Obviously Morgan Freeman !
The General ... Liam Neeson !
Jigs ... Tom Cruise !!!
The love interest ... Sandra Bullock !

What do you think ?

[–] 9 years ago

[deleted]

[–] mark5000910 8 years ago

Ouch!
That's a bit harsh.
A colour version would do no harm.

[–] monsieurzy 8 years ago

not harsh at all
to paraphrase John Huston, anyone can take a movie that was a hit/success and do a remake of it (usually ruining it in the process)..if you want to really show you've got some talent, take a movie that bombed miserably, and remake a hit out of it
..but the majority of idiots who want a remake are young losers who a) want to see more of their favourite "flavour of the month" celebrity , b) want to see lots of crappy CGI effects added , or c) unable to appreciate a good film in B+W

[–] doug65oh 8 years ago

While I do agree that a colour version might be interesting (to see at least once, that is) I can't help but think that this is one of those timeless classics that should be left alone. The story is just tight enough that there's really no reason at all to justify a remake - for my own nickel, at least.

[–] Eric-62-2 8 years ago

It already has been remade. And remaking it only would prove once again how out-of-touch and out-of-step Hollywood is today as they were then regarding where the greatest threat to American security lay. "Seven Days In May" was a product of paranoid thinking (I would even say Donald Trump like paranoia) in liberal America in the early 1960s about the rise of the conservative movement and the flash-in-the-pan fame of the likes of Edwin Walker that you had academics like Daniel Bell and Richard Hofstader writing all kinds of books about this alleged threat. But these people should have been looking to the other end of the spectrum because the real theat came not from the "superpatriots" but from the student radicals and the emerging New Left. General Walker and the Birchers ultimately faded into insignificance as the conservative movement under William F. Buckley and Ronald Reagan gained strength as a mainstream force and with far more prescience about the world situation than American liberalism ever was in this period or through the rest of the Cold War era.

[–] fortunate1 8 years ago

far more prescience about the world situation than American liberalism ever was ...

Oh, you mean the Cheney/Rumsfeld chicken-hawk world, Eric; that one? Look where that kind of dementia has brought us today. Mother Mary & Joseph, that revisionism is nauseating -but I guess plays well in the concealed-carry belt where you live.

[–] Eric-62-2 8 years ago

"Chickenhawk" is an amusing term concocted by latter-day liberals to demonstrate the shallowness of their arguments. If military service is supposed to be a prerequisite for deciding the wisdom of the use of force in a given situation, then Franklin Delano Roosevelt, the patrician of Hyde Park who never wore a uniform even before he came down with polio was the ultimate "chicken hawk" (or how about that Abe Lincoln when he ordered the use of force in 1861?). But hey, aren't we discussing this in a thread about a movie in which military service means you're a fascist ready to overthrow the government? Of course, whoever said the modern-Left was ever consistent in its standards?

But let's return to the world situation this film was commenting on, namely the Cold War struggle and the nuclear threat. That threat didn't end in a spirit of kumbaya over a disarmament treaty (the Jordan Lyman way), it ended with America winning the Cold War and the USSR ceasing to exist because it was the presence of international communism that caused the tensions of the "Nuclear Age" and not the presence of nuclear weapons themselves. Not a single speck of that hot-air speech of Lyman's about the "Nuclear Age" had any validity or prescience whatsoever regarding how the Cold War ultimately was won.

[–] aciolino 8 years ago

No Eric, "Chickenhawk," is a derogative term meant to point out hypocrisy of the highest order, bespeaking a willingness to sacrifice the lives of other's and their children while hiding in a closet in Washington D.C.

It is perfectly apt regarding, Bush, Cheney, Trump, etc, and you know it.

Sorry, pal.

[–] exferryguy 8 years ago

And Obama and Hillary!

[–] chefjoseph 8 years ago

Really? Last time I checked "Obama and Hillary" didn't lead us into the longest war in US history based on a complete LIE.

[–] Eric-62-2 8 years ago

"Chickenhawk," is a derogative term meant to point out hypocrisy of the highest order, bespeaking a willingness to sacrifice the lives of other's and their children while hiding in a closet in Washington D.C.

If you're man enough to show some consistency and apply that term to Woodrow Wilson and Franklin D. Roosevelt, NEITHER of whom spent a day in the military yet were in charge when we fought our two most destructive wars to American lives in the 20th century, then I'll give you points for consistency. If you're not man enough to do so, then you stand exposed as the partisan hypocrite you are.

And gee, how about Bill Clinton sending in troops to Kosovo and Haiti where there were no American security interests whatsoever?

Oh and an edit by me to note the ultimate example of who would meet your definition of "chickenhawk" if you wanted to be consistent: ABRAHAM LINCOLN!

[–] PrometheusTree64 8 years ago

The difference was the Bush/Cheney's war was manufactured, their knowingly sending men into a country that weren't involved in 9/11 and had no WMDs.

--
LBJ's mistress on JFK:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WcXeutDmuRA

[–] chefjoseph 8 years ago

WTF is wrong with you people who have issues with B&W ? The monochrome photography makes this film MORE effective, not LESS. B&W cinematography is not a "compromise" except during the era when Color Film Stock and processing was more expensive and the filmmaker was forced to choose B&W for budgetary reasons.

[–] aciolino 8 years ago

You left out Amercia's greatest screen actor, Frederich March, as the President. No one else could have given the strength and dignity he brought to that role. As far as I'm concerned, it's HIS movie.

Regarding a re-make. . . interesting. . .

But how would you deal with the many aspects of General Scott's plan that are already in place in the form of "FEMA"? The dissolution of Posse Commitatus? Our elected officials complete sellout to globalist interests and the indifference of the American people?

But, that aside, cast would be an interesting challenge.

I know of no actor who could successfully portray the President. Freeman is good, but not good enough. Maybe an older British actor would have to be found.

General Scott. . . who can stride the line between menace and charm the way Lancaster did? Not Neeson.

Jigs. . . Cruise (Ugh! God help us. No children please.) Clooney? Edward Norton. Period.

Ellen Holbrooke. . . Sandra's not nearly a good enough actress for this role. Thinking more along the lines of Hilary Swank. (Annette Benning too old?)

fun stuff. . . thanks.

[–] Dirty-Barry 8 years ago

I don't know who would play the rest but Phillip Baker Hall is a must for Senator Clark.

🇬🇧🇬🇧🇬🇧🇬🇧🇬🇧🇬🇧🇬🇧🇬🇧🇬🇧🇬🇧🇬🇧🇬🇧🇬🇧🇬🇧🇬🇧🇬🇧🇬🇧🇬🇧🇬🇧

[–] foster11 8 years ago

I thought they already tried that as a TV movie or an HBO or something

Jason Robards I believe played Scott

Forrest Whitaker played Jiggs

You don't have to stand tall, but you do have to stand up!

[–] MJC4861 8 years ago

This film should never be remade, but if they insist, here's my ideal cast:

Kevin Spacey as President Lyman (He's a scumbag Commander-in-Chief on Netflix; this would turn the tables).

Alec Baldwin as General Scott (He hasn't had a hit film in two decades, so why not?)

Nicholas Cage as Colonel Jiggs Casey (Just Because).

Billy Bob Thorton as Senator Clark.

Winona Ryder as Eleanor Holbrooke.

Ben Affleck as Colonel Broderick.

Bruce Greenwood as Senator Prentice.

Elizabeth Banks as Esther Townsend.

Robert Downey Jr. as Harold McPherson.

Harrison Ford as Paul Girard.

Samuel L. Jackson as Colonel Henderson.

Aaron Eckhart or Liev Schreiber as any of the above, excluding of course, the female roles.

Tommy Lee Jones as Admiral Barnswell.

Just some thoughts. It would have to be set in the present day with Putin and ISIS as the enemies of the United States. This would be a powerhouse cast with plenty of Oscar-caliber winners and nominees. Baldwin, of course, was once married to Academy-Award winner Kim Basinger and has hosted the show.

[–] graham-167 7 years ago

There's been one.

The Enemy Within (1994)

--
If I could stop a rapist from raping a child I would. That's the difference between me and god.

[–] bsantosu (155) 2 years ago

We could call it one day in January!

[–] kwestmo (4114) 2 years ago

That's funny