That was the thought that struck me as the ending credits rolled. Intriguing plot, perfect casting, and amazing performances. Why the hell can't they make em like this anymore?
As for the talk about a remake, why bother? This is a masterpiece that holds up after 40+ years, and will hold up 40 years from now.
You ain't wrong there, matey. It's a truly class act with rivetting performances by Burt Lancaster and Kirk Douglas, two of my all-time favourites. Check 'em out in `Gunfight At The OK Corral'. The best cinematic - if historically inaccurate - version of that drama.
But absolutely nobody plays a bum note in `Seven Days'. Every role is perfectly cast. The script is a corker. I should have given it 10 stars. The way tension gradually builds throughout is an object-lesson in story telling.
Like a lot of extremely tense old, black-&-white cold-war movies, it seems to have been overlooked and rather forgotten nowadays. But not by me, or apparently yourself.
Screenman.
I think its terrific...along with movies like Twelve Angry Men and Fail Safe its a great demonstration of the liberal tradition in America in that period, America at its best.
shareIt's basically a perfect film. Rod Serling is truly missed. My appreciation:
http://juntajuleil.blogspot.com/2009/04/film-review-seven-days-in-may- 1964-john.html
Right on, dsh. Oh, Hollywood, come on!
"I can understand it, but I don't like it none!"--Cheyenne.
Hi dsh1998,
You got that right. From the mechanics, this movie was one of the best pictures ever made. Also, being shot in black & white added immensely to this movie's dynamics. Filming it in color could have killed a lot of this movie's impact.
My only real complaint is this movie seems to be politically slanted somewhat to the left. When it comes to the military and national defense, I lean rather far to the right (hawk).
Even then, I have a strong attraction for Seven Days in May, and I still enjoy watching it. This might be possibly due to the fact that a lot of the filming was on location in Washington D.C.
Yes a thoroughly enjoyable movie. The acting is peerless - as well as Douglas and Lancaster let's not forget the brilliant Fredric March perfectly capturing a president on the edge. The script is interesting, the direction taut and tense and the cinematography excellent. The only disappointment is the waste of Ava Gardent in a small (but significant) role.
shareI think the reason that this movie resonates with conservatives is summed up in the President saying (and I must paraphrase) "So what you are saying is you believe in the constitution?"
This movie is from an era that we perceive to have been enfused with honor. doing the right thing. Believing in the constitution was the the backbone of their beliefs.
These were real men, acting in an honorable manner to save the U.S.
I'm neither a conservative nor a liberal. I'm a drunkard. The greatness of this movie is not in the politics. It's in the art. Story, writing, staging, dialogue, acting - one of the few near-perfect films. It will never be listed up there with 'Casablanca' and the like, I suppose, because it lacks romance. What a shame.
Hi, Bob.
<Hi dsh1998,
You got that right. From the mechanics, this movie was one of the best pictures ever made. Also, being shot in black & white added immensely to this movie's dynamics. Filming it in color could have killed a lot of this movie's impact.
My only real complaint is this movie seems to be politically slanted somewhat to the left. When it comes to the military and national defense, I lean rather far to the right (hawk).
Even then, I have a strong attraction for Seven Days in May, and I still enjoy watching it. This might be possibly due to the fact that a lot of the filming was on location in Washington D.C.>
I am pretty conservative and I noticed the same slant to the left that you did, but I enjoyed this film as well. I think that Lyman was naive to trust the Soviets, so I probably would have opposed the treaty for the same reasons that General Scott did.
I would have equally opposed a miltary takeover of the US. The reason is simple: I believe in the constitution.
Hi Gary,
"Filming it in color could have killed a lot of this movie's impact."
I agree. I like color, but sometimes b&w is better.
You and I must be twins, Gary. Your viewpoints are almost identical to mine, namely that I feel this movie is somewhat slanted politically to the left.
I consider myself as being politically moderate right and hawk right as far as national defense. I lean more in the direction of a General Scott, but the actual takeover of the entire country by 3,600 troops is something of a fallacy.
Like you, I'm fascinated by this movie, too.
I also thought that Jack Mullaney's portrayal of loose lipped, LTJC Dorsey Grayson was outstanding. Some of the best acting that I've ever seen, and I feel this added quite a bit to the movie's impact. Loose lips sink ships.
I believe that filming some of this movie is Washington DC was a very, definite plus. It reminds me of my childhood when things were alot more conserative and patriotic.
<You and I must be twins, Gary.>
For your sake, I sure hope that we ain't twins, at least as far as looks go.
Seriously, thanks for the kind words. While I suspect that the majority of the posters on IMDb boards may be somewhat to the left of us, politically speaking, most of them don't make too big of a thing of it. Most are, in fact, really pretty polite even when they disagree with you.
I have, however, encountered posters who are not. If they get too bad, I handle them, and if I am pushed, I can be very blunt, as one poster found in a recent thread concerning weapons inaccuracies in a certain book.
Be that as it may, I enjoy conversing with you. Where, if you don't mind my asking, are you from?
Hi Gary,
I sent you two private messages. Any trouble, just post on the IMDb, 7DIM message board.
[deleted]
"My only real complaint is this movie seems to be politically slanted somewhat to the left. When it comes to the military and national defense, I lean rather far to the right (hawk)."
That's a matter of what's in the controversial treaty with the Soviets, isn't it? It is probably an arms limitation treaty, but without the details isn't it rash to fall back on the usual cant about "left" and "right," which after all are usually terms not meant for clarity but for pushing various people's buttons? Ah, I miss the days when Republicans existed who didn't dismiss any diplomatic initiative as treason. In 1964 this film may have struck viewers as alarmist despite the examples of Truman vs. MacArthur, the John Birchers, Barry Goldwater and the malignant Curtis LeMay. It doesn't seem so alarmist now.
Hi riogarhed,
Another thing this movie reminds me of is the present Presidental administration, namely health care. Those for it and those against it, like in the 7DIM movie. Those for the treaty and those against it.
I'm still a firm and staunch believer in a strong, national defense. Hopefully, 911 and Flight 253 in Dec/2009 has opened peoples eyes and minds and keeps them that way.
Best.
Thanks, lrcdmnhd72. The divide on healthcare is underneath probably more about politics than policy, and I take it that the conflict in this movie is about (military) policy, with true believers on both sides. But as you know it's based on a work of fiction. Also, there are Congressmen who are characters in the novel and movie, and who can be surprised if they are not true believers, only people who want their side to win at any cost? I should admit I am putting aside the Constitutional divide, or conflict, in the story, even though that is the most fundamental rift of all.
About terrorism, you and I may have a divide of our own. I hold that you take the measure of an attacker not by the results, however catastrophic, of his attack but the means he employed. In the case of 9/11 we know of box-cutters, fake IDs, flight lessons, rental cars, fund transfers from Saudi Arabia and other items that now escape my waning memory. In other cases we know of shoes and underpants. Candidate Kerry was much reviled and derided in 2004 when he suggested these enemies ought to be the quarry of international intelligence and police cooperation, not of artillery, infantry, bombers and missiles. Some of his loudest detractors were what are called chicken hawks. I do not, did not, disagree with Kerry. And if he didn't completely sell me on his view, I thought he might succeed had he not muted it in the face of the chicken hawk noise machine.
Hi riogarhed,
You're welcome.
I'm a strong supporter of National Defense. I was in the military, but have never seen combat. Maybe that in itself may or may not classify me as a "Chicken Hawk." There are times when this, "no combat record," bothers me.
To me, one warning flag is anybody who attacks National Defense. I'm not talking about constructive critism, but unwarranted, negative remarks or actions. In this case, these people are easily mislead, or are subservive. Take head in any case.
Best.
lrcdmnhd72.
Your points are well taken.
shareHi riogarhed,
Thank you for your fasrt reply. Must have caught you on the computer.
Just sent an email to a listserve buddy in Honolulu, Hawaii. I warned him earlier this morning about the tidal wave created by the 8.8 earthquake in Chile this morning, that's expected to hit the Hawaiian Islands in about the next half-hour or so. He told me everyone out there was adequately warned.
Best.
lrcdmnhd72.
I agree. It is a very fascinating film and one of my favorite political films of all time. I greatly enjoyed reading the novel expanding the story even more.
I am very interested in the storyline of the military vs the President of the United States and this film does an excellent job in its depiction of this scenario. Wonderful acting by all involved and Frankenheimer's direction is just excellent.
Frank: Just a man.
Harmonica: An ancient race.
"Why the hell can't they make em like this anymore?"
The caliber of the Talent, c'mon, Frederick March as President Lyman, Burt Lancaster AND Kirk Douglas, in signature roles, the Newman & Redford of their day no longer exist. The film is a standing and lasting testimony to when great things were possible and survives as a snapshot of the era of the Presidency of John F. Kennedy. I have admired this film from the time I was able to understand the gravity of it.
I loved this movie the first time I saw over forty years ago, nothing changed. All the performances are brilliant and the plot is perfect. Frankenheimer is one of the most underrated directors ever.
share