Seven Days in May

Rating:
Summary: SEVEN DAYS IN MAY
Review: THE ATMOSPHERE OF THE 60'S; IT'S TURBULENCE OF POLITICAL UPRISINGS,PEACE VERSUS WAR- MAKES THIS BRILLIANT FILM A MUST SEE FOR ANYONE WHO LIVED IT OR WANT'S TO GET A TASTE OF AN ERA. IT'S WELL DIRECTED; WITH CLOSE -UP SHOTS AND ACTING BY THE BEST OF HOLLYWOOD. IT DEALS WITH PRIDE,ADULTERY,HONOR AND LACK OF,POPULARITY VS ONES GENUINE BELIEF'S, KIDNAPPING,LOYALTY,A POSSIBLE MILITARY TAKE-OVER,DESPERATION AND FEAR.AND LOVE,NOT ONLY ROMANTICALLY BUT THE LOVE FOR ONES COUNTRY.

Rating:
Summary: Naive, silly and outdated
Review: I eagerly watched Seven Days in May after reading the many favorable reviews here only to discover a dated, sometimes laughable, early sixties period piece. It reminded me of my wife's vintage Betty Crocker cookbook, the one that lists butter as a basic food group. The movie began intriguingly as a colonel on the joint staff puts together small clues about a potential military coup. The movie quickly became downright ridiculous after the colonel briefs the president. In response to this potentially catastrophic threat to the nation, the president draws on all the power of, well, a few political buddies. Maybe the president has other options available to him. Perhaps the FBI could have interupted its surveillance of Martin Luther King to monitor the military plotters. Perhaps the CIA could have interupted its busy schedule of overthrowing the Iranian and Guatemallan governments to lend a hand back home. Perhaps it could have interupted its MKULTRA program of drugging American citizens to do a little domestic wet work and assasinate the plotters. Perhaps the NRO could have snapped a few satellite photos of the secret Army base. Perhaps most Americans didn't know anything in 1964 about these government activities so they could have more easily believed the powerlessness of an American president in the face of a potential coup. Having lived through Watergate and the revelations of the Church commission, I just couldn't buy the idea that the only investigative options available to a president is a drunken senator and an army colonel. And get this, a small cadre of high ranking military officers is willing to overthrow the American government and risk a potential civil war, but all it can do to that drunken senator is ply him alcohol? How about faking his death in a car accident? Seven Days in May is a naive, silly and dated period piece which has got to lack drama for anyone familiar with Watergate or the Iran-Contra scandal.

Rating:
Summary: The enemies are inside the walls
Review: John Frankenheimer followed up his 1962 cult classic THE MANCHURIAN CANDIDATE with SEVEN DAYS IN MAY, a very sobering but nevertheless gripping Cold War political thriller that remains interesting from start to finish.

The president (Frederic March) is about to sign a nuclear disarmament treaty with the Soviet Union in order to ease tensions between the superpowers. But the Soviets have had a history of renegging, and this prompts March's poll numbers to go through the floor. It also opens the door for General James Mattoon Scott (Burt Lancaster), a member of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, to plan a coup d'etat against March.

The only problem is, though, that a dedicated underling (Kirk Douglas) has gotten wind of the attempt. At the moment, Douglas has no hard proof on him, only whisperings of a secret base or operation known as ECOMCON. But it is enough to get March to consider the possibility, and he gets his closest friends, including a congenial but inebriated Georgia senator (Edmond O'Brien) to investigate.

When the proof is presented to March, he realizes that this coup is not just being caused by Lancaster's men, it is caused by the age in which we live--a nuclear age. The superbly mounted confrontation between March and Lancaster in the Oval Office in which March reveals his hand is one of the great dramatic moments of 1960s cinema.

All the performances in SEVEN DAYS IN MAY are brilliant, and Frankenheimer's direction is appropriately suspenseful in the best Hitchcock tradition. The Charles Bailey/Fletcher Knebel novel upon which this film is based was excellently adapted to the screen by Rod Serling; and while there is a moral tone to the film, it is never heavy-handed. Jerry Goldsmith's fine score tops everything off.

Next to THE MANCHURIAN CANDIDATE, DOCTOR STRANGELOVE, and FAIL SAFE, SEVEN DAYS IN MAY is an essential Cold War drama that, despite the fact that the Cold War acutally ended over a decade ago, has lost none of its punch.

Rating:
Summary: An All Too Real Thriller
Review: There were a number of excellent political thrillers in the Sixties, and Seven Days in May is one of the best. Fredric March stars as the President who is trying to push through a nuclear disarmament treaty, but he is meeting a lot of resistance. Chief among them is General Burt Lancaster, who has decided to take over the government to continue building America's military. Lancaster has developed an elaborate plan for his takeover, but his assistant, Kirk Douglas, has been left out. When Douglas begins to suspect something, the tension starts to rise. The plot sounds incredible, yet as written by the great Rod Serling and directed by John Frankenheimer, it is only too believable. The performances are all top notch by the stars, while Ava Gardner as Lancaster's former mistress and Edmond O'Brien as an alcoholic senator supporting the treaty shine in supporting roles. This is a smart movie that will take you back to a time not long ago when the Cold War had paralyzed the world. This is the kind of intelligent, tense thriller I wish we could see more of these days.

Rating:
Summary: COULD IT HAPPEN HERE?
Review: Yes, with the right ingredients, it could. All those military coups going on in other countries and all the unrest in the world, you can easily assert...yes, it could happen here. The unthinkable dread of a military takeover. SEVEN DAYS IN MAY is more than a great film. It is a reminder for us to take a minute and be thankful that a takeover hasn't happened here and hope such an event won't take place.

Rating:
Summary: Great movie (but not his best) and superb DVD
Review: Though it's not quite as good as "The Manchurian Candidate," this is still an outstanding movie. John Frankenheimer's adept direction and Rod Serling's literate, nuanced script complement the fine work of a brilliant cast. And unlike most of the nuclear war flicks of the '60s, "Seven Days" avoids the preachiness and propaganda that run through the bulk of the genre.

The DVD equals the film in quality. The print appears flawless, and the sound is as good as can be expected from a 60's era movie. Special features include a theatrical trailer, some brief production notes, and a detailed, informative commentary from Frankenheimer. He includes all kinds of fun details about the making of the movie. (Ex: rather than building gigantic sets to represent the infinite cooridors of the Pentagon, the crew built a V-shaped corridor, and hired midgets to walk back and forth across the corridor, creating the illusion of distance.) (Ex #2: the intensity of the performances might have something to do with the Cuban Missle Crisis taking place during filming.)

My only quibble is that Frankenheimer apparently had a cold when he taped the commentary, because he clearly sounds congested. It's distracting at first, but otherwise it's a first-rate commentary.

One bit of trivia: Leonard Maltin notes this film marks John Houseman's screen debut, but there are two other sightings: Leonard Nimoy in an uncredited role, and I could be wrong, but I could swear I saw Robert Mitchum in a non-speaking cameo as a U.S. Senator.

Rating:
Summary: Intense!
Review: I do not know what happened to John Frankenheimer. He recently directed the less than stellar Reindeer Games and Island of Dr. Moreau. But once upon a time Frankenheimer was a top notch director putting out classics such as The Train, Manchurian Candidate, and Seven Days in May.

Seven Days in May is as topical now as it was years ago when it was made. Burt Lancaster is awesome as a popular MacArthur type General prepared to launch a military coup against an unpopular elected President. Kirk Douglas plays his adjunct who works to stop the plot and protect the President.

As good as the story is and as good as the other actors in the film are you must check out how good Douglas and Lancaster are in their scenes together. IT is the equivalent of Pacino and Deniro in the coffee shop during Heat. These two tear up the scenery.

Anyone interested in watching on of the best political thrillers ever made needs to see this film. It is an awesome film.

This is a great DVD to own.

Rating:
Summary: An overlooked American conspiracy classic!
Review: Extremely provocative and thought provoking, this movie is diametrically opposed to the political atmosphere of the day. I was totally flabbergasted that a mainstream Hollywood conspiracy thriller, with a large budget and an all-star cast could have been made in 1964 with this kind of plot. (If the film were made in 1974, when the military were being blandly villainised in every movie from "MASH" to "The Andromeda Strain" I would not have been surprised. But in 1964 military men were still being heroised with full cold war propaganda enthusiasm.) "Seven Days in May", together with "The Manchurian Candidate" (1962) are in a class all of their own as political commentaries from this era. The fundamental question raised by this movie is 'could a military coup d'etat take place in the United States?' I can only conclude that this movie has not gotten the attention that it deserves because too many people have dismissed this question with an all too smug 'no.'

"Seven Days in May" breaks all of the predictable Hollywood formulas by casting in the villains role the handsome and dashing Burt Lancaster (General James Matoon Scott), a heroic General (the chairman of the joint chiefs) who, together with the other chiefs, feels that he must temporarily usurp the democratic government of The United States to protect the American people from a naive and faulty nuclear disarmament treaty with the Soviets. The weak and unpopular lame-duck President (March) is an unlikely hero (by Hollywood standards), as is his ally, a corrupt Georgian Senator (Edmond O' Brien). An aging Ava Gardner is well cast as the Generals jaded mistress. Kirk Douglas gives an excellent performance as the Generals aide, torn between his loyalty to the General and his belief in the democratic process. The only drawback to the movie is that the acting performances are somewhat dwarfed by the scope of the subject matter (a problem Douglas didn't have in 'Spartacus.') There are no emotionally charged scenes, just a lot of deadpan political intrigue. But this intrigue is more than enough to hold the audiences attention!

I agree with many of the comments made by Eric Paddon (below) about the movie being a watered-down version of the book. However, since this was a mainstream Hollywood movie from the early sixties, it had to be somewhat simplified for the naive movie audiences of the day. (The movie might have become a little bit TOO ambiguous if the producers had shown that General Scott was right in a practical sense, while President Lyman was right in an ABSOLUTE sense.) Nevertheless I am still amazed by the maturity of its content. I particularly love President Layman's closing speech to the nation, since history has proven it to be true! I highly recommend this movie for all audiences.

Rating:
Summary: A Bit Pretentious
Review: Maybe I'm just letting my own political bias color my judgment, but it seems to me that this movie has a bit of a pretentious edge that the novel had less of. You can spot the moments right away where Rod Serling decided to pontificate (President Lyman's rattling about the "nuclear age"). I think what amuses me the most though is what this movie left out from the novel. In the novel, President Lyman is forced to confront the fact that the reason behind General Scott's plot, the fear of the Soviets cheating on a disarmament treaty, is borne out completely. In the end, what makes Lyman's appeals to the rule of law powerful are when he points out to Scott that he will end up reacting to this crisis no differently than Scott would upon illegally siezing power. And that is the one thing that is sadly missing from this movie and it's absence hurts the film completely from my standpoint.

On the plus side, Kirk Douglas is outstanding as Jiggs Casey, whose character is improved from the novel, and there are other fine performances too (Ava Gardner though looks haggard and aged). It's too bad though that Serling's desire for pontificating mars the film from my standpoint.

Rating:
Summary: one of the great movie and novel
Review: I saw this film in theater, because this was the first novel I had read in English. Though We japanese have different constitution, this film attracted me very much. Col. Casey's charactor seems somewhat different from novel's one. In novel he was close to ordinary citizen tightly tied to his family, so it was great for him to dare his carreer and betray? his boss to follow constitution. So confrontation between douglas and Lancaster is only in film not in novel. The address of POTUS was well prepared and good performance I'd ever seen.