longbow_pilot I was born a month after the Berlin wall was torn down, so the Cold War for me was just an event in a history book.This TV movie, along with the original film, helped bring me the cold, horrific realities of a world where hundreds of millions could be hours away from certain death (interesting side note: look up Stanislav Petrov on wikipedia).It's scary, very scary, and I think that shows the fear that everyone lived with, even those who had to cover it up to get on with their lives.I hope more movies and TV series like this one are made, films that educate my generation about what the world had to face for half a century, and how things might have been different if only a few things had gone wrong.

sarastro7 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 The movie was very low-key, sporting an outdated narrative style.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.

tomaroon Well, frankly this is virtually a carbon copy of the fantastic 1964 version. Once again, we're in monochrome and the script is almost word for word, with just minor changes. For instance, when General Bogan and the Russian General are discussing their time in London (the 1964 film), here the location has changed to Paris. I really can't see the reason why.....Having seen the 1964 version,it is impossible not to compare the two as you are watching. The film tries hard, but ultimately comes up short through the inability of the actors to match the originals' screen presence. Fonda, O'Herlihy, Matthau and Hagman have no peers in this version.The fact that it was filmed in real time is to be applauded, but it is ultimately unsatisfying. Maybe if this is the only version you have seen, you will be impressed (and apologies for harping on about this), but this is one of those times where you can put two versions of a film together and one will knock spots off the other.

ntvnyr30 Gallant attempt, but misses the mark.Compare it to the original where you have Col. Cascio, brilliantly played by Fritz Weaver, on the verge of a nervous breakdown due to his family problems and then being sent over the edge by the main plot.There are some good actors, but terrible performances in this adaptation. Brian Dennehey, Harvey Keitel, and worst of all, the pompous Ricard Dreyfuss.Dreyfuss was snarling through his portrayal--of course demonstrating the condescending quality that all his Democrat friends have (by the way folks, he's a huge partisan rooter and fan of Bill "Kiss it" Clinton).I had to turn it off. It in no way measures up to the original, made by the way by that other defender of Soviet Communism, Sidney Lumet.A valiant attempt, but don't waste your time.