User reviews

The novel and the movie Seven Days in May were based on a very potential reality. See James Bamford's 2002 book, Body of Secrets, which is about the National Security Agency. General Edwin Walker, mentioned in another review, was only the least of what was going on in the higher echelons of the U.S. military near the end of the Eisenhower Administration and the beginning of the Kennedy-Johnson Administration.

At military bases, and even at the National War College in Washington, the most rabid preachings took place about the real threat of communism coming not from Russia or Cuba, but from high-ups in the domestic power structure, including the government. The entire Joint Chiefs of Staff (JCS), led by Chairman Lyman Lemnitzer, was very right wing and rabidly obsessed with the idea that American civilization could not endure unless Cuba was militarily conquered and occupied in the long-term. They repeatedly threw suggestions for this at Eisenhower, who never took the bit. When Ike left the Oval Office and Kennedy, who had never been a military higher-up, replaced him, Lemnitzer felt adrift and became very paranoid. There were all sorts of JCS contingency plans, never implemented, for creating an incident that could be blamed falsely on the Russians and/or the Cubans to justify an invasion - a sort of second sinking of the battleship Maine. The more far-fetched of these ideas included terrorism at home to be blamed on Cuba and an attack on a friendly Central American country that could be falsely blamed on Cuba, all without the President's approval. Lemnitzer, according to Bamford, had little use for the concept of civilian control of the military. In fact,enough of this atmosphere within the U.S. military was in the wind that there was a secret Congressional inquiry into the potential for a military takeover of the government, which was based on more than idle wonder. Senator Albert Gore of Tennessee (the father of the recent Vice President), a member of the investigating committee, called for Lemnitzer's firing. Kennedy did not fire him, but did not re-appoint him to a second term as Chairman, preferring the more rational Maxwell Taylor.

When the book came out, I stayed awake for 24 hours to finish it. I could not put it down. Mercifully, the film is shorter, but it is superbly acted and very well scripted. You won't be disappointed.

There are many movies directed by John Frenkenheimer which simply evolve over time into great works of art. In their own way, they exemplify his innate sense of mystery, suspense, and dark drama. Too many to list, one example would be "Seconds." In this film, "Seven Days in May" we have what will surely become one of the finest examples of his craft. In the story, we have Gen. James Mattoon Scott, (Burt Lancaster) (in what certainly became a custom tailored role for him) who firmly believes that the president of the United States has criminally endangered the country by agreeing to a nuclear disarmament treaty. So concerned for the safety of the U.S. that he and several Joint Chiefs of Staff, decide to remove President Jordan Lyman ( Fredric March) with a cleverly designed military alert, or Coup d'etat. Unable to confide in his own aid, Col. Martin 'Jiggs' Casey, (Kirk Douglas), Scott, arranges to keep Casey out of the loop, until the overthrow is complete. Unfornatuately for the Generals, Casey suspects their innocent "secret wagers" are more menacing than they appear and hopes the president will believe him when he shares his suspicions about the man he work's for and admires. Edmond O'Brien is Sen. Raymond Clark, one of the few men the president can trust. The late Rod Serling wrote the script and like his twilight Zone episodes, this classic film has one wondering who the real traitors are? *****

An excellent cast, a well-crafted script, and a talented director add up to one of the great films.

This movie captures the paranoia of the cold war and how that paranoia tested the strength and definition of a democracy. The importance of civilian control over the military is well illustrated in this chilling story of a plot by the Pentagon to overthrow the US President because the military disagrees with his disarmament policy.

Use of black & white gives the film the look of a documentary, emphasizing the sense of realism for the story. If you have the chance, see this movie.

Seeing that 'Seven Days in May' is as highly regarded as it is immediately grabbed my attention. John Frankenheimer was a truly fine director who directed some truly fine films such as 'The Manchurian Candidate' and 'The Train'. His several collaborations of Burt Lancaster (of which this is one), which include 'The Train' and 'Birdman of Alcatraz', are all worth watching at least and there are some talented actors here. As well as an intriguing premise.

Which luckily is wholly lived up to in 'Seven Days in May'. If the subject doesn't appeal to you, the film may not be to your taste. If it does appeal and you like the genre, it is very likely to be the opposite. It is not one of Frankenheimer's best (quite) and not one of his very best collaborations with Lancaster (do prefer personally 'The Train' and 'Birdman of Alcatraz'). 'Seven Days in May' is still a very, very good film in my opinion, with many brilliant assets.

It does meander in pace in the third act, where it gets too talk-heavy, and gets a little heavy handed at times.

There is so much to love in 'Seven Days in May' otherwise though. It looks great, with the very atmospheric cinematography being especially good. Frankenheimer's direction is taut and accomplished, if not as visually innovative as a couple of his other films. He makes great use of the setting which has a sense of foreboding throughout, while the editing is pretty amazing. Jerry Goldsmith's, a personal favourite for years when it comes to film composers, music score is not too over-scored or bombastic while having great presence and ominous atmosphere.

Although the script has a lot of talk, with reliance on monologues, it is intelligent and thought-provoking talk that has a good deal of intrigue. Lancaster and Fredric March's big scene is exceptionally well written. The story did engage me and has tension, thanks to the chilling omnipresence of the surveillance mechanics, and didn't strike me as hard to follow. Some of the middle act is outlandish but in an entertaining way rather than a lacking in cohesion one. The film starts off incredibly well, with a stark documentary-like style to the filming

Found the characters to be well written and interesting, though Ava Gardner's was a bit too thin for my liking. The best thing about 'Seven Days in May' though is the acting which is nothing short of brilliant, even Gardner brings all she's got in a tricky part to make interesting considering the thin writing of it. Two of the trickier roles are for Kirk Douglas, which is reaction-heavy and not with a massive amount of talk, and Edmund O'Brien in a part that is so easy to play too broadly. Douglas tells so much with his eyes and his expressions and O'Brien enjoys himself hugely and makes his role a lot more interesting than it really is. Lancaster brings his usual intensity and nuance and March gives one of his best late-career performances.

In summary, very good even if not everything works. 7.5/10

Seven Days in May is cold war movie making at its best. This film does not have a car chase, gun battles, or a President as villian. It does have great actors and is one of the finest translattion of a novel to screen. It is the first of the U.S. Militery as villian plot lines, since over used on both the screen and tv. A number of years ago a remake was done for cable-The Enemy within-and it did not work. In that the President is to be over-throw because he will sign a defense bill! The Russians are no longer the enemy and that's why it fails. In the first, made three years after the Cuban Missle Crisis, the fear of the Soviets is real and provides the ploters with a major cause against the President's program of disarmement. One of the best movies of the last fifty years.

but I would still like to cast a ten out of ten vote for this film!

I often re-watch it in part or in whole. One of my favourite scenes not just in this film but in any political thriller is the tense scene between Kirk Douglas' Colonel "Jiggs" Casey, Frederic March's President Jordan Lyman and Martin Balsam's Presidential Chief of Staff Paul Girard when Kirk Douglas' character first outlines his suspicions to his initially sceptical interlocutors. Each actor brings nuances to the excellent script, both verbally and in their physical expressions, which mark them out as actors of the highest class. Not only is it a dramatic scene but it and indeed the entire film is a masterclass in ensemble screen acting. That particular scene, I often wonder, if the director had been influenced by Stanley Kubrick, in making it simultaneously seem both clinical, mannered and yet also highly dramatic.

I would also like to highlight the tender but ultimately poignant scene between Douglas' Colonel Casey and Eleanor Holbrook, played by Ava Gardner, the former lover of the would-be US junta-style leader General Scott played with menacing charisma by Burt Lancaster. It is obvious that in other circumstances Douglas' and Gardner's characters could have become lovers but the details concerning her relationship with General Scott which the colonel had reluctantly agreed to ferret out through betraying her confidence must spoil the possibility. Once again, a beautiful scene beautifully acted and what a gorgeous women Ava Gardner still was even in middle age. They sure do not make films like that anymore! There are neither the actors, the producers, the directors or the scriptwriters! Or, it would seem, the mass audience.

Could a coup happen in the US? There is no historical guarantee that the US has been given denied to any other nation. All democracies are vulnerable given the right, or rather the wrong, circumstances.

John Frankenheimer directs this powerful political thriller about a conspiracy by top military brass to overthrow the government. A marvelous cast in a powerful, pulse pounding drama. Kirk Douglas is a Marine Colonel that suspects the Joint Chief of Staff Chairman(Burt Lancaster)of plotting a disguised military coup that would destroy the President's nuclear disarmament treaty. Veteran actor Fredric March is outstanding as the President.

The very talented supporting cast includes: the beautiful Ava Gardner, Martin Balsam, Andrew Duggan and Edmond O'Brien. John Houseman makes his debut in this Rod Serling screenplay. This one is a heavyweight. Paranoia prevails. The Russians are always suspect; but who would think of your own military turning inside out?

Although it may seem dated because of its' subject matter (it takes place during the "Cold War"), the underlying content of political back-stabbing is still relevant. In this star-studded cast, Frederic March gives an outstanding performance as "President Jordan Lyman". He shows how a great leader handles the toughest of situations. This is a powerful film with some very tense moments. It is also an excellent example of directing that makes the most of camera angles and lighting to enhance the drama. Clean transfer to DVD.

Burt Lancaster plays General Scott, head of the joint chiefs and likely presidential candidate who decides to lead a revolt against president Jordan Lyman, who is as unpopular as Scott is popular, but that doesn't stop him from pushing a nuclear disarmament treaty with Russia, which alarms and enrages General Scott, convincing him that he can't wait two years until the next election; he must act now. Kirk Douglas plays Col. Jiggs Casey, who remains loyal to the president, even though he doesn't agree with the president either. All three men are on a collision course to determine who stays in the White House, and emerges a "hero".

Fine acting by the cast, and solid direction by John Frankenheimer make this thought-provoking political drama quite interesting, although it is marred somewhat by an overly simplistic(bordering on sanctimonious) approach to General Scott, who may really have a good point, even though he is going about it the wrong way. Was Col. Casey so right after all? What if it turns out he was wrong? Film ends before we find out, which is unfortunate, but otherwise this a good thriller.

An intriguing premise, a star-studded cast, and a script written by Rod Serling all had me looking forward to seeing this movie. The idea that a highly divisive issue might cause reasonable men to subvert the rule of law at the highest level, the functioning of our democracy, because they think they are doing the greater good, is thought-provoking. One of the film's strengths is that it shows the debate over the issue - a nuclear disarmament treaty with the Soviets - from both sides, and it's notable that not only its military leaders believe it naïve and unwise, but the majority of Americans in the film do as well.

The performances are strong across the board, starting with 67-year-old Frederic March as the President; I loved how natural and unforced he was. Burt Lancaster is strong as well as the General who is so concerned by the treaty that he conspires to take over the government. He plays the character correctly, showing him as a rational, patriotic guy who believes he's looking out for his country, not a delusional power-hungry maniac. Kirk Douglas is also quite good as the Colonel who reports to the General and begins suspecting something is amiss. The best scenes are towards the beginning, as the premise gradually unfolds, and near the end, with the confrontation between the President and the wayward General.

Unfortunately, the middle of the film and how the story unfolds once a conspiracy is suspected is rather weak. The actions taken by the President, sending individual men (Edmond O'Brien and Paul Girard) off to investigate or talk to others, is unrealistic. The story line about the General's old lover (Ava Gardner) and her letters is silly and completely unnecessary. The film suffers because in trying to create these subplots to show what the President in such a scenario would do about it, it misses the more obvious and direct response. For the understated payoff which comes - and which I admired - these things in the middle seem to be just filler, and clumsy filler at that.

Fear of the Military Industrial Complex and fear of the USSR were high in this era, so the film was certainly topical. It's still relevant today, in this or possibly other ways. It made me wonder about the inverse scenario: what if an unhinged President decided on a whim to use a nuclear weapon? What would the military do in that situation, and would we have the same view of following the rule of law? Or in our highly divided America, is it possible that we're near a constitutional crisis if one branch of the government simply flouts the rule of law, or perhaps contests an election result? Would a person in power like the President that Frederic March plays in this film step forward and discriminate between bitter disagreement on issues, and continuing to operate the government per its laws and principles?

The film's ending is excellent in the sense that it emphasizes the need to do just that. It doesn't offer a solution to the political question of the treaty (peace or the hard line), perhaps because there is no easy answer, and more importantly, it's not the point of the film. I love the whole concept here, but just wish it could have been executed better.

My favorite lines are some sweet burns from Kirk Douglas. The first is an exchange he has with a senator who has been pushing him to state his views on the nuclear treaty, which Douglas is hesitant to give because he doesn't see it as relevant (his job is to uphold the law): Senator: "You make me think that fruit salad on your chest (his array of medals) is for neutrality, evasiveness, and fence-straddling." Douglas: "On the contrary, they're standard awards for cocktail courage and dinner-table heroism. I thought you'd invented them."

And then of course this one, to the General, who testily infers Douglas is a traitor for working with the President, and asks him if he knows who Judas was: "Yes, I know who Judas was. He was a man I worked for and admired until he disgraced the four stars on his uniform."

There was virtually nothing about this film that i could bring myself to enjoy. It had some of the driest acting acting that I have ever seen, it was painfully slow moving (I fell asleep in the middle of it and had to watch the second part the next day), and the cinematography is unimaginative, bland and boring.

I'll admit that I have never liked war time movies (save "Dr. Strangelove"), however I can usually find something that is at least mildly admirable about the movie, whether it the be excitement of a war movies action, the films acting quality, or the use of good visual effects and cinematic elements. But I am sorry to say that, within this sorry excuse for an art form in entertainment, I found absolutely nothing enjoyable.

Somewhat forgotten political thriller about a military plot to take over the government. Great performances by all in this film, but mostly by Burt Lancaster and Fredric March who toward the end of the movie have a great scene with excellent dialog that sum up the true essence of the story. Ava Gardner is beautiful (literally) in this film. Edmund O'Brien is not to be overlooked as the bourbon loving southern senator. The first time I heard of this picture was when Gen Alexander Haig was being interviewed a number of years ago about the final days of the Nixon administration and was asked if he was thinking about the movie "Seven Days in May" Eventually I saw it late one night on cable and was glad I did.

Yep...could not believe the opening credits when I saw "The Twilight Zone Guy"'s name: Rod Serling!!! After watching the movie, I could tell...it didn't have the "wierd camera angle's" or "the bizarre suspense music scenes"...but, the brilliant agony-of-the-edge-of-your-seat anxiety and deep-dark-lurking-monster's-in-some-man's-soul intensity is just, well...Serling. And, Alfred Hitchcock too! As an ACTOR!?! Whoa! this movie is STELLAR!!! I Loved the "Good Guys" and I hated the "Bad Guys", and, most importantly BOTH were as insightful and aggressive as their counterparts. And, yes...I am "PARTIAL"... I Loved Rod Serling's "Twilight Zone" series, and, with this movie, he "hit the mark" again. Brilliant screenplay,...Brilliant acting...Brilliant movie.

One of the better (and more believable) D.C. thrillers was at least two decades ahead of its time, suggesting that the greatest threat to national security lay not behind the Iron Curtain but in our own back yard, where a covert network of ultra-Right Wing renegade Army officers stage a military coup to rescue the government from a liberal president hoping to dismantle their precious nuclear arsenal. Such an outspoken criticism of Cold War power politics was unusual for the time (not long after the Berlin Wall and the Cuban missile crisis), but if anything the message would become even more relevant twenty years later: Burt Lancaster's charismatic, fanatical General Scott is a ringer for super-patriot Oliver North. The secret agenda unfolds with cunning (and distressing) simplicity, but if the President (Frederic March) is less of a pushover than the Pentagon believes, and if Rod Serling's screenplay can't resist making one speech too many on behalf of the Constitution, it's only because the nation no doubt needed reassuring after JFK's assassination that the reins of State were still in able hands.

Marvellous acting by antagonists Douglas and Lancaster, complemented by sexy and sophisticated Ava Gardner. Fredric March turns in one of his last great performances as a US President who has just negotiated a disarmament treaty with the Soviet Union. Douglas, playing a Marine Colonel and Director of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, becomes disturbed by a number of peculiar events surrounding the JCS Chairman (Lancaster), which lead him to believe his superior is planning a coup d'etat. By the time he manages to convince the White House that his suspicions are correct, less than seven days remain till the fateful hour -- which will destroy the Constitution and may lead to World War III. Frankenheimer's direction is stark and taut, worthy of Hitchcock, while Rod Serling's screenplay remains truer to the novel than perhaps any other novel adaptation ever filmed. Watch for an uncredited appearance by John Houseman.

The second entry in director John Frankenheimer's Sixties paranoia trilogy (The Manchurian Candidate (62), Seconds (68) ) deals with a military overthrow of the US government and soft on commies president (Fredric March) led by a rogue Army general (Burt Lancaster). A North American take on a frequent South American occurrence May moves slowly, burying itself in stoicism and clueless prattle in light of the obvious.

What made Manchurian Candidate the excellent thriller it is completely misses the mark here with stilted performances from Douglas and near robot like Lancaster who somehow is supposed to have a charismatic bent but is more akin to Strangelove's Jack D. Ripper. March is fine as is a jaded Ava Gardner in her few scenes while Edmond O'Brien channelling Fred Allen's Southern Senator Claghorn chewing up scenery in large bites.

Frankenheimer for his part gets lost in the wide open polished spaces of the White House where there or anywhere else he fails to ignite the tension with civil, buttoned up conversation of the key players. Lacking both passion, energy and the touch of hallucinatory drive found in his two films bookending it, Seven Days in May is a dull disappointment dealing with an issue that should have crackled with suspense.

It's a class reunion in the cast of Seven Days in May. Kirk Douglas and Burt Lancaster had made four movies together by that point. Fredric March and Martin Balsam played father- and son-in-laws in Middle of the Night. Ava Gardner, Edmond O'Brien, and Burt Lancaster were in The Killers nearly twenty years earlier, and Ava shared the screen with Ed in The Barefoot Contessa. Burt, Ed, and Whit Bissell were all in Birdman of Alcatraz. Whit made two movies each with Burt and Freddie, and one each with Kirk and Ed. Hugh Marlowe was in Elmer Gantry with Burt. Freddie and Ed acted in two movies together in the 1940s, so it's no wonder that the whole chemistry of the film feels like a "good ol' boys network", much like the chemistry of Advise & Consent felt like a 1930s reunion.

It's another Cold War drama, so if you don't like those, you probably won't like this one. I'm not a fan of that subgenre (probably because I didn't live through it), and the only one I liked was Fail-Safe. In this one, Fredric March plays the President of the United States. He's just signed a nuclear disarmament treaty with Russia, which many Americans distrust. Martin Balsam is his Chief of Staff and dear friend, and Edmond O'Brien is an aging Southern senator. Burt Lancaster is the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and he vehemently opposes the president. Kirk is Burt's assistant, and when he suspects his boss has done something really bad, he throws his loyalty out the window. He finks and tells President March everything, then they all scrounge together to get evidence against Burt.

Even though Burt Lancaster got first billing, he was hardly in the movie. When he finally shows up, all he does is shout and irritate the audience. Ava Gardner's character was completely unnecessary, except to throw a random woman into the mix. Edmond O'Brien snagged an Oscar nomination for doing nothing more than a Charles Laughton impersonation from Advise & Consent. I really like Martin Balsam, but he wasn't given anything to do - and unfortunately, neither was Kirk Douglas. And as far as the actual plot goes: I watched the entire movie and couldn't figure out what it was exactly that Burt was suspected of doing! These movies are a little too complicated for me, so I'll stick with my WWII movies instead.