IMDb user comments for
Seven Days in May (1964) More at IMDbPro »

Filter:

Best Chronological Prolific Authors Loved It Hated It Hide Spoilers:

Page 1 of 6:

[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6]

Index

57 comments in total

---

26 out of 29 people found the following comment useful :-
Prophetic warning, 14 August 2000
Author: Matthew Ignoffo (mermatt@webtv.net) from Eatontown, NJ, USA

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.

---

22 out of 29 people found the following comment useful :-
Can it really happen? Is it about to happen?, 18 May 2002

Author: Michael O'Keefe from Muskogee OK

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?

---

13 out of 14 people found the following comment useful :-
Can It Happen Here?, 16 December 2005

Author: theowinthrop from United States

*** This comment may contain spoilers ***

Fredric March is the President of the United States. He has just gotten a nuclear disarmament treaty signed with the Soviet Union's leader, and it has (barely) been passed by the U.S. Senate. Both countries agree to get rid of their nuclear arsenals, and to end decades of potential nuclear catastrophe. But there are many who oppose this treaty, including Burt Lancaster, the greatest military hero of the day and head of the Joint Chief of Staff. He is in contact with several others regarding these fears, and they are planning a coup, to replace the President and his supporters and rip up this dangerous treaty. That is the background and story of "Seven Days In May", except that Lancaster's closest assistant, Kirk Douglas, is appalled at the scheme and tips off March and his associates (Martin Balsam, Edmond O'Brien, George Macready). We are also aware that there is certain information that can be gotten by the President that would tarnish Lancaster's American patriot and family man image - his love letters to his mistress (Ava Gardner). Also, as the film goes on, we are aware of the spread of the coup - how Edmund O'Brien is held imprisoned by mutinous soldiers. And how Balsam may have gotten a confession out of one of the weaker links in the scheme.

This film is interesting on so many levels. Not only does it include so many good performances in it, it is one of the most "Oscar" filled film casts one can think of - March, Lancaster, Douglas, Balsam, O'Brien, and even the uncredited John Houseman (as the weak-link Admiral Barnswell) all do well in the film. But what is most interesting to me is that the film was made when it was. Because it brings up the issue of whether a political coup can happen here or not.

The subject of a fascist or dictatorial government taking over America is not new. Jack London wrote of such in "The Iron Heel" at the turn of the 20th Century. Sinclair Lewis did the same in 1934 with "It Can't Happen Here, turning real life demagogue Senator Huey Long into "Senator Buzz Windrip" who seizes power. Hollywood would have an unsettling faith (to us) in fascistic politics in "Gabriel Over The White House", "This Day And Age", and even Harold Lloyd's strange comedy The Cat's Paw". That the Depression scared the people does not really reassure us today. But "Seven Days In May was written in the 1960s. It does show how close to success such a plot may go.

SPOILERS AHEAD:

Basically, what saves the day for President Jordan Lyman's administration, and the treaty, is that the confession of one of General Scott's confederates is found. Lyman is unable to bring himself to be as underhanded towards the General as the latter deserves (he can't bring himself to use the love letters the General wrote his mistress to discredit the man). The deus ex machina of the confession saves the day, and causes the other leaders of the coup to save themselves, so that Scott is deserted and discredited as a traitor (when Jiggs, sarcastically asked if he knows who Judas was, tells Scott that he is Judas Scott realizes it's over). His collapse is completed as he hears over the radio of the resignations of his co-conspirators.

The interesting thing was that Knebel's novel pushed a different slant on Scott's final collapse. Lyman, in the novel, produces the confession to Scott, and they both hear of the resignations. Scott leaves the Oval Office aware that it is over, but thinking that he might (after he resigns) start a political campaign to replace Lyman in the White House in the next election. Instead, he is confronted by Senator Clark (O'Brien) and Secretary of the Treasury Todd (George Macready)outside the Oval Office. They remind Scott that if he intends to run for the Presidency rather than resigning, there is still the matter of the love letters. Clark tells him that while Lyman is too much the gentleman to use them, neither Clark nor Todd would hesitate the opportunity of smearing him as a moral hypocrite. Scott actually is more concerned about this - and actually tries to hide behind the theoretical skirts of his betrayed wife at this moment ("You wouldn't want to hurt her" - that sort of thing). Regretfully they wouldn't care.

In 1962, John Frankenheimer had done "The Manchurian Candidate", which also suggested a threat to American Democracy (although manipulated by foreign governments and their hidden agents). Then President John Kennedy was assassinated in 1963, and in modern times (sixty three years since the last successful Presidential murder) violence had shaken the government. So "Seven Days In May" was quite timely when it came out in 1964. It has lost none of it's timelessness since then.

Oddly enough, Fletcher Knebel wrote another political thriller that never did get made into a film. I'm not referring to "Vanished", which was made into a television movie in the 1970s. I am referring to "A Night At Camp David". In that novel, a popular American President invites his Vice President to spend a week-end in the Presidential retreat, and has a series of conversations about policy plans that reveal to the increasingly frightened Veep that his chief is an insane paranoid, who is planning moves that may lead to global disaster. The problem: Only the Veep has been informed of this - nobody else. How is the Veep to get the public to realize the danger, without people feeling the Veep is only spreading lies against a popular President in order to seize the Presidency himself? It is a fascinating plot, and I wonder why it was never filmed.

---

10 out of 10 people found the following comment useful :-
a masterful thriller, 20 October 2000

Author: naylands (naylands@aol.com) from brick nj

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.

---

11 out of 12 people found the following comment useful :-
Seven Days in May Was Anything But Far-fetched, 12 January 2006

Author: msilbergeld-1 from United States

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.

---

14 out of 18 people found the following comment useful :-
Excellent: Perfect 5 Stars, 16 June 2002
Author: Steve

A very thought provoking, realistic political thriller that succeeds on every level. This film features great acting from everyone involved but namely Kirk Douglas, Burt Lancaster, and of course Fredick March. Each one of these actors were very convincing it their respected roles. The film also featured amazing cinematography, directing, and very powerful writing. Given the current situation in the U.S. this film despite its age is a perfect example of what could happen in the next few years. Unlike the other anti-war film of 1964 (Dr. Srangelove) this actually presents its viewer with a believable story line, one that will keep your interest throughout. I highly recommend this film to any avid Film Buff because it is an example of perfect filmmaking. A terrific film that deserves all 5 stars that I am giving it.

GRADE: *****

---

12 out of 15 people found the following comment useful :-
Classic scene between two brilliant actors does it all., 17 May 1999
Author: yenlo from Maine

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.

---

19 out of 29 people found the following comment useful :-
Spare the Rod, 21 November 2002
Author: Robert J. Maxwell (rmax304823@yahoo.com) from Deming, New Mexico

A fascinating movie. I have it on tape and watch it regularly. I'm not sure why. The story is a primitive one. "There is a plot to take over these United States." (Even the tag line is incorrect. Douglas says "the" United States.) The script, by Rod Serling, is full of his trouvees. Ava Gardner says to Douglas: "I'll give you two things. A steak, rare, and the truth, which is very rare." (I'm laughing out loud as I write this.) Frederick March is always referring to his physician as "the good doctor." A cabinet member, played by George Macready, is a yachting freak so he's always interjecting ejaculations like, "Look out, Mister President! These are deep waters we're sailing in!" He tells Douglas that he, Douglas, gets credit for whatever taste of victory they have in their mouths, just after Kirk has been forced through an immoral act. "The taste in my mouth, Mr. Secretary, isn't exactly victory." But Rod isn't to blame for all of the script. Some is lifted from the novel, in which the president is referred to as "Jordy." The novel's prose is, let us say, clumsy and a little hard to swallow sometimes. Yet I like this film a lot. The stilted dialogue is enjoyably comic. The photography has a pleasantly washed out diluted quality, particularly noticeable in the scenes in El Paso, where the featureless desert seems almost blindingly white. The performances are about as good as they get. Lancaster has made several movies with John Frankenheimer and I suppose they get along, their interests being as much alike as they are, and it shows in Burt's performance. Kirk Douglas, who made even more movies with Burt, looks snazzy in a bird colonel's summer uniform. The rest of the cast is simply fine. Edmond O'Brian is pretty old and tubby and looks the part of an alcoholic pol with backbone. His Southern accent is neatly done. His eyes sort of bulge out and look in two slightly different directions, lending his part a comedic undertone, regardless of circumstances. George Macready -- has anyone ever played an icey standoffish cold fish as well as he? Is that what going to Brown does to you? I've always admired Martin Balsam's style. He has a gift for draping ordinary lines in a kind of sonorous tinsel -- very New Yorkish, but quirkily so. The gift is on full display in this film. His exchange with John Housmann aboard the aircraft carrier is priceless. There is nothing "dramatic" about it. It's simply done very well. Housmann has a small part, but he's very effective in it. Frederick March, a reliable actor, is reliable here. The Secret Service guy is dispensable and seems dumb compared to the other characters. The politicians, except for the president and secretary, are pretty slimy, as you'd expect in a movie about a plot to take over these United States, and Hugh Marlowe, as the ranking politician conveys that sliminess. Ava Gardner I admire as a woman but have never found her much of an actress. Andrew Duggan ditto. Richard Anderson in a small part exudes his usual class. Everyone from the Jersey shore has class. Look at Norman Mailer. Look at Jack Nicholson. Look at Abbott and Costello. I'm certain that anyone who knows the politicomilitary bureaucracy could poke so many holes in this story that it would look like the brain of a cow that had died of bovine spongiform disorder, but it doesn't matter. It's a left-wing fantasy, and an enjoyable one. The only truly disturbing scene is when March is making his victory speech at the end. Something about "marching out of the dark tunnels of ignorance into the bright sunshine of freedom." Absolutely nothing more than a collage of platitudes and clichés, totally content free. It's as if Rod had done some acid before writing it and kept getting lost along the way. But that's okay. It's an enjoyable film. Very dramatic score, with lots of CLANGS -- ominous bells. Eleventh-hour-type bells. See it if you have a chance.

---

8 out of 8 people found the following comment useful :-
" Do You Know Who Judas Was? ", 7 June 2007

Author: thinker1691 from USA

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? *****

---

11 out of 15 people found the following comment useful :-
a fantastic thriller from Frankenheimer, 12 June 2005

Author: planktonrules from Bradenton, Florida

*** This comment may contain spoilers ***

The director, John Frankenheimer, had an amazing string of movies in the early to mid-1960s. First, The Manchurian Candidate, then this movie followed up a couple years later by Seconds. These are three of the absolute best thrillers EVER--and all with the same director! Seven Days in May is about a coup d'etat in progress to remove the President of the United States from office. It seems his more liberal course in regard to arms control doesn't meet with the approval of those in the military and they are afraid the US will be destroyed if they continue on the President's path. This plot is great because you can see BOTH sides on this issue and understand so well where they come from and why they think they are correct, so it is NOT a cut and dried issue. IT MAKES YOU THINK and it seems so plausible the way it is laid out for the viewer.

The acting is GREAT as well--with Burt Lancaster as the popular general planning the coup, Kirk Douglas as the military officer who agrees with Lancaster but cannot allow himself to violate his oath as an officer, Frederick March as the idealistic President, and Edmund O'Brien as his trusted (though occasionally intoxicated) adviser--along with many others.

See this, then try the other two Frankenheimer thrillers listed. Unless you are extremely stupid, you'll love the films.

---

---

Page 1 of 6:

[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6]

Add another comment

---

Related Links

Plot summary	Amazon.com summary	Ratings
Awards	Newsgroup reviews	External reviews
Plot keywords	Main details	Your user comments
Your vote history