Voglia di potere

Just catching up on some oldschool flicks. The story plot was interesting got me thinking, about the military aspect of this. What really was to go down if some crazyness like this ever where to happen right now in this current era we are in.

If humankind ever evolved to the point where godlike feats were remotely possible, we'd be in big trouble, but the first order of business would no doubt be to go back to the garden of Eden and remake everything. Not that it needed remaking. Just for the challenge. And the paycheck.

I am not usually so sassy about remakes -- actors have got to eat, agents have to make deals, the maw that is cable TV needs to be fed -- but this one gets under my craw.

The original wasn't merely good, it wasn't merely great, it was perfect, it was so good that the original A-B rolls should have been sent directly to a film museum instead of merely being stored. The original had some of the best performance on record from three of the best actors of all time - I am talking Lancaster, Douglas and March. And writing by Serling. I mean, it does not get any better than that.

But try telling THAT to the clowns behind this production. In fairness it is not all bad. Whitaker has achieved in his career what some like to call "journeyman" status, he can take almost any role and make it real. Waterston was a delight to watch then, still is now. And Dana Delaney, well, let's just say that the high watermark of her career might just be her Lois Lane voice, and leave it at that.

But here is thing, and this should be a cautionary tale for other producers whose reach exceeds their grasp. Even before you started production on THE ENEMY WITHIN, the odds, the probabilities, the Sigmas, of making this equal to or better than the original were slim and none. And Slim had just left the building.

So kind viewer you have a clear choice. Watch this for passable entertainment.

Or track down the original for the film experience of a lifetime.

Up to you.

Most remakes of an already successful movie are bound to be faulted for their alleged pale-by-comparisons that are all too common when comparing two movies . But since I have copies of both , I'd like to give my support for this updated remake .While it may be faulted for lacking some of the ingredients of the original , it should be commended for adding some components that the original did not have . In the original, Jiggs Casey apparently has no family but does have a somewhat platonic relationship with the former lover of the turncoat general . In the remake , Colonel Casey(whatever happened to "Jiggs", LOL ?) has a son that he is trying(somewhat unsuccessfully) to connect with . His son figures in one of the more dramatic scenes involving a Russian Agent . The VP is murdered along with a female employee of the WH staff . Although there are no meetings in parking garages or plots to kidnap the POTUS at a secluded lake there are plenty of suspenseful moments . I did feel that too much of the original dialogue was inserted in the sequel that didn't fit in with the remake as well as it did original . But overall, I thought this movie was worth looking at . It should be looked on as an update rather than a cheap rip off of the original .

The mid-1990s were HBO's heyday as Clintonesque liberals and they took it upon themselves to present this sort of viewpoint in nearly all of their productions. This one is no exception.

It's saved by the fact that it's a tremendously literate story from the great screenwriter Rod Serling, and it has Forrest Whitaker in top form. The typical HBO heavy-handed preachiness is kept to a minimum here and the intrigue is maximized, of course with some rather tough to fathom plot maneuvers concerning the Soviets, in this case as allies of a sort.

It's not as fine a film as the original Seven Days in May, but it's not a waste either and it's always good to see Whitaker in his usual good form with Sam Waterston doing more subtly nuanced acting than he's allowed to do on Law & Order.

This was a very inferior remake of "Seven Days in May".

What dooms it from the outset was Jason Robards' characterization of General Lloyd (Scott). It is central to the credibility of the plot that this is a knife fight between an unpopular dovish president whom most of the country fears has endangered America by his disarmament treaty and his charismatic hawkish Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. In the original "Seven Days in May" General Scott is a national war hero whom millions of Americans idolize and who, if the election were held today, would win in a landslide. Jimmy Carter vs Douglas MacArthur. For the concept of a military coup to be credible there has to be a national security crisis pitting an unusually weak president against an unusually powerful general.

The original "Seven Days in May" had Burt Lancaster, an actor of enormous virile magnetism playing General Scott. You can see him as the kind of heroic man on horseback a frightened nation would turn to for salvation. You can see him as the kind of man who could seduce a nation into "Well, why don't we set aside the Constitution just this once. I won't tell if you won't tell."

This film's General Lloyd was a charisma-challenged snarling fascist whom no one would follow off a sinking ship. It is impossible to imagine him commanding the support of millions of Americans which is what you would have to do if you plan on ruling the country after shooting your way into the White House.