greg horoski Recently bought and re watched this film with my family. Now in my sixties I saw this picture in reruns of good old TV. You know the good old 5-7 broadcast channels. Long before 500 channel cable packages, those channels produced much of the finest drama and entertainment in general than the huge majority of venues today.Spend the time reacquaint yourself with the greats it will amaze you.

russedav I'd have rated this a 9 in terms of actual film craftsmanship (as in the days of the circumspect classic Olympics long gone I never give 10s) but the work's utterly arrogant left-wing self-righteous misrepresentation of military preparedness utterly oblivious to history made a 9 impossible. This film shows why many (though not enough) Americans are thoughtful independents eschewing the gross, arrogant hypocrisy of both left-wing and right-wing bigotry, each fingering the other in delusions of godhood without honestly confessing its own sins; 1 John 1:7-10. While it's obvious from history, especially America's great Founders' provision of the Second Amendment and our armed forces, that lethal force was necessary, as the Bible also says in Romans 13 "for he [=the ruler] is a minister of God to you for good. But if you do that which is evil, be afraid; for he bears not the sword in vain: for he is a minister of God, an avenger for wrath to him that does evil," that nevertheless does not prevent God from ordaining their overthrow (e.g. the American Revolution) when they overstep his appointed bounds. The only hope left-wing and right-wing have (an eagle needing both wings to fly) is the fear of God that alone can sustain their understanding of their need one for the other (1 Corinthians 12). Modern godless secularism, even in the days of the making of this unreal fantasy of a film, is wholly insufficient for the task, something America's Founders understood in their stern, God-fearing warning of the certain fatality for the nation of such an abomination, as it's proved to be, the opening riot of the film being a far more accurate picture of what would have been than the actual ending.

mmallon4 Seven Days In May is a film which tapped into cold war paranoia but still has relevance for today's increasingly unstable political world. Now that we have arrived in the age of Trump and many people would shockingly actually like the premise of this high concept political thriller to play out successfully in real life, what better time to revisit Seven Day In May. A military coup in the United States? This is the kind of thing that happens in banana republics, not in the most powerful nation on Earth. The fantastical set up is the appeal of a movie like this; the idea that the so called haven of democracy could potentially crumble. The big question though; could it happen in real life? Are the events in the movie plausible? To the laymen viewer they are at least.Seven Days In May has some powerhouse actors with serious charisma talking some serious politics; no action, just heart pounding wordy exchanges. General Scott (Burt Lancaster) is a believer in a nuclear deterrent and doesn't trust the Russians to hold their side of the deal. Is he someone who has genuine concern or is he a megalomaniac taking advantage of a situation or both? The pairing Burt Lancaster and Kirk Douglas couldn't be a better combo as military personal with a mutual respect for each other. Their relationship is where much of the film's emotion is drawn from with Douglas looking up to Lancaster and his eventual betrayal of him. Ava Gardner on the other and is the weakest link in an otherwise stellar cast. I've never thought much of her as an actress and this comes through here with a performance which is serviceable not much more.The scene in which Kirk Douglas is pitched with the task of explaining to the President there may be a military coup to overthrow his administration is one of the best examples of expository delivery I've ever seen. I believe there are two reasons for this; firstly Kirk Douglas' sheer screen presence and charisma and secondly, the tension drawn from him embarrassing himself while trying to explain such a fantastical military coup. He delivers the lengthy monologue nervous and under pressure but while still remaining dignified. Plus that camera zoom and head tilt when he summarises his monologue makes the hairs stand up.John Frankenheimer is one of the most visually striking directors in black & white with his use of shades of tones, he has a very striking style. The Saul Bass style opening credits on the other hand show why the 1960's was a golden age for title sequences as Hollywood attempted to draw audiences away from the TV and into the theatre.Fredric March makes for a convincing leader as President Jordan Lynman. He is not a Trumpain figure, no he's far humbler than that. His course of action over the last year bordered on criminal negligence, or at least according to General Scott. He has a 29% approval rating and the public has voiced "a universal rejection of your entire political philosophy" according to Gallop poll; he is a man who is not upholding his democratic mandate. Should there still be a respect for the office of the president if the country is against him? What's more important, protecting a country against its government or loyalty to the constitution? The viewer is left to make up their own mind and the movie does not take sides. We never know the political ideology of any of the characters; the words republican, democrat, conservative or liberal are never mentioned. Seven Days In May is a movie with no clear cut hero or villain; both sides believe what they are doing is for the best of America and by extension the world. By the end the answer as to who Judas is not so black and white ("Yes I know who Judas was. He was a man I worked for and admired, until he disgraced the four stars on his uniform").

GeoPierpont I will never comprehend the so called 'charity' of Douglas to defer the JCS Director role to Lancaster. Jigg's character was quintessential to saving the day for the USA! He had a much meatier script, showed stronger character and sensitivity and overall the much better man. How could this be seen as anything but a BRILLIANT choice! I have followed March's career since his earliest days and appreciated his tenure in many demanding scenes, a deep talent. The interplay of such strong roles mimics the existing tete-a-tete with the MIC vs Congress. I find it eternally entertaining when I hear a presidential platform stating their goals for military presence or withdrawal.High recommend for many seasoned five star players and exciting script.