User reviews

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.

I have seen the original Seven Days in May no fewer than 15 times. I know, I need to get a life. However, the original cast of Lancaster, Douglas, March, Gardner, Houseman, Duggan, etc. was pure magic. The tension was palpable,and the chemistry was awesome.

That being said, The Enemy Within was a light, or lite, version of the original. Could there be more of a mis-casting than putting poor old Jason Robards as the Joint Chiefs Chairman. He looked like he had oatmeal drooling on his bib. Don't get me wrong, he was a very fine actor, and perhaps he could have pulled it off when he was twenty or thirty years younger.

The rest of the cast with the exception of the sultry Dana Delaney was weak. The plot was John Kerryesque nuanced. The ending was farcical.

I enjoy the idea of remaking fine older movies. Perhaps George Clooney can pull it off, as he did with the remake of Failsafe. However, The Enemy Within comes across as a poor man version of a classic thriller.

You need to see Seven Days in May before seeing this movie or before posting an opinion on it. This movie is really a poor remake of it. The former occurs in a tense cold-war America and the Black & White photography adds to the eerie feel. (Black and White, just like the general sees things.) If after seeing the original, you wish to compare, then see this one. I made the mistake of viewing this first, and then I enjoyed the original less than I should have. I guess the only positive difference that this movie added to the story is that the high-stakes players were not all white men in "The Enemy Within" with other characters in predictable roles. The Enemy within has women and black men in high positions. It also wraps a family around the main character to make him elicit more empathy. Every actor in this made-for-HBO thriller needs to be forgiven for needing a paycheck.

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.

The Enemy Within is a well-done remake of one of my favorite films Seven Days In May. While of course not as good as the 1964 classic this film still packs quite a punch despite being too briskly paced and lacking Rod Serling's script.

Forest Witiker does well as Colonel Cassey though he is a little hard to watch at times. Sam Waterston does well as the Southern President and its a shame we don't see more of him. Dana Delaney really doesn't add much to the film but she plays a necessary role in the film. And of Jason Robards does well as the villain of the film as Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General R. Pendleton Lloyd.

While there are numerous subplots removed and some added (though the Russians weren't really needed in this film) the film still manages to be true to the classic's plot. The script manages to convey a sense of urgency in the story and the revelations are revealed in a nice manor. The film has a little bit of action in it and these scenes are mostly unnecessary but they don't hurt the film very much.

Overall The Enemy Within is a better then average made for TV movie. As I wrote this film is not in the same caliber as the original film, it still manages to present a frightening and all-too possible scenario. A nice little suspense film to pass your time with and it's nothing more and nothing less then that.

I loved Seven Days in May, and I loved this remake, as well.

Despite his girth, Forest Whitaker did a wonderful job.

A tepid updated remake of John Frankenheimer's 'Seven Days In May' with even for cable television has that television movie sheen about it despite a starry cast.

Colonel Casey (Forest Whitaker) discovers his boss, General Lloyd (Jason Robards) with the Secretary of Defence Charles Potter (Josef Sommer) plan to remove President William Foster (Sam Waterston) from office and replace him with Vice President Kelly, who is more willing to increase defence spending. They wish to initiate constitutional somersaults to make the move less like a coup.

Colonel Casey only has days to get sufficient evidence to protect the president and gets help from the Russians.

The problem here is the president is so weakly presented. The Attorney General is killed and he launches no forensic investigation.

On the other hand General Lloyd and Charles Potter are a charmless bunch of fascists who make Richard Nixon look like a pussycat. There was no way people were going to follow them.

The film was well acted by Forest Whitaker but lacked drama and tension.

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.

This is a terrible, dumbed down, remake of John Frankenheimer's SEVEN DAYS IN MAY with Forest Whitaker in the Kirk Douglas role and Jason Robards in the Burt Lancaster role. The story follows the assistant to the commander of the joint chiefs of staff as he uncovers a plot to overthrow the government. Neither Whitaker nor Robards seem comfortable in their uniforms or seem to understand their roles as officers. The insultingly simplified plot is spoon fed to the audience and delivered with inane dialog. Unlike the original, none of the plot makes a damn bit of sense and the final resolution is so unbelievable that it seems a fitting end to this mess. It's as if a first grader saw the first film and typed out his own version.

Nice little suspense film from HBO. Does a good job of building up to the climax, but then falters. I felt the ending was very "convenient," and not believable. I did not see the original, so I'm not sure if it had the same ending. As the film progresses, we get to see Forest Whitaker do some mini-marathons throughout the city. This film reminded me of a cross between "No Way Out" and "The Shadow Conspiracy." No Way Out was also a military conspiracy film and had George Dzundza in a supporting role. "The Shadow Conspiracy," an awful film starring Charlie Sheen, was also about a government conspiracy revolving around a plot to assassinate the President from within the Government. Coincidentally, Sam Waterston plays the President in that too.

The reason the original "Seven Days in May" was so compelling was that it came against the backdrop of very real events.

It was the middle of the Cold War. The very name of President Jordan Lyman (Played by Frederic March) turned out to be very similar -- almost an anagram -- of the real-life President Lyndon Johnson, whose campaign to win a full four-year term in 1964 was anchored, in part, on a promise to seek an agreement with the Soviet Union on a reduction in nuclear arms.

And it was taken far more seriously than the two other Cold War thrillers of 1964, "Dr. Strangelove" and "Fail-Safe." "The Enemy Within" fails from the start because it was made after the Cold War ended and unfortunately, the storyline wasn't updated accordingly. A far more successful remake would have been one that was made post-September 11 with the War on Terror as the backdrop.

Really? Take a look at the measures Bush has taken in the last few years to expand the powers of the presidency with no checks by the legislative or judicial branches, spying on American citizens, etc. and tell me this can't happen here. Exactly who was deceiving Secretary Powell about Sadam and his nuclear readiness - Santa Claus? If you think vast conspiracy for personal gain and/or power cannot happen here, get you head out of the sand.

Forest Whitaker did a great job and was completely believable is this role - dedicated to his country and in disbelief that his hero could possibly be involved in such a conspiracy.

This movie is more relevant now, perhaps, than in 1994. I think it deserves another run on TV.

I remember that my family watched "The Enemy Within" a few decades ago, and a few weeks later caught part of "Seven Days in May" on TV and realized that it had the same plot, right down to the mention of Judas. We later watched all of "Seven Days in May". I've finally gotten around to watching "The Enemy Within" again.

Obviously it's not as good as the original. Not exactly a fair fight since the original had John Frankenheimer directing. Even so, we get effective performances out of Forest Whitaker, Sam Waterston, Dana Delany, Jason Robards and Josef Sommer. As for the prospect of a military coup against the US government, Hugo Chávez told Oliver Stone - in an interview for Stone's documentary "South of the Border" - that the US has never had a coup because there's no US embassy in Washington.

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 .

Bad acting, bad dialogs, bad dialog rendering. Man! It felt like everyone was moving in a daze while acting. Even dialogs which

are supposed to be delivered with a PUNCH are just....read out! And ofcourse, the story line was totally disconnected.

Stay away from this unless you want to laugh at stupid movies with your friends - actually you probably wont be able to do that either!

I always like watching a good political thriller, so I was excited to watch The Enemy Within, despite my skepticism of the cast. Cutting to the chase, it turned out exactly as I'd expected. The cast was the weakest element of the film, but it was still relatively entertaining for those who enjoy this genre.

Forest Whitaker plays a Marine who works in Washington, DC., directly under the Joint Chiefs of Staff, played by Jason Robards. Obviously, since it's Jason Robards, he's up to no good. It's not long before Forest figures it out—Jason is leaving him out of classified meetings and plans—and starts digging to find out what his boss is hiding.

Sam Waterston is always very likable—and he's played a president before—so it's no stretch to believe he's the most likable person in the story and gives the best performance of the cast. Dana Delaney plays the president's Chief of Staff, and she feels incredibly miscast and out of her element. When she reads official documents, she seems to not understand the language; when she speaks to the president, she seems completely unaware of proper protocol; and when she takes part in covert operations, it seems like her idea of secrecy is waiting the entire weekend before telling her sorority sisters what happened. I know that sounds harsh, but she just can't pull off playing the Chief of Staff. And while Jason Robards is easily believed to be a bad guy, Forest Whitaker doesn't reek of discipline and harshness, despite several references to his supposed character traits in the script.

You can sit through this political thriller if you want to; it won't hurt you. Chances are you'll find it a little bland, and you'll wish Sam Waterston could really run for President. Also, for those who have seen the original, this is a remake of 1964's Seven Days in May. I've never seen it, so I'm not able to draw any comparisons, but I wanted to include that tidbit.

Sort of an action remake of the original but for me the ending was just too weak and unbelievable compared to the original. Lacked the intrigue and suspence of the original. Sorry but it wasn't that good.

Dramatic, Intriguing and Suspenseful, "The Enemy Within" is an excellent political thriller that will appeal to anyone who can think outside the norm. While I haven't seen the original "Seven Days in May", I think that the comments that this movie it is poorly cast and acted are very much mistaken as the actors do the intriguing plot and thrilling scenarios, more than justice. Forest Whitaker is especially good in his role as Colonel Casey and does an outstanding job in bringing a sense of realism and authenticity to his character. Don't let the negative comments put you off, "The Enemy Within" is a great movie that will have your heart pounding and mind thinking.

Well, I voted for this film, so I might as well comment on it. Well, the plot being rather unplausible, and having almost no message to convey, I find it difficult to understand that this actually made it on air. Since Forest Whitaker is someone I noticed in couple of films, I tuned into the film, and that is almost about it. Considering the current affairs related to terrorist attacks and retaliation to it, the West may need some spiritual confirmation that democracy shall prevail. A cheep paracetamol (pain killer) for a terrible migraine attack. Let's not get too serious about this one. (I don't know about this one, but recently my comments show up with a terrible format. Hope this turns out alright)

The story was adjusted a little from the book "Seven Days in May" by Fletcher Knebel to accommodate the media; however, the essence of the story is still there.

We are not out of the woods today. Anyway, President William Foster (Sam Waterston) is planning a disarmament treaty. Everyone knows including the president that the Soviets never keep a promise. However, something has to be done and the President thinks he has a workable plan. Openly opposed to the plan is General R. Pendleton Lloyd (Jason Robards) son of a Douglas Macarthur of his time. Being opposed is one thing; however, the constitution leaves only one way to handle this situation (the election). Yea right. Colonel MacKenzie 'Mac' Casey (Forest Whitaker), Lloyd's right-hand man gets suspicious. He thinks Lloyd is planning "Yea right" for real and brings this suspicion to the Whitehouse.

As the story unfolds is the threat real and if so what can be done about it? Whose side are you on? If you were Mac working for a great General and a good friend, what would you do? Where should loyalty lay? If the president relied on blackmail, would he be any better than the opposition? How would the Soviets react to a military take over in the US?

This is a very good remake of Seven Days in May (1964).

It goes to show that the theme even though it was conceived during the cold war that it is still timeless. They did not distract from the script trying to be politically correct. It is worth watching both versions.

OK let's face the real question this movie poses. Does the end justify the means? Or is the end the results of the means?

The thing about this movie being implausible is not a very good comment. The truth about this movie is that it could happen in America and probably has come close to happening several times in the past. What this movie says is that anything can happen and how fragile democracy in America truly is. We don't really appreciate something until it is lost. I hope that we do not have to experience the events of this movie to truly appreciate it. What has happened recently in America only goes to prove that the movie has a point. What is really scary is what would happen when the president is in on it. The movie really gives you something to think about.

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 an excellent made for TV movie. It was meant to make you think about what is and was possible. In 1994 the country still wanted to believe such an act of betrayal in this country was impossible...in 2001 we learned different. Yes, it is a make-over of Seven Days in May, which was astounding for its time, but the Enemy Within is an updated version without just being the same movie with updated clothing and actors. Forest Whitaker makes you believe he is who he is portraying. I liked that Whitaker's character was married and was trying to be a responsible parent. Kirk Douglas' character, if I remember right, didn't have personal life shown in the movie. This is definitely worth the time.

It's so nice to see a film that came in on time, on budget. Too bad other reviewers thought it had to have special effects and overwrought melodrama to do it.

In real life, sometimes simple conversation and dealing with real life are interwoven with basic heroics. You'd be surprised that people you know have done it and gone on with their lives without making the cover of People magazine or cleaning up on the rubber chicken circuit. Usually, it's the villains who do that, anyway. One traitor was even elected to office in Virginia and now has his own TV show.

The conclusion is simple enough, doable by anyone, and it works. If you don't think this story can happen, you better think again.

Been there, done that.

As Elizabeth Taylor once said, the movies are like real life; they just have $50,000 worth of make-up and lighting.

The lesson of this film, as is the solution here, is simple. But then so are most great ideas in history.