Wrong Is Right (1982)

7/10

An Uneven, Low-Budget, All Star Cast But Uncanny Perceptive Political Black Comedy

tabuno16 January 2019

24 July 2013. This uneven, obviously low-budgeted, all star cast political black drama is a difficult movie to assess because it depends strongly on what criteria one uses to judge a movie. From a current political messaging drama, it is uncanny in its authenticity even more than 30 years later. It remains relevant in terms of how oil and America's intelligence agency, the Presidency, and media manipulation all combine to echo what is happening in the world of 2013.

However in terms of special effects the movie presents some of the worst, obviously made up explosions and physical destruction resembling what might have been standard fare for cheap live action cartoons on Saturday mornings 30 years ago. The movie is overly ambitious, not well balanced tone-wise, sometimes presenting itself as a serious political drama and then at other times a light witty comedy, but overall the movie presents an uncertain directorial handling.

The old all star cast was fun to watch, the storyline somehow managed to hang together. Yet the unevenness and tone were more successfully handled in John Cusack's political drama in War, Inc. (2008).

5 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

5/10

Eerily Predicts A Lot

slightlymad2222 May 2017

Wrong Is Right (1982)

Plot In A Paragraph: The theft of two suitcase sized nuclear weapons, and their sale to a terrorist group, leads TV Newsman Patrick Hale (Connery) on an international chase to track them down, and uncover the twisting maze of apparent involvement of US Government agencies.

This is a movie that does not know what it wants to be. It's more than a bit of a mess. It tries to be a political satire, nuclear disaster movie, a paranoid thriller and it fails at being any.

It's not without its moments Leslie Nielsen advising the president by saying "Hit them hard, hit them with everything you got!! Just don't hit those oil wells" and seeing Connery take off his toupee and toss it to one side is another highlight. How many leading men would have the balls to do that?? Connery was never bothered by his hair, and whilst he never wore one away from the cameras, he wore hair pieces in some movies and didn't in others. An admirable trait, that he is that comfortable with himself.

Where it succeeds is being eerily accurate about future events. Islamic terrorism, media bias, reality television and government conspiracy. Connery remains as watchable as always but these are two of his worse hours. Released about 20 years to soon, the movie totally went over the heads of the audiences and flopped so badly in America, the studio changed the title in other markets to The Man With The Deadly Lens and ordered new artwork to make it look more like a Bond movie.

Wrong Is Right grossed $3 million at the domestic box office.

3 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

7/10

"If it doesn't happen on television. It means nothing".

lost-in-limbo30 July 2011

What you're about to read is confidential. Well actually it's not, its show-business. This sorely forgotten 80s feature "Wrong is Right" is a scathingly windswept satirical pot-shot on the political scene and the influence of the media's technology manipulation on portraying that. Sean Connery plays Patrick Hale an international TV commentator who gets caught up in the thick of it, when he takes on a story involving spies, nuclear bombs, suicidal terrorists, arm-dealers, the CIA and an American president on an election campaign. It's very smarting, but bombastically all over-the-place and knotty. Where it's humour is sharp, cynical and to the point, if gloomy in its resolution of who's really using who. The cast is a strong one to boot. Connery cruises through the role, but it's an outstanding support cast which steals the show. John Saxon, Henry Silva, Robert Conrad, G.D. Spradlin, George Grizzard (who's perfectly cast as the president of America), Katherine Ross, Hardy Kruger, Leslie Nelson and Dean Stockwell add to the biting entertainment. Director Richard Brooks hectically keeps this circus of conspiracies ticking along, adding numerous big-scale actions to this intrusively whirlwind crusade.

"If it's good for America, it can't be wrong".

3 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Frighteningly foretelling script, a must-see today

nando1301-116 October 2004

This is not Richard Brooks at his best as a movie-maker, but it is a powerful political film, with a great script (written by Brooks)which was wrongly (wrong is right?) dismissed as a "satire" and "comedy" in the early eighties. It is now seen in a very different light, as the whole plot seems to describe the events around the 9/11 attack and the war against terror, Afghanistan and Iraq. Brooks was the last American "cinema author": he wrote, produced and directed many of his works, including several world-class classics. This deserves to be seen as Brook's political testament, and one to be seriously considered and discussed. Why has this movie not been aggressively distributed right after 9/11? The answer might be in the story itself, which is now mixing story and history.

12 out of 14 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

7/10

Trenchant observer

bkoganbing1 February 2017

Times might be right for a critical reassessment of Wrong Is Right. Made during the Reagan era a lot of history has happened subsequently and Richard Brooks may have been a prophet just as Paddy Chayefsky was in Network. The topper may be the election of our current president.

Sean Connery whose international stardom didn't quite guarantee the box office returns for Wrong Is Right that the producers hoped for plays a cynical newscaster an observer on the scene of some history making events.

All starting with the spiritual revelations of Ron Moody playing the monarch of a desert middle eastern kingdom who gets some mystical revelations about starting a holy war. To do so he purchases a pair of suitcase nukes from arms dealer Hardy Kruger and makes alliance with a Mid Eastern terrorist Henry Silva.

There's a presidential election involved as incumbent George Grizzard tries to show himself as tough as the office demands, especially those demands voiced by former President Leslie Nielsen who is trying to do a Grover Cleveland and return to the White House.

The Twin Towers of New York actually play a role here so a faithful remake isn't possible. The end is right out of Duck Soup. Besides those mentioned I enjoyed Rosalind Cash as the Vice President, G.D. Spradlin as the harassed CIA head, and Robert Conrad with the Dickensian name of General Wombat.

He and Connery share the climax in an ending superb and sublime.

This one is a sleeper, check it out.

8 out of 11 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

6/10

Both dated and ahead of its time

lesunra8 April 2023

This movie looks and feels like it's from the mid 70s. It's actually from the 80s but doesn't look like it. More like a two hour Banacek special. That makes it feel tacky and cheesy.

On the other hand the plot is far ahead of its time. Media manipulation of real world events for tabloid style ratings? Sounds very familiar now that cable news and the internet plays such a major role in world events especially during the 2000s. It goes further than Network and probably went too far for the then modern world to take seriously but now?

The movie has an appealing darkly comic streak running through it which I love. The cast is great and they seem to all have alot of fun with these roles. You don't often see Connery doing near comedy like this. It is difficult to follow at times and is dated so 6/10 seems fair.

1 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

3/10

Not the best Richard Brooks movie

davegrenfell18 June 2007

Warning: Spoilers

I'd never heard of this, then found out it's the man with the deadly lens, which I'd heard of but not seen. Connery's presence drove me to buy it, and it's not good. It wants to be a sort of cross between Dr Strangelove and Mash, but it just isn't that funny, unless you find the name General Wombat (?) funny. It comes across as a flat 70s thriller until the last ten minutes, when it springs to life. There are many, many flat scenes in the Whitehouse between the president and his aides which don't work. It's almost as if the initial cut was too long, and the first half was edited down to get to the whole nuclear bomb ransom storyline and the suicide bomber attacks, which i think are meant to be played for laughs, but again, aren't that funny. The location filming is excellent but the studio stuff looks like cheap TV. I could not believe the man responsible for Key Largo, Crossfire and Elmer Gantry did this. Only laugh: Connery throws away his wig before putting on his helmet and jumping out of a plane. It makes Never say Never again look like genius.

11 out of 16 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

7/10

Underrated low-budget satire - the Dr. Strangelove of the War on Terror

vfrickey20 November 2010

Warning: Spoilers

Wrong is Right was handicapped by indifferent marketing; it had a good cast, decent script, good production values. It also came out just after the trough of the Carter administration malaise... and during the Iranian hostage crisis, when people did not want to see MORE terrorists than they already knew existed.

But Wrong is Right is more enjoyable now, when its plot line is comparatively tame compared to the events of the last twelve years.

Post-9/11 viewers can see how prophetic Wrong is Right is of how the War on Terror would play out, with both major US political parties signing on for the dysfunctional response to terror attacks on the United States we eventually saw in 2001.

Wrong is Right's saving grace is the taut interweaving of savage satire and action scenes that characterized its famous predecessor "Dr. Strangelove: Or How I Learned to Relax and Love the Bomb." It drags a little in parts, but not much, and some of the humor is hackneyed, but again, not enough to hurt the production.

The cast of Wrong is Right is "name" actors who came to work, no one phoning in his or her performance. And those performances are very good for a low-budget Hollywood film - they maintain a dark comedic pace as close to that of Dr. Strangelove as possible without Terry Southern in his salad days writing and Peter Sellers doing his stellar best to delight and bemuse.

Wrong is Right could have been made better; it's still one of those wicked satires which you ought to see when you're in the mood for a movie that says "I told you so." Something I'm very grateful "Dr. Strangelove" hasn't been able to say. Yet.

1 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

1/10

Comedy? Prophetic? Not so much.

flackjacket27 July 2013

First of all, several have said this was a dark comedy/political satire. Sorry I just don't see any humor at all in this movie. None whatsoever. I came across it when it was recently broadcast on TV. My first thought was, that it was a low budget made for TV movie from the 70's. Mainly because it had the same level of directing and editing as The Six Million Dollar Man.

My second thought was, how did all these big name stars get roped into a such a low budget movie with such a bad script and poor directing. The President's war room set is a bunch of desks that look like they were purchased at Staples during a 10% off sale, with chrome phones from Spencer's Gifts. But even with a better set, the editing is so disoriented and choppy it would still be unwatchable

Secondly, there's many claiming this movie was somehow prophetic. As if the writers somehow saw into the future. Well these reviewers are either too young to know or don't remember what was common knowledge the year this film was made. The best selling book, "The CIA and the Cult of Intelligence" was published in 1974, eight years before this film. Terrorist had been threatening to strike American and Israel since the late 60's. Hence the plot.

So it's not like the writers magically divined what would happen in the future, they were going off things that were already common knowledge at the time. The operations of the CIA, the terrorist's threats, the back room operations of the Executive Branch aren't something that suddenly happened on 9/11. It was something everyone knew about years before this film was made.

Overall, it's like watching a low-budget made for TV movie from the 70's. An overly long episode of "It takes A Thief" or "I Spy". There is no humor, dark or light, nor any satire. The directing, sets, editing and story line are so bad, that no amount of big name actors could pull it out of the toilet.

8 out of 14 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

7/10

Wrong or Right, Black or White, Strong or Weak. A Look into a Dangerous Good Film

Rodrigo_Amaro30 May 2010

Warning: Spoilers

In Richard Brooks's "Wrong Is Right" technological advances made everything looks so different that even wrong things are right things. There's no heroes, no villains, no good guy and no bad guy, there's only situations and reactions to it. Here a famous reporter and adventurer named Patrick Hale (Sean Connery) has many news to cover but he gets involved into a strange and dangerous deal, a conspiracy where Palestinian, Israelis, and Americans got in: the robbery of 2 nuclear weapons. The good thing: He's one of the guys (or at least that's the general idea we have of him after all some media reporters are impartial, always on the side of the public).

In this conspiracy everything happens: an CIA female agent disguised as journalist was killed in a terrorist attack; the American president (George Grizzard) is on campaign trying his second term; crazy generals are trying to bring the nuclear devices back; and there's lots of mysteries in the sudden deaths of an Arab king who hears voices; Patrick's chief (Robert Webber) is desperate for all kinds news because everything to him is about getting higher TV ratings; and other many characters and situations.

This is a satire film disguised as political thriller with some awkward comedy moments. It fires up in all directions and that's why I think this movie didn't reach a larger audience. Its comedy moments aren't too funny, and his thriller scenes has a lack of fear or danger enough so that we can care about the characters. But his political views are very great, way ahead of its time, and many of the things portrayed here seems to be like a future darker prophecy. In the end of 1970's and beginning of the 1980's many countries suffered with the Oil crisis, and Arab extremists started all kinds of terrorism exploding airplanes, bomberman and stuff like that. Everything similar was showed here and more: by the end of the movie when the bombs are found in what place did the Americans found it? In the top of the World Trade Center! This film was released in 1982 way before of the attacks on the towers in 1993 and 2001 (relax, nothing happened with the towers in the movie). And all the consequences of the aftermath were repeated by George W. Bush, invading the country responsible for the threats or attacks (if you look with caution you might discover that Iraq/Afghanistan wars are mixed here in only one context, make the parallels). In this part the movie focuses on political views: If it's good to the country it's allowed (quote of some character about killing in the name of the country).

There's more: Criticism of what is ethical or not on journalism can be seen (Connery makes a very good and ironical speech about paying a terrorist millions of dollars to make an exclusive interview). Sadly, by the time when all these critical and sharp visions appear on the screen it's too late for some viewers because director and writer Richard Brooks took too long to develop a story presenting so many characters and it's very confusing to go along in the journey. But if you insist you might enjoy it.

The only real funny things is: Connery's performance in some moments. His charismatic character is so enjoyable, charming and critical on the events surrounding him and someone with a good idea could make a TV show with him presenting the news in an intelligent and funny way better than this movie. He has some qualities that remind me of Waldo, the guy of that cartoon who travels around the world (Where's Waldo now?). By the way the whole cast is good (it includes names like Dean Stockwell, Leslie Nielsen, Katharine Ross, G. D. Spradlin, John Saxon, Jennifer Jason Leigh). The other funny thing are the visual effects, this was funny back in 1982 and it's even more funnier now. Every time I saw a bomberman exploding on the attacks against the American president (there's lot of bomberwoman here) I started to laugh because the explosions were so fake, nothing blast it off, it was ridiculous, pathetic, this special effects are so lame and corny that you laugh easily.

As a comedy it doesn't work well, as a dramatic thriller there's some good enjoyable parts but its political-media-personal attacks work really well. Watch it if you can! 7/10.

1 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

2/10

Weak offering

Thorsten-Krings30 September 2008

This is a weak film with a troubled history of cuts and re-naming. It doesn't work at all. Firstly the dramaturgy is all wrong. It's very slow moving at first and then hastily and unsatisfactorily moves to an end. But there is also (and that may have to do with the cuts) an uneasy moving between genres. It starts off with being a thriller to be taken at face value and then degenerates into a farce rather than satire. the ending may be funny but it's also so blunt that I almost felt it insulted my intelligence (what little there is). So the film tries to be everything but does not really succeed on any level at all. You can also see that in the very unsteady character development.You almost get the impression Connery plays three roles rather than one.

7 out of 12 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

9/10

Twenty Years Too Soon

dbborroughs3 April 2004

Reporter Sean Connery is hot on the trail of a terrorist seeking nuclear weapons. He's tracked by the CIA and other governmental agencies as well as various media outlets. Everyone manipulates everyone and in the end you're left wondering if there is anyone we can trust either in government or in the media.

When first released the film was a seemingly over the top spoof of the media and the governments uneasy relationship. No one could believe that this film was even remotely connected to reality and so they ignored it. I saw this film in a completely empty theater back in 1982. I was all alone and my laughter filled the theater. I thought it was a wicked spoof that took things, like the British Whoops Apocalypse, to a possible but uncomfortable conclusion.

After a run on cable this film dropped off the face of the earth and I didn't see it again until 1991 when I rented it during the first Iraq War. The film suddenly was very relevant and despite the fact that the jokes were funny, I couldn't laugh very much because what happened in the film was mirrored by reality.

Now, 22 years later, film comes out on DVD as the world is even closer to the type of things that happen in the film. Its still funny, and even more uncomfortable.

If you can take a film thats a black comedy that has slightly dated in some ways, but remains right on target with whats going on in the world see this film. Its simply a funny movie thats going to make you see things a little bit differently.

34 out of 35 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

6/10

Tomorrow Never Lies

clivey66 April 2008

This early 80s oddity has Sean Connery miscast as Patrick Hale, a TV anchorman cum roving reporter who heads out to trouble spots with this TV camera and little else apparently. I can't really buy Connery in a role that George Clooney would be a shoe-in for today, it belongs more to a Cary Grant than Clark Gable type, Connery isn't smooth enough and doesn't convey the moral ambivalence of a media type. It doesn't fit.

My, it's dated. Tootling American soundtrack over long shots of US skyscrapers make it like something out of trash films of the 70s like The Bitch. They don't make 'em like that any more, thank goodness. It also has a truly rubbish opening 15 minutes, where you can't tell it it's meant to be funny or dramatic or not.

What redeems it a fair bit is how topical the satire is, as other reviewers have mentioned. Religious fundamentalism in the White House, tensions between the US and the Middle East, supposed weapons of mass destruction, the role of the media in escalating a crisis, plausible deniablity and suicide bombings on American soil all make this fairly relevant and amazingly prophetic. Leslie Nielsen pops up, too.

It has its Bondian moments, too, with Connery narrating to the President the consequences of a nuclear bomb dropped in New York in a way that evokes a horror totally absent from his Bond thriller a year later, Never Say Never Again. It is a bit of a shame to see Connery give a finely nuanced performance, with all the vital anger and suspicion that put his Bond a notch above the others imo, in a film like this rather than the actual Bond film he returned for. At times you can really see him as the same guy who was in Diamonds Are Forever - he even has the clear diction he had back then, rather than the rather distracting, distinctive lishp he has from Never Say Never Again onwards.

Worth a look for movie buffs, but it's scrappy looking and takes a scattershot approach to its satire. It gets better as it goes on.

1 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

5/10

Forgotten Satire.

AaronCapenBanner26 November 2013

Richard Brooks directed this seemingly forgotten satire that stars Sean Connery as successful TV newsman Patrick Hale, who is hot on the trail of a big news story involving stolen nuclear warheads hidden in suitcases and international terrorism, leading from the Pentagon to the White House, where President Lockwood(played by George Grizzard) and General Wombat(played by Robert Conrad) try desperately to keep a lid on things, while Hale suspects a cover-up, where it all ends atop the World Trade Center... Crazy satire seems like a combination of "Network" and "Dr. Strangelove", but falls well short of those classics. This may be prescient in some ways, but it little matters in misfired comedy. Interesting cast though!

2 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Seventeen Years Later Satire Is Current Events.

Dale-4011 April 1999

Just a few hours ago I caught this film on a cable TV channel and hurried to the IMDB to find out the year of release -- 1982. The concept of presidential "plausible deniability" was before the Iran Contra hearings. What came even more to mind as I watched Sean Connery, a favorite actor of mine since the mid-1960s, was the Gulf War of the early 1990s and what is happening in the Balkans right now.

7 out of 9 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

7/10

Not just a satire of the future...

reiki6508 March 2009

Warning: Spoilers

The fact is the editing is what sunk this film, ultimately. I had always seen minor time gaps that bothered me, especially with Sean Connery in the lead. Leslie Neilson proves he can act without the Police Squad deadpan.

That aside, I had to get this film off ebay on VHS to view it again. I'm glad to hear it finally hit DVD shelves. Except for a few bumps in the road, it's still time well spent.

-----------------------SPOILER!!!---------------------------------

I loved this film when I went to college in '88. Now it seems both a bit lame, but yet, very prophetic. Especially with war in the Middle East and a climax that takes place at the top of the World Trade Center!!!

0 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

6/10

Almost A Classic

Tin_ear2 July 2014

This is an unusual film in that the satire is razor sharp and doesn't age a bit, but the film doesn't work at all. There are a few decent gags, but the film is ragged and not terribly funny. The movie doesn't know whether its wants to be a comedy, a serious drama, a caper, or an action flick. And it doesn't do any of them that well, which is a shame because the film had a lot of potential. Instead Connery pretty much plays the lead role as a kind of pseudo-James Bond, or Mike Wallace on steroids. I'm not sure if the tone of the film was an artistic decision or a corporate one. You'd think they'd go the Kubrick route not The Pink Panther direction. But maybe the filmmakers were trying to avoid precisely that comparison. I'd love to ask Richard Brooks just that. An interesting and long-forgotten novelty, it's watchable solely for curiosity's sake. But heck, even a mediocre Connery movie is worth your time...except Highlander II.

0 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

2/10

Seemingly Written and Directed by High School Freshmen

reymunpadilla20 December 2023

If you've ever met a sheltered high school kid who paid attention to the news for the first time, or read his first criticism of war or capitalism, this film is like that.

That kid's POV, and this film's, are not wrong. But you find yourself pretty annoyed and very bored that this kid and this film tell you what you already know, and do it in such a clumsy, heavy handed, and unoriginal predictable way.

This is really bad satire. It's not clever, not even close to funny. Not once.

And the directing is as bad as the writing. The acting is like watching the filming of a high school play, except that somehow major Hollywood actors were talked into being in this bad, bad film.

So many reviews claim this film is daring or prescient. Only if you don't know your history. The public had become cynical about Vietnam a decade earlier, and about wars in the Mideast, and the media.

The hoax attack in the Gulf of Tonkin incident and scandals over inflated body counts were already known to everyone. That's part of why this film was ignored and bombed.

0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

6/10

I wish they'd either made this a drama or a comedy....not some odd film in between.

planktonrules24 August 2021

"Wrong is RIght" is a film that does seem to predict, in an odd way, the United States' involvement in the Middle East over the last two decades. For this reason, it's well worth seeing. However, the film has a problem....it doesn't seem to know if it's a comedy or an insightful drama.

The film stars Sean Connery as an investigative reporter who is generally more concerned with ratings and sensationalism than anything else. His job takes him to some fictional land in the Middle East and his travels put him in contact with a leader of one of these countries as well as an infamous terrorist leader. What he doesn't anticipate is thatt these two would forge an alliance...and buy nuclear weapons to spread terror against the United States. In addition, as he's useful to both sides, soon CIA, FBI and even the US President seek his coverage. What's next? See the film.

Some of the film is great....but it's undone with a few cartoonish characters, such as the nuke-crazy General Wombat (now THAT'S a stupid name) and a few cartoony moments. They also had no idea how grenades work...and they were more like cartoon grenades! This is sad, as so much of the film is brilliant and insightful...but it seemed pretty obvious the filmmakers weren't sure that sort of movie they were making. With a bit of editing, this could have been an exceptional film.

0 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

6/10

An odd film, with hints of masterpiece and failure all jumbled together

PaulusLoZebra3 May 2023

The Richard Brooks - Sean Connery collaboration Wrong is Right is a very odd film. Depending on the scene, it is a satire or a farce or an adventure spy thriller. To the great credit of the film and Richard Brooks, its sophisticated treatment of television, terrorism, government and politics is as relevant today as it was in 1982. It is a low-budget film, with poor production values. That was probably deliberate and could have enhanced the farcical aspects of the work, but gets in the way of us enjoying it as a satire or a thriller. Sean Connery is very good in a difficult role. The brief roles played by Katharine Ross, John Saxon, GD Spradlin and Hardy Kruger come accross well. But the characters played by George Grizzard, Robert Conrad, Henry Silva and Rosalind Cash are almost cartoonish in nature. On the other hand, Leslie Nielsen is great playing a dleiberately cartoonish character.

0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

9/10

A great movie about television Second to NETWORK

JeffBJames7 February 2007

WRONG IS RIGHT was not marketed right when it came out in 1982 and was due to fail. The movie ad tag lines called it "Dr. Strangelove for the 80's," which was a lame attempt to encapsulate a dark comedy by referring to another classic dark comedy, which also dealt with nuclear bombs. I think people were put off by that and because it was two years after the Iranian Hostage Crisis, people didn't want a dark comedy about the Middle East. I loved it in 1982, I love it even more today, because in large part, it was right, wrong is right was right.

HOWEVER, it predicted so much of what has happened in the world since, that it is so prophetic as to be scary. I won't say anything from the movie, but if you watch it and realize when it was made, it's incredible and shows the true genius of those who made it.

Sean Connery leads a cast which is superb.

You have to remember, this was before CNN became the go to news channel.

Enjoy.

13 out of 14 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

10/10

Deserves a thumbs-up 20 years later.

DerrickLyle200421 May 2004

I agree with the positive reviews others have posted. I won't spoil anything for those who have not seen it, but the film is disturbingly accurate to the reality of the past few years (circa 2004). Wrong Is Right is a black comedy and an excellent work of science fiction. The credit goes to Richard Brooks as well as original author Charles McCarry. Based on McCarry's 1979 novel "The Better Angels", Wrong Is Right takes a comedic twist, and touches on topics few could have easily digested during the Reagan Presidency of 1982.

The plot revolves around globetrotting news-hound Patrick Hale (Sean Connery), who uncovers a major international crisis, and must contend with a sinister President, the CIA, and international terrorists. The original intent of director Richard Brooks was to illustrate how technology could bring TV news closer to the truth, and exploit it for ratings. Taking essential cues from the novel, Mr. Brooks leads the viewer into a hazy world in which technology and television manipulate reality for personal gains. The movie accurately predicts the rise of cable and satellite TV. It nails the what-ifs of a media outlet (Fox Broadcasting/Fox News Channel come to mind). And it's an early look at how computers and modern technology affect society. The big clincher is that the movie literally provides a twisted take on the Bush Administration - I kid you not.

Remember, this movie was made during the Cold War. No one worried about America fighting anyone else but the Soviet Union. Cable television, while gaining steam, was nowhere near as engrossing or developed as it is today. And no one in America cared about suicide bombers. Do yourself a favor and rent or purchase the video/DVD. Enjoy the movie for the spectacle it is. And realize what was science fiction years before is now a freakish parody of today.

The acting, the pacing, and the writing are good to great, considering the topic. It gets funnier as the film finishes. Just remember, the cast and crew were on eggshells, as the film itself is groundbreaking. It is a political satire predating its subject matter. And for another generation, it becomes far more familiar and timely than Dr. Strangelove.

26 out of 32 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

9/10

A Satire For Today From Nearly Three Decades Ago

timdalton00727 May 2010

Some films are truly ahead of their time. The 1982 satire Wrong Is Right is such a film. Though deemed unbelievable when first released nearly three decades ago its satire of TV news being driven more by entertainment then facts, Islamic terrorists seeks nuclear weapons and international intrigue makes it even more relevant today. In short it's a satire for today from yesterday.

The film features a fine cast. Sean Connery stars as Patrick Hale, a globe trotting TV reporter who uncovers the story of a life time. Connery shows off a considerable talent for doing black comedy throughout and comes across well as a cynical reporter who ends up virtually being the voice of reason towards the films end. George Grizzard (as the President), Rosalind Cash (as the Vice-Pesident), Robert Webber (as the CIA director) and Dean Stockwell (as the President's chief of staff) come across well as various government officials caught up in the crisis while in the midst of a presidential election. There's also Robert Conrad as the trigger happy General Wombat in charge of the counter terrorism task force in a performance perhaps a bit too reminiscent of George C. Scott in Doctor Strangelove. Facing off against them are the terrorists lead by Rafeeq (Henry Silva) and Leslie Nielsen as a proto-George W. Bush presidential candidate twenty years before the fact. That's not forgetting either Kathrine Ross as Sally Black or Hardy Kruger as a European arms dealer as both have small but important roles in the films. All together they make for a fine cast for this satire.

It's the satire and script that really makes this film stand out. Inspired by or loosely based on. depending on your choice of phrase, Charles McCarry's 1979 novel The Better Angels which like the film was deemed unbelievable at the time it originally came out. But the film would prove to be eerily prophetic of the world more then two decades later. Terrorists blow up airplanes without warning, a wealthy Middle-Eastern nation seeks to buy nuclear weapons for terrorists and suicide bombers blow themselves up with no warning may have been unbelievable thirty years ago but are practically ripped from the headlines of today. Plus things such as Leslie Nielsen's presidential candidate Mallory who, as not just played by Nielsen but written as well, could easily be mistaken for a satire of George W. Bush if the film hadn't been made in the 1980's but sometime in the last ten years. Yet all the while the film plays not so much as a satire but as a thriller as Hale explores the worlds of his own TV companies bias, government conspiracies, election year politics and Islamic terrorism. But the film works because of its heavy topics rather then despite them because it exposes the sheer absurdities that lies at the heart of it all. While the technology and fashions are those of the early 1980's the film could easily have been released, as the opening of the film states, in the time between now and later.

Armed with a fine cast and an excellent satire/thriller script, Wrong Is Right stands out nearly three decades after its original release. With its plot of TV news being driven more by entertainment then facts, Islamic terrorists seeks nuclear weapons and international intrigue it's hard to believe that a film from thirty years ago could speak so much more about the decades after it was originally released. But this film does and it would appear to have much more effect now then it has ever had. Wrong Is Right is a satire for today from nearly three decades.

15 out of 18 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

9/10

Prophetic,biting,black comedy

coop-164 April 2003

I wish this movie was more readily available..it IS prophetic.I saw it nearly twenty years ago and have never forgotten it.Connery puts in one of his best performances as the cynical, jaded, journalist.I would urge all students of US foreign policy to rent-and analyze-this film

12 out of 14 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

10/10

Why can't I find this film!

TPPMorris11 July 2003

I first saw this film during it's initial run and fell in love with it immediately. I was falling out of my seat laughing. The writing was sharp, the pace brisk and the story dead-on. Sean Connery was great, but this is probably the best role and performance of Robert Conrad's life. And I was knocked about by G.D.Spradlin's quick reference to his scene in my all time favorite movie. I have since been frustrated by how difficult it is to find the film. I have yet to find it in a video store and it shows up very rarely on TV. If the chance comes up, do not let this film get passed you. It is hilarious in that I-don't-care-what-anyone-thinks way that has become lost in today's film comedies.

11 out of 14 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

User Reviews

See also

Opinion

Details

Storyline

Did You Know?

Photo & Video

Related Items

User Lists

Recently Viewed