Wrong Is Right

My wife and I viewed this movie this weekend....having NO idea what the plot would be as we bought the video in a bundle at a garage sale. We were absolutely stunned as the plot unfolded to the similarities contained in the 9/11 tragedy. We even heard Bin Laden's name mentioned! I have written one other review for IMDB.... I have no idea whether you will print this comment or not....but I HAD to mention it. This movie will NOW chill the marrow of your bones. It was meant to be a comedy. Thank you for letting me release this... I had to say SOMETHING to somebody! God bless America!

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.

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.

Richard Brooks' "Wrong Is Right" is a vicious and savage satire of many aspects of society. Television, news reporting, politics and pleasure domes are just a few of the targets Brooks' aims at in this truly underrated film. I really don't want to give away the plot because one of the true pleasures of this movie is Brooks' surprises and payoffs. So let me in a carefully vague way give a hint of what it's all about. Sean Connery plays a television reporter (notice how in many of Brooks' films, that the protagonists are reporters ex: Fever Pitch, In Cold Blood, Bite the Bullet)who gets involved with a terrorist group and ends up in a bigger mess than he anticipated. But that's not the whole story. But I dare not say anymore because the film depends on the element of surprise.

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.

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.