O Homem com a Lente Mortal

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.

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.

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).

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.

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.