User reviews

A second seeing of this film recently confirmed my impressions on seeing `Missing' (1982)(qv) also a second time a few months back. Costa-Gavras has things to say and he does not mince up his message.

In `Missing' he succeeded in getting Jack Lemmon to play a convincing role, and in `Mad City' he managed to get John Travolta to carry out the best role I have seen him in: his playing of a deranged simple worker real mad at having lost his job is truly memorable. Dustin Hoffman ably supports but without exceeding himself overly.

However, rather than the actors in themselves, it is the story itself which is more important and its message: getting the story on your TV news programme before your competitors is much more important than any other considerations – such as in this case, a group of schoolchildren held hostage with a shotgun aimed at them. But do not worry about them – get the story live on TV at any price, what a scoop! what a sensation!

And thus we live at the dictates of that ogre of communications called TV: whether wars in Rwanda or Afghanistan or Palestinians blowing themselves up in Israeli cafés or airliners crashing into the WTC, the most important thing is to get it live on screen for the hungry masses. We are at the mercy of papirazzi, that merciless squad of camera-toting fame-seekers, who have no scruples at getting their story first or even inventing it.

Thanks for the message, Costa-Gavras: I learnt it long ago, but you tell it well.

This movie gets off to a slow start. To be honest it doesn't build much suspense. It does, however, have a message about modern society. People have a fascination with crisis situations and media personalities feed on that fact like sharks in a frenzy. That can lead situations to escalate out of control.

Dustin Hoffman stole the show as Max Brackett. A fellow viewer couldn't believe that he was the same man that had played in Rainman. He delivers a standout performance as TV news reporter Max Brackett who is looking to inject life back into his career but at the same time retains some sense of compassion and justice. The forces battle inside him through out the film.

John Travolta was on the money but not stellar as Sam Bailey, a recently unemployed security guard on the cusp of losing everything that he owns. Sam is a bit of low watt bulb, but he is basically a good person caught up in a very bad choice and situation that runs awry of his plans. He is very distraught about his situation and popping caffiene pills to stay awake doesn't help his state of mind much either. Not one of Travolta's best but it is still good.

What a pleasure to watch Alan Alda in front of the camera again. As Kevin Hollander he is the guy that you love to hate. Hollander is Max Brackett's nemesis and antagonist. Alda easily departs from his compassionate portrayal of Dr. Haweye Pierce on TV's MASH for this one.

This isn't a perfect film but it is a good one. It will leave you thinking about the message that it has. The acting is good to great.

Interesting look at an emotionally crippled man as he goes out of control after losing his job. He holds several children and a few adults hostage in a museum after the curator refused to discuss his termination. One of the hostages is a newsman who winds up acting as the liaison between the police and the gunman. The situation leads to national prominence, drawing in an unscrupulous network newsman who only wanted to feather his own nest with the story. Good movie about a not unbelievable happening.

I'll be the first one to admit that this is not a movie for

everyone- it's not your average mainstream Hollywood movie. However, it IS a brilliant, scathing satire of the media's true power in modern-day society. Instead of going for overkill like the pathetic "Natural Born Killers," this movie uses dark comedy, brilliant performances, and genuine thrills to create one of the most clever and powerful social commentaries to be seen in film in years. If you're expecting a typical Hollywood thriller with a formula plot and a nice, neat ending then you'll be disappointed, but if you're looking for a smart, powerful film with brilliant performances by Dustin Hoffman and John Travolta, then I would recommend this movie. In a time when events like the O.J. Simpson trial make the media's influence in our society more than apparent, it's refreshing to see a movie willing to stare this issue right in the face.

Costa-Gavras is known as a political director and the most part of his movies are intriguing and makes us thinking about our way of see/accept the political facts in world. Although this movie is not necessarily political, makes us thinking at this time, about the influence of the media in the facts and in our lives. In this movies, two different lives had being linked by a casual meeting in a museum: A reporter (Dustin Hoffman) whose career was marked by a mistake made in a network, is trying to "resurrect" his work making a report about a financial scandal when he's sent to make a report in a museum. At the same time, a guard of the museum (John Travolta), fired some days before because of cut of budget, goes there trying to have a conversation with the manager and convince her to give his job back. At the same time that the reporter realizes it can be a resurrection for him, the things run out of control when other media reporter challenges the guard and him... Besides the excellent performances of Hoffman and Travolta, Costa-Gavras makes once more, a very smart movie that can't be missed.

I was surprised how many bad reviews this movie received. Travolta and Hoffman's on-screen chemistry was undeniable. It was pretty fast paced and kept me interested and seeing what was going to happen next as the situation escalated. Then ending lines in the movie were very powerful and meaningful in a broad spectrum. This is a clever film and is clearly underrated by the average moviegoer. There is some high powered themes and some good suspense playing out in this film. The drama never beats around the bush and it's message stays clear from start to it's powerful finish. The plot knows exactly what it is meant to be, and the acting is precise and very well done. Though some aspects of the movie were a little hard to fathom, I believe you can suspend disbelief if the movie is just good at entertaining. I kept my eyes on the screen the whole time, and definitely related to Travolta's blue collar maniac. I recommend this move to most people that want to have a good time. 7/10

Mad City is one of those movies you see in the theater, possibly when you were younger and can remember seeing rated R movies as something of a kind of big deal, and then re-watch it on TV almost as a way to relive the experience as much as enjoy the movie. Then, as one gets older, re-watching the movie isn't quite the same if it isn't, well, very good. And yet even as Mad City isn't something I'd say to a friend "watch this right away, it'll change your life" (that, of course, from Costa-Gravas, would be Z), it's definitely a good view for something on a lazy day or night, or for a minor Dustin Hoffman or (yes) John Travolta craving. It does happen from time to time.

The two stars are in very fine shape here- as far as the script can let them be- as a clear-headed but desperate reporter and a security guard with a heap of bad trouble respectively, who are put into an unintentional hostage situation after Travolta's recently fired museum security guard accidentally shoots a fellow guard and has to hold up a bunch of kids who are in the museum (plus Hoffman, in the bathroom after a boring interview while this happens), and then it turns into a media blitz. When these two actors interact the way they do, or even go through their somewhat predictable motions, it works at the least because we get to see Hoffman and Travolta as characters they've worked out and almost perfected in their own way. We believe them in this situation, and that should be enough to make it at least compelling viewing.

...Except, unfortunately, for a preachy screenplay, which half the time is simplistic tabloid entertainment and the other half dogmatic about the nature of the media. Costa-Gravas tries for moments that go for the satirical (one of my favorite bits is when we see the shot security guard recovering in his hospital room, waking up the first time to see a giant camera crane rising outside of his window to get his reaction to seeing a giant camera crane from a news group). It's definitely 20 years too late: Network got their first, quicker, brighter, funnier, and even with some better action. Perhaps there would have been more possibilities if the movie had been made today, when cable news is even more saturated with BS filler, one analysis to the next taking up time from actual other news that could be reported.

But, for complaints that can be had with Mad City, and there are more than a few, it's surely watchable Hollywood stuff, and this is thanks to the direction (I really liked the tension when Travolta is telling the kids the Indian ghost story in front of the display in the museum), and a nice roster of supporting/character actors. If you've never seen a Dustin Hoffman or John Travolta movie before, by all means look elsewhere. But if you got nothing better to do, it isn't bad.

Costa-Gravas' film 'Mad City' tells the story of an idiot who decides to turn around his life by taking hostages; needless to say, it doesn't end well. The film is also a satire on the media, happy to watch bad things happening (or even to make bad things happen) as long as there's a story: now Donald Trump is President-elect, this point certainly bears re-telling. But regarding the set-up, there's an obvious reference point, the brilliant Sidney Lumet film 'Dog Day Afternoon', and sadly, that movie puts this one well into the shade. The characters in 'Mad City' are unfortunately one-dimensional and the film's cards are unambiguously on the table throughout. For all their A-list status, stars Dustin Hoffman and John Travolta fail to bring the uninspiring script to life.

The hypocrisy and self-absorption of the media is not news now, and it wasn't news in 1997. That left this film without much to say. Often that isn't necessary, but people expect more from Costa-Gavras. The film was done pretty well, but it just didn't engage me. Travolta seems to do well as a not-so-bright character. The rest of the cast performed well. The stand-out was Mia Kirshner, who I am not familiar with. But this film doesn't get a recommendation from me. Skip it. Grade: C- (Would have been D, but I give some credit to the cast for performing better than the material they were given)

I'm only wiring this (brief) review because there are so many positive reviews on here.

The plot has flaws which others seem to be happy to ignore which is fine but I cannot phathom how it's rating is above 5. Hoffmans character is desperate to be back in the big-time and so he effectively prolongs the hostage situation to gain some additional airtime and ratings. He, obviously, could've aicheved far more fame by simply ending the situation and becoming a hero. He has to chose to prolong the situation however otherwise the movie could not exist. Travoltas performance as a below-average-IQ hostage taker who recently lost his job, was poor possibly due to direction. His character was trying to gather sympathy from outsiders who could relate to him. Unfortunately, viewers of the movie will struggle to relate to his character at all. There are many times when Travolta over-acts the dumbness but subtle things like his eye moment off show a different story. There are far more problems but I was planning on bring brief.

After watching I feel the movie was made to be provocative and take a stab at the news media industry but forgot it's purpose of telling a story. Written as a book would be a better medium for such a story as the reader wouldn't create flaws. 4/10 worth a watch if you have literally nothing else on a Sunday night.

Man, this was some indictment of the television-reporter-mentality! It was exaggerated, of course, but still interesting to see and in many respects good to see because of the onslaught of tabloid-mentality journalism that seems to have taken over the media in recent years. That kind of "reporting" should be exposed and ridiculed.

Whatever, you can enjoy this film for the acting alone with Dustin Hoffman, John Travolta, Alan Alda, Robert Prosky, Mia Kirschner and Ted Levine. These actors, and some good dialog, make the film move along at a good clip despite the absence of much happening on screen.

The story gets you involved and reminds me of the famous 70s film, Dog Day Afternoon, in which much of the film takes place in a bank. Here, it's a museum, and a man is in a predicament something like Al Pacino was in that film except Travolta's character here is totally innocent.

The screenwriters added bit of humor to this involving story and that made it even better. It's very good entertainment and certainly recommended.

Hard-hitting ratings-obsessed investigative TV reporter Max Brackett (Dustin Hoffman) is sent to the Museum of Natural History to do a story about its financial difficulties. Recently fired security guard Sam Baily (John Travolta) locks down the museum and takes everybody including a group of school kids hostage. Laurie Callahan (Mia Kirshner) is Max's inexperienced camera person outside. Lou Potts (Robert Prosky) is the station manager and Dohlen (William Atherton) is the local anchor. While arguing with the curator Mrs. Banks (Blythe Danner), Sam accidentally shoots his fellow guard Cliff (Bill Nunn). The situation escalates into a media circus. Network anchor Kevin Hollander (Alan Alda) reluctantly takes over the broadcast despite mistrusting Brackett. Chief Lemke (Ted Levine) leads the local cops.

Travolta tries too hard with his hang-dog face. He gets a bit annoying by acting too much. He would be more scary and more depressed by being quieter. At first, I wondered if he's trying to play a slow character and if it would be better for him to be more normal. The movie does a functional job skewering the news media. Hoffman is a solid selfish newsman. This is not that great but it gets by.

Mad City is an absolute wreck. Betting on the proven track record of Dustin Hoffman and the hot revitalization of John Travolta's career, the script fails to provide any depth for either actor. There are absolutely no original characteristics to the film. It's a bad rendition of Dog Day Afternoon-Cadillac Man-Wag The Dog all rolled into one boring little package. Just throw a below average IQ working man and twenty innocent children into the mix, and Tom Matthews believes he can create a couple sympathetic characters the audience can relate too? Give me a break. Every filmviewer dreads this kind of movie, a complete waste of time.

A brilliant examination of our media-driven culture, by a film-maker who has lost none of the passion and intelligence which previously crafted such definitive political thrillers as 'Z' and 'State of siege'. I am staggered that Costa-Gavras could bring this one off while actually working within the American media empire he excoriates!

There's enough stuff here to keep any serious media-studies or political theory courses in seminars and theses for years! I immediately bought a video copy after seeing it - in Glorious SpottiVision - on Britain's quirkily watchable Channel 5; I shall be giving it regular viewings from now on. Few and far between are such examples of intellectually adult and satisfying cinema these days. Truly one to savour, unless you prefer to leave your brains out when watching films.

And Travolta's performance as the wretched ex-guard - a far from simple simpleton - is a revelation: The man is magnificent - Oscar-worthy - the great Hoffman is forced to accept a supporting role!

A great, widely misunderstood film by a true master of cinema.

This film features nicely crafted performances from its leads John Travolta and Dustin Hoffman. The basic premise of the film was conceptualized during the zenith of the mass media's coverage of the O.J. Simpson trial. It provides a nice critique of the media's agenda in covering the news. Travolta's character provides the dramatic impetus to advance the critique. While promoting another film in later years, Hoffman conceded that in his opinion Mad City was "a bomb." I think he was being too harsh. I believe this film is a solid if not spectacular effort, 6/10.

Travolta does a superb job of playing a semi-educated yet noble working man who doesn't know how to deal with bad luck. He doesn't even understand that his lay-off isn't his fault and nothing can be done about it. He stumbles into a hostage taking situation and initially is too upset to agree to anything, including immediate surrender. The theme is not altogether incredible in our times an embittered employee going berserk and threatening violence. Problem is that Travolta is saddled with the challenge to portray this unwitting hostage-taker, part antagonist and part victim. I'd contend that he failed to bring out this delicate dichotomy. Even Hoffman's full-blooded newsman with a childish, self-centered ambition and some very sardonic light moments in the earlier half, cannot save the film from its maudlin second half, by which time it's already too late for us to care. The screenwriters added bit of humor to this involving story and that made it even better. It's a decent entertainment and certainly recommended.

Overall rating: 7 out of 10.

I love Dustin Hoffman. He is an actor who will rarely sell you short (not pun intended) he is fantastic in everything I have seen him in, from 'Marathon Man' and 'Kramer V's Kramer' his Oscar winning turn in 'Rain Man' or 'Mr Magoriums Wonder Emporium' and 'Tootsie'. He is always a delight to watch, and the fact that he teams up with A popular again (thanks to 'Pulp Fiction') John Travolta should have made this immediate viewing. But for some reason this movie escaped me.

And the main reason is probably Travolta, I liked him growing up thanks to 'Grease', 'Saturday Night Fever' 'Stayin' Alive' and 'Look Who's Talking' but as I entered my teens I became bored of him, I thought his turn in 'Pulp Fiction' was over rated, and although I enjoyed 'Phenomenon' nothing else I'd seen him in convinced me otherwise.

An out of favour reporter (Hoffman) is sent to a Museum to cover a "bit of fluff" story and finds himself in the middle of a great story when a sacked security guard (Travolta) takes some visiting children hostage.

Of the supporting cast Robert Prosky was solid as Hoffman's boss, and Mia Krishner as his ambitious protégé Laurie is OK. Alan Alda is as wonderful as he always is as the egotistical anchorman.

Hoffman is as reliable as you'd expect as the reporter who manipulates the situation up help revive his career. But Travolta is the star here, his likable, every man who is down on his luck has you rooting for him, despite the fact that he is holding children hostage at gunpoint.

Given the talent on show I'm surprised this failed to find an audience.

The acting is marvelous. Every role is well-cast, and neither lead outshine their character(rather, they disappear nicely into the roles). It's engaging, and it comes across rather credible and psychologically accurate. The production is not flashy, nor does this feel "thrown together". Editing and cinematography are good. It's genuinely funny, here and there. The pacing is great, and this doesn't really lose your interest, as such. Heck, the children aren't even particularly irritating. So why do I give it that relatively low of a vote? Well, frankly, it seems to put forth all it really has to say within the first fifteen to twenty minutes, and after that, it simply keeps restating it, occasionally in a different way than earlier in the movie. The one message that this contains is that the press can and will blow things out of proportion, and manipulate facts as well as those who follow them in order to stay informed. As admirable as it is to make an effort to ensure that everyone is aware of that sad truth, don't we all already know that? If this would at least explore it, go into what has led to it, and what makes people go along with it, it would quite possibly make for excellent cinema. As it is, this honestly winds up being a one-sided attempt at convincing its audience that things are a certain way, no matter what else they might believe, which is, ironically, exactly like the type of news-reporting that it is trying to decry. While 15 Minutes wasn't a masterpiece, it at least had satire, and was more entertaining than this. There is some violence and brief language in this. I recommend this to the biggest fans of those who made it. 6/10

I've heard a lot of reviews saying this is not a real Costa Gravas' film. I can't say anything about it, since I have never seen any of his films. Sorry for that, folks! But, in spite of it, I can say that this is a real John Travolta film. He is simply great.

Dustin Hoffman disappears near him, although his character is sort of supporting. Hey, I'm not saying Hoffman is bad, I really like him.

Since Travolta was brought back from the ashes by Quentin Tarantino he has proved to be a real great actor and this is one more proof to it. The film is worth to be seen just because of him.

Therefore, Mad City has moments of tension that makes us wish that all thrillers was made this way.

Costa-Gavras cautionary tale on the media is a bit of an unbalanced movie as it has some good ideas while at the same time it shoves those ideas down our throats with the subtlety of a sledgehammer. The story of a reporter who tries to milk a hostage situation as much as he can for personal gain is a good one but needed to be more grounded in reality than it is. As an example, the Travolta character is played way too dumb and we needed to have more of an emotional connection with him for the movie to work. I don't totally blame Travolta for this, I think it's much more a script and direction problem, but his performance didn't help either and the movie loses credibility and weight due to this fact. Also some of the reporter tactics are way over the top and, again, the credibility suffers. With these words it may seem I didn't enjoy the movie, but that couldn't be further from the truth. I think it's a very entertaining movie with a very clear and important message that could have been delivered a bit more efficiently.

I don't know if this was meant to be a comedy, but it sure had me laughing a lot. First there's Travolta's performance. He played his character way too dumb. I bet he wishes he could take this one back. There are the idiotic lines of dialogue sprinkled throughout the film. For example, when Travolta's wife is watching the reporters outside her own house right after finding out about her husband holding hostages, she says, "Look, now they're standing in my flower bed! That's it!" She's more upset about her flowers than about her husband holding hostages. And when Travolta is giving his first TV interview and says something about going to church, one of the kids he's holding hostages say, "I go to church too, with my family." What's the point of that, except to hit us over the heads with how Travolta is an 'ordinary guy' and is getting people's sympathy through the interview. The worst thing of all however is how utterly stupid the story is. First, the kids who are being held hostage over several days act more like their at summer camp then being kidnapped by a gun-wielding nut. They laugh and play with Travolta, they listen to him tell stories, and when he once in a while goes nuts and starts firing his gun out the window, they forget all about it when he opens up the candy machine for them. Real kids in a situation like this would be terrified. Then there are the people outside who start calling him a hero and printing up T-shirts with his face on it after his interview. Sympathy is one thing, that's understandable, but is anyone actually going to call a guy holding kids hostage a hero? And then there's the media. Everytime someone walks out the front door of the museum, whether its Hoffman or one of the kids, they get rushed by this media mob. The police would've barricaded the place, and the reporter's wouldn't be able to get within a hundred yards of that door. This movie is bad, some of it laughably bad, but mostly just plain bad.

MAD CITY is exciting and thrilling from the first scene.

A talented success-hunting reporter is sent by his boss to a totally not interesting job: to do a story about a museum with financiary problems. Upset and defeated, DUSTIN HOFFMAN's character goes there and has the chance of running into what will prove to be the story of his life: a guy enters the museum and takes everyone inside hostage. It's a smart movie, just because it debates themes that can only lead to smart scenes. Probably the best thing about MAD CITY are the actors: Travolta and Hoffman are great in their roles and they add an extra-value to the movie by the way they act.

What if you really need money to support your family and you just got fired? How far are you able to go to get your job back? Far enough to enter a museum and threat the owner with a gun? Surely. But what if by mistake you do something that you can't get out from? That's Travolta's situation.

What if all your life you aimed for a great story that will totally change everything about you? How far are you able to go? Far enough to play the victim's life in your hands an organise a live show from which you practically doom him to death? That's Hoffman's situation.

The plot grows rapidly and it's very convincing. And the ending is the only one possible.

Costa-Gavras does a great job with this movie and manages to mantain balance between the characters and the action. Good job. Vote: 8 out of 10.

Taking a break from "handsome" roles, John Travolta plays Sam Baily, hijacking a museum to demand his job back. Reporter Max Brackett (Dustin Hoffman) happens to be inside when this happens and gets the whole story. But before long, the whole thing becomes a media spectacle.

I should identify that "Mad City" is neither about condemning nor glorifying the media. It shows how our media-dominated society looks for anything to make news. We would probably expect that Costa-Gavras, who directed "Z" and "Missing", would do a good job, and he doesn't disappoint. Also starring Mia Kirshner, Alan Alda, Robert Prosky, Blythe Danner, William Atherton, Ted Levine and Lucinda Jenney.

Having watched this mess without having payed too much attention to the synopsis on the jacket, I was amazed that it is a Costa-Gavras work. The story is way too blatant and extreme; Costa-Gavras apparently decided to make his point, if it can be said there is one, with the bludgeon, not the rapier.

The film is technically well put together, but that does not save it or even capture one's interest. It is up to the performers to do that, and here again, the film fails. Travolta, who we know is capable of better, is neither engaging or believable (he comes off as almost retarded). The role was done much better by Denzel Washington in "John Q".

Faring a bit better is Alan Alda, playing Hawkeye Pierce all grown up and jaded.

Hoffman is masterful and is the only reason I rated this a 2 instead of a 1 (awful). He is smooth and professional and almost makes you want to try to like the movie. But, alas, he cannot do it alone.

The casting of the featured players in roles we have seen them in before is just more evidence that Costa-Gavras slept through this one. You would do better to sleep through it, also. Don't but it, ... and rent it only if you desire to watch lots of familiar Hollywood faces embarrass themselves.

Proof that taking on Big Subjects won't result in a Big Movie without some imagination or originality. Why has TV become Hollywood's bogeyman for the very late twentieth century? Mad City has an almost identical storyline to Billy Wilder's 1951 classic Ace in the Hole, still the best movie about media ethics.