Wrong Is Right

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.

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.

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.

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!