bkoganbing 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.

Tin_ear 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.

nando1301-1 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.

TPPMorris 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.