Wag the dog

Wag the Dog, 1997
Director: Barry Levinson
Cast: Dustin Hoffman, Robert De Niro, Anne Heche, Woody Harrelson

Stage: Home theatre, lovely Saturday evening



Wag in short: After being caught in a scandalous situation days before the election, the president does not seem to have much of a chance of being re-elected. One of his advisers contacts a top Hollywood producer in order to manufacture a war in Albania that the president can heroically end, all through mass media.

Preps: It is a recommendation from a side I really appreciate. I have never seen a bad movie with such recommendation. Plus, a claim that every person that works in mkt should see this. Hence.. am anxious with expectation.


Reality: Well, it's always good to see and hear what the president team has in their sleeve. In this case, I am just bursting with laughter. First, do you get caught with a scout days before the election? (you don't). Still, this is the case here and the team needs to wrap it up before the years of preps go rotten.
In any case, I seriously doubt now (after seeing this) in every war, every little thing the media produces, every announcement ever made by government. I see in this movie, how rotten it might be, behind the scenes, on a place we don't see or hear about. Even the closest to the president in this case don't know bits of scenario that is driven to the masses.
For a person living in the balcan region, it's highly amusing, how other countries (us in perticular) abuse the names of foreign yugoslaw republics and use it as a "terrorist" country. May it be Bosnia or Serbia, Croatia, Slovenia or in this case, even a southern country, Albania. What did Albania do to us, the chieftain asks.. What it didn't do to us, is the real question, De Niro answers. And creates a stunt war, made in studio. Was the Gulf War really directed in studio? Maybe not, but it made me question every bit of information I received about the event.
The power of marketing, if driven with intelligence and style, is amazing. The movie depicts real drama you can setup with mere imagination. At the end, how convenient, the director gets shot/killed for trying to speak up. How american!
This piece is one of the brightest I have seen lately. Even though it doesn't have the scenes, the photography, the music, or anything really obvious, it has a strong story and a direction. How convenient it is to have Hoffman in the role of the producer, fighting for his rights :) I could just burst in laughter again. His imagination inside the piece and intercapturing the role he's playing is spectacular. President wants a white kitten? We will give him the white kitten.
Last, but not least. Bringing in the fallen hero (making a mistake and afterwards, having him killed and watch the whole US cheering for his fallen return, with a super dog behind, wagging his tail).. it reminds me of some scenes I really admire in Monty Phython. If you are a fan, you will love this piece. If you are more average, romantic comedy type of movie fan, you won't really get all the fun parts there are here. Because some of them are just beneath the average skin.


My personal rating: 9,0 (absolutely brilliant. I loved it and laughed long afterwards)


Wag the Dog on IMDB

Sleepers, 1996

Sleepers, 1996
Director: Barry Levinson
Cast: Brad Pitt, Robert de Niro, Kevin Bacon, Dustin Hoffmann, Minnie Driver, Jason Patric




Sleepers in short: Four boys growing up in Hell's Kitchen play a prank that leads to an old man getting hurt. Sentenced to no less than one year in the Wilkenson Center in upstate New York, the four friends are changed by the beating, humiliation and sexual abuse by the guards sworn to protect them. Thirteen years later and a chance meeting lead to a chance for revenge against the Wilkenson Center and the guards.



Preps: None in perticular. The cast is astounding. The director is one of my favourites. And I have naturally watched this earlier, as a child. Admired it at that time, I am sure I will even more now with a critical eye.



Reality: I am right. This is one of better bitter stories ever being put on screen. I believe Levinson is a genious and a coragious man to put this live. Still, the US government and all similar facilities, deny that such places exist, such actions ever could take place and that there wasn't a trial as depicted in the movie.
Well, the story will rip your bones off. It is breathtaking and it makes you shiver with fear and horror all along the way. Violence creates violence. Put normal boys into a facility of correction, juvenile home or something, abuse them and be sure they will grow up to be criminals, most of them.
The sad story revolves around four boys being taken into a facility for a homicide they commited unintentionally. And the abuse they were submitted to, it is just horrible. Their commitment never to speak about that part of their lives is broken when two former boys, now adults, have the chance to take the revenge with a guy that raped them. So they kill them and are put into trial.
The trial isn't about the killing, it's about revenge to the facility that abused them while they were taken in for a year in their childhood. And they get the revenge, with style.
The cast is magnificent. The story is breathtaking. The director did his work and it shivers me even now as I write about it. A must see for any person. It will make you fear of such institutions and make you never do wrong in a way you would get into a facility like that. It will make you hate those that abuse children, even more. And will make you think about the sacrifice you are willing to take for the ones you love. The priest treads on his values or virtues to help the kids get the revenge they want. The truth, even though not admitted by the government, is out and it should be. In a fair world, such things wouldn't go unpunished. And no kids would die on streets with 29. But that is in fairy tales. We live in a no dream world. And need to take it seriously, for it's a place for filth and abuse. You see this undoubtfully in this piece. It will tear down your heart.


My personal rate: 8,5 (splendid piece that makes you think way beyond its purpose and content. It makes you cry in your heart and feel with the characters. Not many pieces do that to you).


Sleepers on IMDB

The Sphere, 1998

The Sphere, 1998
Director: Barry Levinson
Cast: Dustin Hoffmann, Sharon Stone, Samuel L. Jackson



Stage: Home theatre, TV selection on a fine Sunday night


The Sphere in short: 1000 feet below the ocean, navy divers discover an object half-a-mile long. A crack team of scientists are deployed to the site in Deepsea Habitats. What they find boggles the mind as they discover a perfect metal sphere. What is the secret behind the sphere? Will they survive the mysterious 'manifestations'? Who or what is creating these? They may never live to find out.


Preps: I have seen this a few times. Every time it gives me shivers. A splendid piece.


Reality: One of last decade's better pieces on extraterrestrial life, time journeys, subconscious fear of machines that can manipulate our mind, journey with scientists (that most of us only dream of).. well, this piece does have a lot of things going for him. In addition, it has a fabulous act, witty scenes and creative dialogues. A good music accompanying most of dreadful and scary scenes. A lot of logic you cannot convey and for this reason you just accept the facts as the scientists introduce them.

Speaking with Jerry, speaking with your subconscious, can be freaky. Being online with an alien mind, speaking to it through the computer, going into spheres, coming out as a complete wacko.. the line doesn't end. And you are thrown into a river that.

"I make a journey. You make a journey. We make a journey together." One of the things that Jerry makes clear to the crew. The point where you wonder if you are speaking to a child or is the child underestimating the speaking party on the deck. He's happy, one of the things that psychologist doesn't appreciate (Dustin Hoffmann in one of his good roles). What if the speaker becomes angry? Well, we see this happen in many different aspects. A lot of weird things happen on the deck, all of them trying to give us the lesson that sometimes we shouldn't poke our nose where it doesn't belong. But this is also the reason we are making progress in many fields, science included. If we all minded our own business, we couldn't progress anywhere. Here the team is prosecuted for doing so and biting their own meat from their bodies (between the members) as they are trying to fight the freaky opponent. How to fight something you don't know or aren't aware of how to fight? Learn in the movie. And find some great scenes along the way, like the one with jello fish and dying because of it.



My personal rate: 8,0 ( You will love the fright you will get several times along the way. And the psychological effect of pure deduction procedures done by brilliant mathematician. A lot of things to find in the piece for you. If you are a sci-fi fan, don't miss it!)


The Sphere on IMDB

Stranger than fiction, 2006

Stranger than Fiction, 2006
Director: Marc Forster
Cast: Will Ferrel, Emma Thompson, Dustin Hoffmann


Stage: Home theatre


Stranger than Fiction in short:

Everybody knows that your life is a story. But what if a story was your life? Harold Crick is your average IRS agent: monotonous, boring, and repetitive. But one day this all changes when Harold begins to hear an author inside his head narrating his life. The narrator it is extraordinarily accurate, and Harold recognizes the voice as an esteemed author he saw on TV. But when the narration reveals that he is going to die, Harold must find the author of the story, and ultimately his life, to convince her to change the ending of the story before it is too late


Preps: Again, a recommendation from the circle I trust that something recommended from this circle will play hard in my brains.


Reality: Perfect start. I feel like in a Truman show. It takes me a while to realize we are having a narrator present in one day of a single person - Harold Crick. Everything we see is a stage, until the guy realizes that he's hearing the voices. Therefore he has the power to influence his own life. Or doesn't he? The problem is, that something is already written down, in sense, he is performing it already, delivering what he's supposed to. The stuff that isn't already written down is something he can influence. In this sense, the viewer will always question, what is the written destiny of Crick and what is the one he's making at the moment he's in (like therapies with the shrink - Dustin Hoffman; looking for the writer of this play he's playing in, etc). Just to think that you are a writer and the character could hear you speaking about his life, is hillarious.

Somehow I switch to the perspective of Crick. He is changing his life as the writer is trying to write something else - at least this is how it seems. He meets a lady he likes and despite the business dispute they are having, turns the gig into a romance. Brilliant - and yet I think it isn't really written in the book. Somehow the awareness of being a character, makes him indulge the life more than he would probably if he didn't hear anything in the first place. The question here then is, which story are we following, the written one, or the side one? And the story of the writer is also brilliantly put - an addict that needs a personal secretary to finish up the job? I would make this an official business, but not only in the writer's world, also in other creative jobs, where the depression, followed by a wave of creativity, is absolutely a must. And in this sense, the job of such a secretary would come handy. I loved this side role.

The complete movie will rock your alternative mind. It will make you switch from the side of the spectator to the side of the role player. And you will get confused, which ending you would like to see. As set, the writer is a drama queen. And the Hollywood endings don't fit her.


My personal rate: 9,0 (somehow it reminds me of Allen's movies. I loved it and found it creative and fun to watch).

Stranger than fiction on IMDB

Runaway jury, 2003

Runaway jury, 2003
Director: Gary Fleder
Cast: Dustin Hoffmann, John Cusack, Gene Hackman, Rachel Weisz



Stage: Home selection on TV (indeed surprising, sometimes they can pick)

Preps: Just being home at the right time. Somewhere deep I remembered I loved the movie. The cast is amazing, all the icons I admire, and the woman that grew to my heart in these years that I have watched her. And the case with the jury. Something I wanted to be when being very young. So promising I wanted to watch it again and make some comments.

Reality: Even better than I expected. This time the theme sucks me in, the involvement of a crime in a place where no crime is expected or tolerated, in a sense that noone picks it up until the end of the movie. Cusack is simply brilliant, in the way he puts the minds and develops everyone in the jury with the flow of the movie (or shall I put, the development of the case). The case isn't important, politics is, this is the truth until the last five minutes, when a sudden turnaround happens to the surprise of the viewer.

In my opinion, a piece worth seeing, if not for a superb critic of the american justice system, then for a thorough insight on how you can guide someone's mind or opinion, how you can persuade a bunch of people to take you for what you want them to take, to think how you want them to think and in the end, decide on what you have decided when you first set eyes on them. The justice-representative, attorney, fights a glorious battle, that couldn't be won, except if there wasn't some philosophy and deep revenge down below in the base of the case. For which you don't know, only assume that something is happening and is revealed in the last minute of the movie.

Highly recommended.

My personal rating: 7,5 (a remarkable piece on usually boring attorney/prosecutor cases or movies describing something going on in the court. Can compare it to Erin Brokovich, except this one is mainly happening in the court).



Runaway on IMDB