Review CXII - Wag the Dog

Review 112
Wag the Dog (1997)

Loving the Spanish poster, which translates to smoke screen. Anyway, I came across Barry Levison's Wag the Dog... somehow. And when I saw who starred in it (Dustin Hoffman and Robert De Niro), along with cameos from some known faces (Woody Harrelson and Jim Belushi), I was surprised I had never heard of this film. But then again, I don't like comedies really, and I don't usually explore political comedies. But the big names made me have hope. I mean, Robert De Niro had even helped to produce this one. Must be good, right?

The presidential election for the United States is eleven days away, and an underage "Firefly Girl" (translation: girl scout) has accused the president of sexual advances. The president is seeking another term, and this could make him lose the election. So what does spin doctor Conrad Brean (Robert De Niro) decide could save the president? A distraction. Something big. How about a war? With Albania? With the help of director/producer Stanley Motts (Dustin Hoffman), this war may be the saving grace in this election.

The shots were weird in this one. There were some weird focuses and zoom-ins that made the film seem like a television show at times. Otherwise, there was nothing particularly interesting going on, unfortunately.

The acting was good and I did actually laugh during the film. Dustin Hoffman's character did give me a good laugh at times, which is usually rare for me in dark comedies. I'll see the humour, but it won't make me laugh out loud. This one did. Comedic genius? No. But it gives a little laugh.

Even though Wag the Dog might not seem like your type of movie and even I didn't really find the film that good, I will recommend it for a watch anyway. And I'll tell you why: The government lies. I'm sure you've all heard about the conspiracy theories surrounding 9/11 when the twin towers fell, or about assassinations maybe being plots from the government. I can't offer you the answers to those theories, it's something you would have to search on your own, but I think it's important you know right off the bat that not everything you see should be trusted. Your government doesn't have your best interests at heart, at least part of the time. And I can offer you a little story to help you understand if you think I'm a raving nut and "conspiracy theorists are just nut bags". It even relates to movies and directors - hurray! Stanley Kubrick released 2001: A Space Odyssey back in 1968, about a year before the first moon landing from the United States. The film has one particular scene where the group of scientists head to the monolith on... Jupiter, was it? Anyway, the monolith is surrounded by film cameras and lighting, almost like a movie set. Could this be a reference to another conspiracy theory about the moon landings being fake? In a way, yes, though the reality is a little less bleak. Apparently Stanley Kubrick was approached in order to film some "moon shots" if the footage from the Apollo 11 mission would have been sub par (Though reading now, it seems this is not true? I don't even know anymore). So I like to assume that the moon landings did happen, but that they needed footage to show the public because this was the television age after all. But really, if this stuff has been going on since the sixties, who is to say they haven't stretched televised reports? After all, Watergate, where Nixon was found falsifying the election votes, was a thing. And there is a thing called synchronicity, but I'll leave you that to look up yourselves if you're interested. I'm not confirming or disproving any theories because seriously, there is so much to say and some of it is major baloney, but if there's one thing I say to take away from Wag the Dog, it's to question everything. Descartes may have lived a long time ago, but the meaning of questioning dogma is still valid and especially appropriate today where knowledge is available at our fingertips.

Wag the Dog - we might be the people, but we're manipulated in order to follow a government plan. The title is appropriate, isn't it?

Review XXVII - Seven Psychopaths

Review XXVII
Seven Psychopaths (2012)

Martin McDonagh's In Bruges is definitely a film I would recommend. It has a perfect blend of dark humour and clean-cut humour, plus it has Ralph Fiennes and Brendan Gleeson in it! If you only know those two because of the Harry Potter franchise, shame on you - they've been in way better movies. Anyway, a friend of mine really wanted to see the new film Seven Psychopaths, so I went to see it with him. When I realised it was a Martin McDonagh film, which was only after I watched the film, the film made a lot more sense to me. I watched it on opening night which was almost a month ago, so bare with me on this review. I just want to review a film, and it was between this and Silent Hill. I suppose you can understand why I chose this one.

Marty (Colin Farrell) is an aspiring script writer who wishes to write a movie about seven psychopaths. However, while he does have a few strong stories in the bag, he's lacking in the amount of psychopaths in his story. Billy (Sam Rockwell), his good, but crooked, friend, decides to help him out, along with Hans (Christopher Walken), a mysterious man who loves his cravat. However, a real-life psychopath, Charlie (Woody Harrelson) falls upon the three when his precious dog is kidnapped by Billy, and hilarity ensues.

If I had to describe the movie in one word, it would be... lacking. Yet, in the end, it doesn't really lack anything. The film revolves around Marty and his story, yet it doesn't exactly because there are so many subplots about the psychopaths. It's strange because we might be given five minutes about the story of a psychopath, and then, that's the end. I realise it's only about the writing process, but it's strange because we're given that time to connect with a psychopath, and poof, they disappear from the plot. While some come back later, most appear and disappear just as quickly. The film has so many characters, yet doesn't go in depth of all of them... Which I guess is sometimes the point, but other times, it isn't. This review is getting to be as confusing as the film. Okay, let's break this down...

The main plot is a good and funny one. Marty recounts funny stories for the psychopaths in his story, or he is told funny stories about them. I won't give any away (I really would like to, though) because it's these stories that make the movie so funny. However, while there are seven psychopaths in the film, some are only stories that Marty comes up with, but some are real life people. For example, Woody Harrelson's character is a real-life psychopath. While it is assumed that Marty later includes him in his screenplay, we're still introduced to him as a real psychopath. And, as I said, we just assume that Marty later includes him. It's never said, "Hey, Charlie will be one of the psychopaths." He's labelled a psychopath by the film, so we just assume he's part of the story. It's strange when a second earlier, we're told about a fake psychopath, who is also labelled. It seemed a bit... random, but I guess I can't really complain because we do meet each psychopath. It just felt weird to me.

I would also go ahead and say that each psychopath has a mini-subplot of their own. This leads to so many subplots that it almost gets confusing. The fact is, there is a tangent for each one, which leads to five minutes of explaining a man's story. While some psychopaths return, some are named and disappear forever. It makes you wonder whether or not Marty actually had seven psychopaths in his screenplay, or if there were actually less. This is another element that bothered me. While you don't have to follow up with each psychopath in great detail, it leaves the viewer feeling a little lost when we're given a psychopath and then they're gone forever.

... Which leads me to characters. Marty, Billy, Hans, and Charlie are the main characters. Charlie is maybe more of a secondary character, but he becomes more important. However, there are so many tertiary characters that come in as psychopaths. The problem is, they're tertiary characters, but they're given the spotlight for a while for a short while to explain their story in some of the cases. This makes it really confusing, and, as I said, I felt ripped off when I'd learn about a psychopath and then they disappeared for the rest of the movie. Some are forgivable, but if you watch the film, you'll understand what I mean. It seemed like there were too many characters that couldn't be explained. I think they could have incorporated them in better, especially when they would be given screen time of a minute or two.

I've been complaining, but I can go ahead and say the acting was phenomenal. Have you seen the actors in this film? Two of them have been nominated for an Oscar (one of them, Christopher Walken, even won it) and the others have been nominated for other awards or are just good actors in general. I can't really speak of Colin Farrell that much since I've only seen him in In Bruges, but I thought he was great in that movie. In this film, he does just as good a job. He has such a good shocked reaction and face. Sam Rockwell also does a great job in his role. Woody Harrelson and Christopher Walken, well, it's a given that they'd both deliver at least enjoyable roles. The acting from the rest of the group is good too, maybe even more so, so we definitely get a well rounded group of actors and actresses who know what they're doing. This means you can definitely enjoy the film, even if the plot is confusing and random at times.

I complained about the film, and I mean, it really was pretty spastic at times, but I still enjoyed it. I'll give it seven point seven on ten. It has really funny parts, but it can be slow and weird at some points. However, the acting and good humour make it worthy of at least checking out, though I'd say wait until it comes out on DVD (it's still playing in one theatre near my house, so I'm going to assume it's still out!).