I didn't think it would happen. I'm so glad that the jury came through.
But I don't buy into this "the system works, the American Dream is still possible" crap. If the system worked, George Floyd would be alive. If the system worked, police wouldn't be killing citizens. If the system worked, systemic racism would be part of the past.
Not denying the pleasure those guilty verdicts provide. But it'll take a few hundred more such verdicts before the surface has been even barely scratched.
On the one hand, you have two fine, venerable actors in John Lithgow and Blythe Danner. If you are fan of Danner, as I am, you might wonder why she so rarely appears in movies you'd like to see. I probably enjoyed her most in the TV series Huff. Point is, I'm glad to see her name in the credits for The Tomorrow Man, but I don't get my hopes up.
Next, you have writer/director/cinematographer Noble Jones (what a great name!), who makes his directorial debut after working mainly on music videos. He has worked (been mentored) by David Fincher ... he's not a novice. And he seems to have inspired his veteran cast. If had to summarize, I'd say Jones looks to be an intriguing director and cinematographer, but the story didn't do much for me, and the ending simultaneously came out of nowhere and yet was highly predictable. The Tomorrow Man is ultimately harmless, and I'm not sure that's what Jones was hoping for.
So my wife and I, both in our late-60s, were clearly supposed to identify with the geezers on the screen, but they didn't resemble any actual people I know. (One exception: Blythe Danner's character's house is as messy as ours.) Jones got The Tomorrow Man made, and that's no small accomplishment. But he hasn't yet made his first masterpiece.
This is the thirtieth film I have watched in "My Letterboxd Season Challenge 2020-21", "A 33 week long challenge where the goal each week is to watch a previously unseen feature length film from a specified category." This is the 6th annual challenge, and my second time participating (last year can be found at "My Letterboxd Season Challenge 2019-20"). Week 30 is called "'Playwrights Turned Screenwriters: Mamet Week".
Our main challenge is an examination of writers switching mediums, with their filmographies including adaptations and original screenplays. You can see how well their writing transfers over from stage to screen.
This week's challenge is to watch a previously unseen film written by David Mamet.
Not sure how this slipped by me over the years ... I was always intrigued by the premise, wherein a presidential adviser cooks up a phony war to distract attention away from an affair the president has had just before election day. I run hot and cold with Mamet. I liked The Untouchables, for which he wrote the script, but that movie has Brian De Palma all over it, so I wouldn't say Mamet was the guiding force. The only movie I've seen that he directed was House of Games, which I liked but can't recall. In short, while I watched this because Mamet wrote it, my response to the movie wasn't really affected by Mamet one way or the other.
It was fun watching Robert De Niro and Dustin Hoffman play off of each other, and they were clearly having fun, as well. Anne Heche wasn't handled as well ... she brings quirkiness to her roles, but here, quirky was all they gave her. They (Mamet? Levinson?) let her down. I can't stand Denis Leary, so I was surprised that his role was fairly small and not as obnoxious as usual.
As for the plot, it was clearly meant to feel real in that way satire does by exaggerating the possibilities we live in. But I thought too often the point was the gullibility and stupidity of the people, who are shown as being willing to fall for anything if the people doing the trickery are smart enough. I've never liked that kind of angle, and I didn't like it here.
So for me, Wag the Dog had some enjoyable acting, but didn't deserve the feel of self-satisfaction it exuded.