Critics’ reviews

Wag the Dog (1997)

9 reviews from 9 publications. Critics’ score 69: 5 positive, 1 mixed, 1 negative.

Back to our review of Wag the Dog

69
Positive
5
Mixed
1
Negative
1

Most critics respond warmly to Wag the Dog as a brisk, cynical satire on political spin and Hollywood’s ability to manufacture a convincing story. Praise centres on the comic precision, sharp dialogue and performances, with Dustin Hoffman’s self-infatuated producer the most consistently admired element. Robert De Niro also earns approval, while the favourable reviews find the connection between media manipulation and political power both funny and disturbingly plausible.

The disagreement is over how hard the satire actually hits. Even some sympathetic reviews find its cleverness calculated and its cynicism too flattering to an audience that already distrusts politicians and the media. Others regard the premise as stronger than the finished film. The spread is wide: Time Out offers a marked dissent, finding the construction lazy, the skits soft and the leaps in the story poorly handled, rather than sharing the prevailing appreciation of its pace and wit.

Los Angeles Times
24 December 1997 · Kenneth Turan
85*

The critic calls it a gloriously cynical black comedy and wicked smart satire on politics and show business that confirms every awful thought about media manipulation. It singles out the sharp-edged farce with its hard-hitting lines and gleeful plot twists for praise.

Read the full review →
The Independent
15 March 1998
80*

The critic praises the film's prescient satire on spin-doctoring and media manipulation, noting its timely release amid real-world scandals and its sharp take on how politics and Hollywood intersect.

Read the full review →
Variety
15 December 1997 · Godfrey Cheshire
75*

The review notes that glib cynicism gains appeal here through comic precision and polished handling, making for a concise and energetic satire that flatters viewers' knowingness. It singles out Dustin Hoffman's hilarious and fresh turn as the self-infatuated producer as the film's strongest asset.

Read the full review →
The New Yorker
29 December 1997 · Daphne Merkin
70*

The review finds the film a timely but ultimately limited satire on spin and hype that may charm some while leaving others irritated by its calculated cleverness. It singles out Dustin Hoffman's performance as the standout element that helps carry the picture.

Read the full review →
Empire
1 January 2000 · William Thomas
65*

The review finds the premise timely and the performances strong, especially from De Niro and Hoffman, but notes the satire lacks bite and feels only half-realised overall, though still entertaining.

Read the full review →
Time Out
10 September 2012 · NB
30*

The critic describes the plot involving a spin doctor and Hollywood producer fabricating a war to distract from a presidential scandal. They criticize the film as lazily assembled with soft skits and badly handled story leaps, seeing it as symptomatic of mainstream American cinema's decline.

Read the full review →
The New York Times
26 December 1997 · Critic's Pick · Janet Maslin

The critic praises the film as a swift, hilarious and scarily plausible political satire that makes it impossible to trust media gestures. It singles out the biting screenplay by David Mamet and Hilary Henkin and the direction by Barry Levinson for particular acclaim.

Read the full review →
The Times
15 February 1998 · Tom Shone

The film benefits from strong topicality around a presidential sex scandal but stands on its own as a sharp political satire. It excels through quicksilver Mamet dialogue and Dustin Hoffman’s standout performance as the Hollywood producer.

Read the full review →
Eye for Film
19 January 2001 · Angus Wolfe Murray
85*

The critic praises the sharp, knuckle-to-knuckle satire that sends up media hunger for stories and places cynicism back in government. Performances by Dustin Hoffman and Robert De Niro are singled out as exceeding expectations and carrying the fast-paced production.

Read the full review →

Ordered by the weight we give each publication, then by score. Scores are normalised to 100; * means inferred from an unrated review. Summaries are ours, not quotations; follow the links for the reviews themselves. How we rate