Thank you, finally, somebody gets it! I was surprised by Ebert, usually he get it correctly and the other knucklehead doesn't.

Exactly. It's about laying out the stakes.

I think I just found Aaron Sorkin’s burner account 😂

wrong, coz you still want the audience to be surprised, not spoil the big court room scene before it happens, ebert is right

Indeed, and even more than just costing him his career, it could even be criminal to do what he was outlining to try to do against the base commander. So it set up a self-sacrifice in a way for him to so vigorously defend his clients that he would risk everything for them by going after him and accusing him of a crime with no proof to hopefully have him provide it for him. It's a predictable movie, but done well enough that it's still highly engaging and draws you in. But also, nearly all court room dramas are predictable.

and Me too.

Exactly!! So spot on

Exactly!

Neither did I--the Nicholson character was smart--the strategy wasn't necessarily a slam dunk.

And at one point you thought for sure it was gonna fail

Yes, an odd take by Ebert. Their formulation of strategy throughout the trial was integral to the plot. We also did not know for certain that Kendrick would fold or in what manner. I think Ebert just didn't like the movie and was grasping at straws.

Exactly. Ebert's an ass

Semper Fidelis

100% this. That's where Ebert got it so wrong. If you just go into that final scene and they call Jessup to the stand randomly then there's no intensity. If he just confesses then you're like "oh, ok" - but the entire time you know what Kaffey wants to happen, but no idea how he will pull it off.

No it wasn't. The whole point of calling Jessup was to exploit his stubborn pride even if Cruise's character says, "I have no idea" how he was going to elicit the info out of him.

Yes that was an outrageous spoiler

He was a NOTORIOUS spoiler of movie endings. His metièr was to say the ending was a surprise, or it was the opposite of what you expect, which TELLS YOU the ending.

Agreed, seemed improbable that the Colonel would actually admit to a code red under oath

Nah...the whole movie is improbable...the courtroom scenes are stupid and not realistic

I would assume that was a studio decision to dumb down the movie because Sorkin is a brilliant screen writer and I doubt that was his idea.

The courtroom scenes were ridiculous. No military judge would ever allow a lawyer to grandstand in his court, like Cruise's character did. This movie was awful, and nothing like the real Marine Corps, as a former Marine, I know.

@@kyrieeleison8645 I never said that a judge would allow what went on in this courtroom; I just said the scenes were great. And there was nothing improper about Bacon's opening statement. I don't agree that the movie was awful. It was inaccurate in some ways, but not awful.

Oh, yeah ... prove you're an attorney (wink).

@@kyrieeleison8645 The only point that was accurate was how the Corp hypocritically covered their asses with the decision.

Good actor, a solid actor, but never a great actor. MAYBE, if he'd been interested in being a great actor and not just a star, then maybe... but it didn't happen. Granted he's probably not losing a ton of sleep over this...

sorry but no, he is never great actor, never all time great. i love his movies but he is good actor. nicholson is god tier actor, i mean nicholson 5 milion dollar for this movie, only three scenes, 5 minutes and movie is clasic because of him, not cruise lol

@@markozbunjol625 - re: "lol" In daily life, do you end serious statements with "laughing out loud" ... to not offend another? re: "sorry but no." Same ... a need to write "sorry" before disagreeing?

@@warriormanmaxx8991 great point, warrior. why do people think it is ok to put lol in there? I guess because everyone does it, they think its cool. agreed, one would never say it if that person were in their company, but they feel it is okay if you are hiding behind the computer. it also makes the "sorry but no" very disingenuous, as you implied. that all said, I do agree that Cruise NEVER had a great run, and was never a great actor. he largely just plays himself. he is likeable (at least as an actor) and finds very good scripts. Nicholson still stole the show....

this was wen he made good movies just does mission impossible films now Nicholson made this film and the supporting actors

He does gets things wrong now and then. Like he did with Jurassic Park which he gave a meh review

@@asianmalaysian aside from the groundbreaking digital fx, Jurassic Park IS just 'meh'. especially as a Spielberg movie.

Ebert has been wrong about a lot of movies. This one in particular. Yes, the story is predictable to a point but here is the hook. Until Jack Nicholson falls for the hook we don't know if it will work. Lawyers pre-trial strategy sessions are a mainstay in most courtroom dramas going all the way back to kill a mocking bird. What makes the story interesting is if the drama in the courtroom will play out according to the attorney's plans. Where I have always had an issue with this story was even though they get it at the end that they had a responsibility to their fellow soldier, the story fails to truly demonstrate what a hard place these guys were in. Throwing them out of the Marines and jail time served was harsh. Something else I have a problem with in this critique this was not an incident of hazing gone bad but a military tradition of using soldiers to self discipline their own. The fact that these two critics don't know this is part of the problem is them rating this movie.

I'm glad you liked the movie. However, it was way too predictable even before they told the audience what was going to happen in the court room.

Plus, Ebert seems to have WANTED Cruise and Moore to have hooked up. But that goes against what he usually complained about when a love story was added unnecessarily.

Grow up.

Movie is good but far from great.

Lots of bad in this movie.

Yes its a great movie.

Not a bad movie but not good either. At least a bad movie is an attempt at something. This movie is lukewarm coffee that’s been sitting in the pot for 5 hours.

I think jessep dislikes tom as hes a navy lawyer a desk jockey. Jessep then loses his temper and admits to it.

He was to smart to admit it

You're forgetting the 2 soldiers (in blue unifoms, airfield personnel) that were to testify that there was a flight, that Jessep claimed didn't exist, because he had changed the log books. He got nervous about that, and was certain the airmen will expose his lie. Even when they didn't remember a thing, but Jessep didn't know that. Without the 2 phony witnesses, yes it would have been impossible to get him to admit... maybe even with them, but anyway that's how we as audience are supposed to believe it. Pressure and his ego alone wouldn't be enough, it was the 2 fake witnesses that pushed him over the brink

Probably

I disagree. I think his Marine Corp morality is what made him admit it.

Exactly. Kaffey would never have called Galloway “galacticly stupid” with the venom he did, if they had been involved.

yes, just because we had Demi Moore we didnt need a predicatable romance.

Roger pretty much stuck to his guns as far as I've seen. Even with Cop and a Half where he got a lot of flack from Gene. Road House review sticks out because I think both Gene and Roger wanted to give it thumbs up as they kept bringing it up during that episode. I think they "kinda" both took back their bad review of the original Home Alone because it was a huge hit and almost universally praised by actual movie goers.

You mean the movie 'Disclosure'. Yeah that ws good as well. One thing a friend of mine noticed, is Demi Moore cries in EVERY movie she does LOL. Or at least her eyes tear up. Its crazy.

if you look at the nominees, it was a tough year. Pacino(scent of a woman), Eastwood(unforgiven), rdj(chaplin) and denzel (malcolm x). Nothing "horrid", just a tough year.

awesome420ication Ok but still it's a undeniable academy award winning performance I really never heard of scent of a woman so I would have to look up what the movie is about.

Pacino: Scent of a Woman, Robert Downey Jr.: Chaplin, Denzel Washington: Malcolm X, Clint Eastwood: Unforgiven, Stephen Rea: The Crying Game; all of these were better than Cruise, who was undeniably brilliant. And I agree, the movie was awesome as hell!

link biff Ok better than cruise not really this is a amazing performance every scene he is in including the climax.

But believe it or not, the nominees were better. Not the movies, but the dudes. Just shows how stacked 1992 was

Roger called it right. No surprise and predictable. We know right away that Jack is the bad guy and responsible for Santiago's death.

So well put!

But at the time, they don't know they're watching a classic.

Ebert is just wrong here. Of course Kaffee has to get Jessup to admit he ordered the code red - that's the entire defense strategy! It's not a spoiler at all. When the rest of the team asks Kaffee how he's going to do it, he admits he has no idea. That's where the drama comes in. It's not until Jessup is on the stand and he gets the measure of the man and sees which buttons to push that he figures it out. At that point Kaffee brilliantly improvises the way to get what he needs.

@@gunkulator1 He did have an idea about Jessup's buttons at Gitmo with the whole transfer order bit and also Jessup clearly showing he's not easily intimidated or rattled. Kaffee knew then that pressing Jessup was the way to go since there wasn't much else in the defense's favor.

ebert was correct.. the movie tells you what its gonna do, does it, than tells us what it did lol.. its decent at best,, and insults the audiences intelligence

On the other side of the coin, Gene Siskel didn't like Silence of the Lambs, and that movie has an academy winning performance from Anthony Hopkins. Either way, I agree to disagree.

It is a stupid ending though. No way he would have just admitted it. You don't get to that position of power by NOT knowing how to keep your cool in situations where you are obviously guilty. I like this movie....a lot.....but only as pure entertainment. as a concept...it's a pretty fucking stupid plot. The Firm was a much better story.

Iconic for how cheesy and terrible it is. Civilians can't handle the "truth" of beating up recruits to get them to work harder? That's just dumb, not profound. It's also painfully naive today in the brutal world we are more exposed to now where we have soldiers constantly killing themselves from PTSD (a truth the military and government can't handle) and beheadings of journalists broadcast online for everyone to see. But yeah, this movie's right, bullying in the marines is much harder for civilians to handle than beheadings and rampant suicide. Bullying's a LOT more hard core than public snuff videos.

It's cheesy. Overkill and unrealistic. See The Caine Mutiny

It's not cheesy if you grew up during the period were hazing was just becoming a taboo in the military. A Few Good Men is probably the best, if not the only, representation of the old military guard squirming in contempt and disgust at the younger generation attempting to "pussify" the military.

Absolutely. I agree with him about that part being too expository but not that it ruined the entire film. lol He gave the whole movie thumbs down just for that one part. Very shallow analysis.

@80's guy Read ebert's review of Jurassic Park. The man has been known to drop the ball and he has here.

@80's guy You mean the guy who liked "Benji the hunted"?

Ebert made a great point. I never thought about that.

@@asianmalaysian the man was also known for recognizing soon to be classics when nobody else did. Just because he sometimes didn't agree on movies that became generally popular or classics in their own right doesn't mean anything. Or are you going to tell me that you never err with movies or that your taste is obbjectively impeccable?

+Robert Botelho could say that to a dude for same comedic effect.

+SparksDrinker True. But then you also have Nicholson's speech about "there's nothing sexier than a woman you have to salute in the morning".

@@robertbotelho691 promote 'em all, I say

And there was the, "are you asking me out on a date?" scene that implied there was some interest between the two. They went to dinner together and didn't bring Sam along, so not exactly a work dinner.

There are many movies in which Ebert re-reviewed over his career. It can be hard to review a movie on one watch

1. born on the 4th of july, 2 magnolia, 3, minority report, 4, collateral, 5, the last samurai, 6. mission impossible ghost protcol

Cruise was Tarantino's first choice for Once Upon a Time in Hollywood(Leo's part)

Me too! :)

I don't think a lot of people outside of the military care about title or rank. Which is actually one of the messages in this movie. Rank is bullshit. Who you are as a person is important, and rank is no excuse for being a criminal.

LOL Marine isn't a rank.

mrwoods22 That's exactly my point. No one outside of the military gives a shit. That's also why I wrote "TITLE or rank".

LOL I give a shit. And I'm not in the military.

Well, they are soldiers. Doesn't matter if they are in the Marines or the Army.

Yeah, I didn't know that originally either. I also found out the famous Nicholson line is in the play too.

Galloway is based on the writer's sister. It's in the bonus material of the DVD.

I agree Canuck. the writers blew it in this case. it was still a very very good movie, but the one drawback is how it could have EVEN been greater with more drama....

It also establishes that if he fails to get the colonel to break he personally faces a court martial. So it sets the stakes.