The whole point of Cruise's character laying out his strategy in advance is to show that a) he doesn't think it will work, and b) he knows that if he tries and fails it will cost him his career. It's absolutely necessary to build up the high stakes for the final showdown. Without the "obvious" buildup, that scene loses a great deal of its dramatic tension. Geez, when these guys got it wrong, they REALLY got it wrong.
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.
I disagree with Mr Ebert here. Having Cruise's character lay out his prediction isn't an insult to the intelligence of the audience, rather it's a moment that shows us exactly why he is the right man for the case. Earlier in the film he says it doesn't matter what he thinks, it matters what he can prove. Well here, what he thinks gave way to what he was able to prove. He thought that with the application of pressure, he could get it out of him, and he succeeded.
Excellent film. The purpose of explaining the strategy had more to do with the transformation in Cruise’s character. When he shared the strategy, we also learned what would happen to him if he failed (court martial, etc). Cruise’s character would go from the guy who always had an easy life and negotiated other people’s lives with no risk to his to finally taking a stand for truth and his clients and risking everything he held dear (his career). The joy was in watching his character develop.
I served in the Marine Corps in the mid to late 90's. One of my instructors at my MOS's school and one of his Marine buddy's played the two Airmen witness's that walk into the courtroom but never testify. One was black, one was white, the black guy was my instructor. He was such a prankster and jokester when he said he was in the movie I didn't believe him and re watched that part and sure enough he was in it.
I’m an attorney, and this movie has some of the best courtroom scenes I’ve ever seen on film. Bacon’s opening statement at trial was great. I usually agree with Ebert on most of his opinions, but he missed on this one.
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.
If we didn't have that scene of Kaffee predicting Jessup would outright confess he ordered the Code Red, Jessup's confession wouldn't make as much sense to us. He confesses out of pride. Sorkin and Reiner want to make that clear.
I loved Ebert, reading his reviews, he was a great writer and made me appreciate many films. I agree that the set-up scene was unneeded, but this was still one of the great screenplays IMO, along with performances. It was also beautifully filmed. Court rooms never look like that in real-life, with big windows, comfortable lighting, nice wood...rather, they're generally awfully lit, have no windows, and fake looking wood...but since it's a film, it works OK, and the rainy court scenes are great cinema.
Ebert was wrong on this one, the characters were so interesting you still wanted to watch everything happen. All good guy vs bad guy movies are predictable at the start of the third act.
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.
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.
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....
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.
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.
This is why I loved At the Movies: these kinds of discussions about the films were stimulating and a lot of fun to watch without being a complete shouting match. Good points on both sides. I personally liked this movie a lot, but I agree with a lot of what Roger was saying.
There's a lot of star power in that courtroom. - Tom Cruise, Demi Moore, Kevin Bacon, Kiefer Sutherland, Kevin Pollack, AND Jack Nicholson, plus a bunch of other heavy hitters delivering an Aaron Sorkin screenplay and directed by Rob Reiner.
I loved Roger Ebert and I loved this show. But this is one of those times when I felt he got something completely wrong. By Cruise laying the plan out for the audience it created tension and anticipation that carried through to the rest of the movie. If that setup had NOT been there, not only would that anticipation have been gone, but when Nicholson's character finally confessed, it would've potentially felt like dumb luck, rather than the fruition of a plan.
I think the one problem with this movie is that in real life, Jack Nicholson's character never would have admitted to giving the order no matter how good a lawyer Tom Cruise's character was.
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
I loved this movie when it came out and to this day, I still love it. I thought Demi's performance was uneven. At times, I thought she was reading more than acting. I thought she was a bad ass in the movie w/Michael Douglas & G.I. Jane movie. Tom and Jack were incredible. My daughter watched this movie with me 3 years ago. She loved Jack's performance. It's funny to see a then 10 yr old recite Jack's "you need me on that wall" speech.
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.
I love this movie! I've seen it several times. These two could be such killjoys at times... and this is one of them, even though Gene Siskel gave this movie kind of a thumbs up.
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!
Totally disagree with their assessment of giving away their plan to get Nicholson to admit his guilt. It was reminiscent of the Columbo series where you are shown the murderer and have to figure out how Columbo was going to catch him. It was brilliant for Columbo and I think it works brilliantly here.
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.
I like Siskel pointing out that Cruise and Moore's characters don't have some cheap one-night stand -- if anyone else had written/directed this film it would have happened.
I wonder how their reviews may have changed over time. Or if they did. I'd love to know what Ebert thought of the audience's reaction and how loved the movie became.
Wenall know the disney villain is going to meet its demise, yet we still watch because the ride is fun. This movie was one hell of a ride no matter what anyone says about it's predicability.
Ebert was just frustrated that there were no nude Demi Moore scenes. He didn't know at the time that 4 years later he could watch Striptease. You'll notice Ebert tended to praise movies that have nudity, without praising the nudity itself. Check out Ebert's review of Boogie Nights... I'm not saying Ebert doesn't have valid opinions, just that they appear to be influenced by a lack of clothing.
Tom Cruise, a severely underrated actor due to his off screen antics and politics, is one actor I would love to see in a Quentin Tarantino movie, Tarantino's dialogue with Cruises just seems like a match made for each other.
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.
One of the reasons that Cruise and Moore didn't have an love affair (or even that one would have been hinted at in the film) was that Moore's character was written for a man (in the play). I don't know why they went with a woman in the film - then again... it didn't seem to matter. But if they DID throw in a love story in this film it would have bee a cheap and un-needed shot. THANK YOU for sticking to the original story!
Oh wow I usually toe the line with Ebert reviews but not only I'm surprised with what he had to say about this movie but actually got me upset . Tom Cruise was incredible in the movie so was Jack. Aaron Sorkin words were like a symphony and Rob Reiner did a terrific job! I love this movie. Still watch it once every 5 years
I really can't grasp Ebert's criticism. Maybe the film shouldn't have given away Cruise's strategy when he got Nicholson on the stand. But just because we knew what Cruise was doing, doesn't mean we knew it would work. So there was still a tremendous amount of suspense.
Jessop suffered from what I call "Sideshow Bob Syndrome". His ego is so massive, that he MUST brag about how much of a genius he is, and he ends up compromising himself!
They make fair assessments, even though I don’t agree with them. Two points. First, they are wrong that the trial scene went “all to plan.” It was going terribly for Kaffee up until Jessup got told to sit back down. So the footlocker stuff (the planned strategy) was not what pushed Jessup off the edge; rather, it was the disrespect Kaffee showed Jessup. Second, the film does recognize the male-female dynamic between Kaffee and Galloway when she asks him out for seafood. I’m also a little surprised that they didn’t acknowledge the beauty of Sorkin’s writing.
If they don't discuss what the plan is beforehand then you don't get the moment of Cruise having to decide whether to press on when it doesn't look like he's going to get Nicholson to confess. There's a point where Demi Moore and Kevin Pollack give up and try to get Cruise to quit, but he ignores them and goes on taking a huge risk.
That movie was so awful. As a former Marine myself, I never saw a colonel act in the arrogant way that Nicholson's character did. Nicholson was portraying a caricature of a Marine colonel, and not a real Marine colonel. The courtroom scenes were ridiculous as well. No military judge would ever allow a lawyer to grandstand like Cruise's character did. That would never happen.
I agree with you completely. It wasn't about surprise. It was about tension because the question is whether or not Jack Nicholson's character is going to let his ego get him into trouble and initially it doesn't look like he will. So, Tom Cruise's character is taking a huge risk and it doesn't seem like it's going to pay off.
' Roger Ebert was less enthusiastic in the Chicago Sun-Times, giving it two-and-a-half out of four stars and finding its major flaw was revealing the courtroom strategy to the audience before the climactic scene between Cruise and Nicholson....' Here's an example of a TOP movie critic watching a movie, reviewing poorly, and with his review reveals he didn't understand what he just watched. Letting the audience know their strategy before this scene is KEY to the drama of it. If Kaffee didn't get the admission of the code red from Jessup, he would have been held in contempt of court, his career would have been over, and worse. He's shaking when he begins the examination because he knows all of this. If the audience was in the dark about the team's strategy, then much of the dramatic tension here would have been lost.
I agree Cruise is so underrated as a actor He was really good in this and I don’t think he was even nominated for it I used to watch these guys all the time and I miss them but man did I disagree a lot
Sorry, but Ebert's analysis is a big failure. Cruise does explain what he intends to do to Nicholson in the courtroom, but he clearly says that he has "NO IDEA" how to do it. Hence, most of the audience still don't know the critical question of "Why the two orders?".
If anything, I would say that the flashback of Nicholson preventing the victim's transfer is the one that spoils the movie. It completely undermines the scene where Cruise finds out about it in his car.
***** I don't think he revealed the role that the men from Andrews were going to play until the last conversation in the movie, so for any viewer who didn't already know, that'd be a surprise that he was pulling a Batman Gambit.
futuremovieactor More than that, we were led to believe that he found something solid when his closet reminded him that the victim never packed on the night of the "murder". But when he presented all of that to the court, it completely failed.
they revealed it that early on so we would be inclined to see Jessup as the villain right away and have someone to hate though it all. I think it worked.
Ebert was wrong on this one. I am surprised he gave thumbs down. I find it refreshing that Tom C and Demi didnt have an affair. Not everyone hops in the sack every time they meet. I love this movie.
Ebert was a great critic. Like all critics, he was sometimes wrong. This is one of them (and, oh boy, watch the Full Metal Jacket review). This show proves that great critics are worth watching/listening to even if you disagree with them.
Despite the movie being popular and something I have enjoyed watching, Ebert makes a good points. I think the performances of Cruise and Nicholson elevates a largely forgettable movie.
@@shredd5705 The proper music analogy would be Thriller would not have been the hit that it was if Michael Jackson didn't sing and dance to it. How many popular covers of the song since he performed? zero Jack Nicholson was in 5 minutes of this movie and that the part everyone remembers.
How heavy movie spoilers are these days compared to how they used to be. I can’t imagine these guys reviewing films, they would be giving away the ending in every review.
In retrospective it's so bewildering that Ebert was considered the almighty film critic of his generation. Never mind his occasional complete misunderstanding of movie premises and plot devices. His reviews more often than not are just shallow bickering. This whole adulation of Roger Ebert is just plain weird.
It's never guaranteed that Nicholson's character will come out and admit to it. Cruise's character just thinks he will. And there's a point in the courtroom where it looks like he's not going to. And he looks at his co-counselors, who shake their heads and urge him to back off. But he looks at the defendants and presses on. It's a character-defining moment. These two are off in their assessment of this one. It's an excellent movie.
Ebert stayed an expert at criticizing movies on their own terms throughout his life imo. This is just one of them that hasn't aged that well, but also simply his opinion. I think he has a pretty good point, but Sorkin knew very well what he was doing laying everything out clearly for the audience. The drama is in the specifics and the performances.
no he didn't, 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. rob reiner is over rated
If he would've read the original script to the Broadway play (which came before the movie), he would've known that the character of Jo Galloway was always written as and played by a woman (originated by Megan Gallagher on Broadway). I loved this movie and play!
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
siskel was always clueless..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
Ebert didn't like Star Wars, A Clockwork Orange or The Usual Suspects (Ill never understand that either). ALL classics. The man was a genius in many ways, but so genius I think he overlooked the simple pleasures and winks and nods of movies. At times he almost took them TOO serious. Siskel was SUCH a great counter to his over-intellectualzing as if almost to say, "Robert shut up, your missing the point again." They were the PERFECT critic team. PS: A FEW GOOD MEN ROCKED!
I love these guys, but they totally missed the point, and the brilliance of it: #1 - It is a classic movie trope that if a character tells you what the plan is, the plan fails. #2 - Thus, Sorkin threw a curveball: Cruise says his plan, gets a bit flustered, but eventually pulls it off. BUT . . . #3 - What Siskel & Ebert overlook is that even though Nicholson gets arrested, Cruise's clients are NOT CLEARED OF ALL CHARGES. After the big scene, we are supposed to think Cruise wins, but his clients are only cleared of 2 out of 3. THAT is the twist, they didn't win. The plot is NOT about whether or not Nicholson is accountable, but whether the two soldiers are.
I agree with Roger that the plot is predictabe but the movie works because ofthe great performances. What stands out is Gene liking a manstream film that Roger doesnt. That didnt happen often. Love these guys still.
In the broad general sense, yes, you DO know how it will all end. But we do in most movies of this ilk, the same way that in most sports movies the beloved underdog will triumph. But I can't trash Sorkin's writing, which is layered and has some stellar dialogue.
The movie as a whole is over-the-top and hard to swallow. I agree with Ebert on this one and his point about Cruise's character. Marginal thumbs down, the movie isn't subtle enough for Cruise's character shift.
Ebert is dead wrong here. When you reveal the ultimate plan in advance, then audience watches the whole courtroom scene like “is he gonna be able to do it?” (suspense), whereas when audience don’t know anything about the plan, then they will watch it like “wtf is he doing” and when the confession comes “oh yeah that’s it” (surprise). Please refer to Hitchcock’s bomb under the table analogy (suspense vs surprise).
This was a fantastic movie. No clue what movie Ebert watched but then he's wrong a lot with his reviews so I suppose I shouldn't be surprised. I agree that it's a refreshing change of pace that Cruise's character and Moore's character didn't have a relationship. And Cruise lays out his plan beforehand because the object of the courtroom scene isn't to surprise us with what his strategy is, but rather to let us know what it is, and then watch in anticipation to see if he can pull it off, while taking into account what Cruise is risking of himself and his clients by employing that strategy. Just a big miss by Ebert here! This is a classic.
Ebert was wrong...it's based on a play written about actual trial. In the play, Caffey knew Jessup ordered the code red. As for Demi Moore, her character is based on the screenplay writer's sister, so no, not orginally a male character.
The whole point of Cruise's character laying out his strategy in advance is to show that a) he doesn't think it will work, and b) he knows that if he tries and fails it will cost him his career. It's absolutely necessary to build up the high stakes for the final showdown. Without the "obvious" buildup, that scene loses a great deal of its dramatic tension. Geez, when these guys got it wrong, they REALLY got it wrong.
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.
I disagree with Mr Ebert here. Having Cruise's character lay out his prediction isn't an insult to the intelligence of the audience, rather it's a moment that shows us exactly why he is the right man for the case. Earlier in the film he says it doesn't matter what he thinks, it matters what he can prove. Well here, what he thinks gave way to what he was able to prove. He thought that with the application of pressure, he could get it out of him, and he succeeded.
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.
How can anyone thumbs down this classic?
This is one of my favorite movies of all time.
and Me too.
Excellent film. The purpose of explaining the strategy had more to do with the transformation in Cruise’s character. When he shared the strategy, we also learned what would happen to him if he failed (court martial, etc). Cruise’s character would go from the guy who always had an easy life and negotiated other people’s lives with no risk to his to finally taking a stand for truth and his clients and risking everything he held dear (his career).
The joy was in watching his character develop.
Exactly!! So spot on
I served in the Marine Corps in the mid to late 90's. One of my instructors at my MOS's school and one of his Marine buddy's played the two Airmen witness's that walk into the courtroom but never testify. One was black, one was white, the black guy was my instructor. He was such a prankster and jokester when he said he was in the movie I didn't believe him and re watched that part and sure enough he was in it.
Semper Fidelis
Still one of the best court room dramas ever made...Cruise was unfairly ignored Oscar time!
I’m an attorney, and this movie has some of the best courtroom scenes I’ve ever seen on film. Bacon’s opening statement at trial was great. I usually agree with Ebert on most of his opinions, but he missed on this one.
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.
If we didn't have that scene of Kaffee predicting Jessup would outright confess he ordered the Code Red, Jessup's confession wouldn't make as much sense to us. He confesses out of pride. Sorkin and Reiner want to make that clear.
I loved Ebert, reading his reviews, he was a great writer and made me appreciate many films. I agree that the set-up scene was unneeded, but this was still one of the great screenplays IMO, along with performances. It was also beautifully filmed. Court rooms never look like that in real-life, with big windows, comfortable lighting, nice wood...rather, they're generally awfully lit, have no windows, and fake looking wood...but since it's a film, it works OK, and the rainy court scenes are great cinema.
This movie is f'n AWESOME!
Ebert was wrong on this one, the characters were so interesting you still wanted to watch everything happen. All good guy vs bad guy movies are predictable at the start of the third act.
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.
Tom Cruise 1988-1994 was an all-time great run which is under-appreciated. So deserved multiple Oscars.
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
I never had a problem with Cruise's character laying out his strategy. He still had to make it happen.
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
If this movie isnt great...I dont know what is.
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.
A few good men is one of the greatest movies of all time!
This is why I loved At the Movies: these kinds of discussions about the films were stimulating and a lot of fun to watch without being a complete shouting match. Good points on both sides. I personally liked this movie a lot, but I agree with a lot of what Roger was saying.
There's a lot of star power in that courtroom. - Tom Cruise, Demi Moore, Kevin Bacon, Kiefer Sutherland, Kevin Pollack, AND Jack Nicholson, plus a bunch of other heavy hitters delivering an Aaron Sorkin screenplay and directed by Rob Reiner.
I loved Roger Ebert and I loved this show. But this is one of those times when I felt he got something completely wrong. By Cruise laying the plan out for the audience it created tension and anticipation that carried through to the rest of the movie. If that setup had NOT been there, not only would that anticipation have been gone, but when Nicholson's character finally confessed, it would've potentially felt like dumb luck, rather than the fruition of a plan.
I think the one problem with this movie is that in real life, Jack Nicholson's character never would have admitted to giving the order no matter how good a lawyer Tom Cruise's character was.
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.
I so miss Siskel & Ebert. Great movie reviews. Good men.
I loved this movie when it came out and to this day, I still love it. I thought Demi's performance was uneven. At times, I thought she was reading more than acting. I thought she was a bad ass in the movie w/Michael Douglas & G.I. Jane movie. Tom and Jack were incredible. My daughter watched this movie with me 3 years ago. She loved Jack's performance. It's funny to see a then 10 yr old recite Jack's "you need me on that wall" speech.
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.
I love this movie! I've seen it several times. These two could be such killjoys at times... and this is one of them, even though Gene Siskel gave this movie kind of a thumbs up.
one of the best scenes in history
So Horrid that Tom Cruise did not win a academy award for a brilliant first rate performance.
This is a undeniable amazing movie.
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
“Becwause.” Lol Elbert. RIP gentleman. I would so love to have seen you in the balcony in 2020 and beyond!
Totally disagree with their assessment of giving away their plan to get Nicholson to admit his guilt. It was reminiscent of the Columbo series where you are shown the murderer and have to figure out how Columbo was going to catch him. It was brilliant for Columbo and I think it works brilliantly here.
Roger called it right. No surprise and predictable. We know right away that Jack is the bad guy and responsible for Santiago's death.
I think A Few Good Men is a great movie. Tom proves once again how great he is
Thumbs down? That is insane. This movie has some of the greatest acting ever done in it. Stodgy buzzard.
Ebert definitely blew this one. This movie has more than stood the test of time.
Cruise's character did sarcastically say to Jo Anne, "I'm sexually aroused, Commander." So there's that.
+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.
I like Siskel pointing out that Cruise and Moore's characters don't have some cheap one-night stand -- if anyone else had written/directed this film it would have happened.
Im with Siskel on this one!
I wonder how their reviews may have changed over time. Or if they did. I'd love to know what Ebert thought of the audience's reaction and how loved the movie became.
There are many movies in which Ebert re-reviewed over his career. It can be hard to review a movie on one watch
Great movie, the cast is great, especially Cruise & Nicholson
The thing is, the surprise IS there. When Jack Nicholson's character maneuvers around Cruise's "why didn't he pack" argument.
JACK NICHOLSONS AT HIS BEST ALONG WITH SHINING
Wenall know the disney villain is going to meet its demise, yet we still watch because the ride is fun. This movie was one hell of a ride no matter what anyone says about it's predicability.
Ebert is wrong about Galloway; she was female in the original play.
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.
Thumbs down? It’s so compelling and interesting. No f%#ing way do you give it thumbs down. Roger is over thinking it.
Ebert was just frustrated that there were no nude Demi Moore scenes. He didn't know at the time that 4 years later he could watch Striptease. You'll notice Ebert tended to praise movies that have nudity, without praising the nudity itself. Check out Ebert's review of Boogie Nights... I'm not saying Ebert doesn't have valid opinions, just that they appear to be influenced by a lack of clothing.
Tom Cruise, a severely underrated actor due to his off screen antics and politics, is one actor I would love to see in a Quentin Tarantino movie, Tarantino's dialogue with Cruises just seems like a match made for each other.
Cruise was Tarantino's first choice for Once Upon a Time in Hollywood(Leo's part)
Both Demi and cruise are quite good here. But Nicholson is fabulous and 1st class and deserved another Oscar.
Gene keeps calling them soldiers. Aren't they marines?
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.
It's one of my favorite movies of all time.
Me too! :)
One of the reasons that Cruise and Moore didn't have an love affair (or even that one would have been hinted at in the film) was that Moore's character was written for a man (in the play). I don't know why they went with a woman in the film - then again... it didn't seem to matter.
But if they DID throw in a love story in this film it would have bee a cheap and un-needed shot. THANK YOU for sticking to the original story!
Oh wow I usually toe the line with Ebert reviews but not only I'm surprised with what he had to say about this movie but actually got me upset . Tom Cruise was incredible in the movie so was Jack. Aaron Sorkin words were like a symphony and Rob Reiner did a terrific job! I love this movie. Still watch it once every 5 years
Is this guy SERIOUSLY criticising this movie for NOT following a cliche, and not creating unresolved sexual tension despite an opportunity?
I really can't grasp Ebert's criticism. Maybe the film shouldn't have given away Cruise's strategy when he got Nicholson on the stand.
But just because we knew what Cruise was doing, doesn't mean we knew it would work. So there was still a tremendous amount of suspense.
Jessop suffered from what I call "Sideshow Bob Syndrome". His ego is so massive, that he MUST brag about how much of a genius he is, and he ends up compromising himself!
They make fair assessments, even though I don’t agree with them. Two points. First, they are wrong that the trial scene went “all to plan.” It was going terribly for Kaffee up until Jessup got told to sit back down. So the footlocker stuff (the planned strategy) was not what pushed Jessup off the edge; rather, it was the disrespect Kaffee showed Jessup. Second, the film does recognize the male-female dynamic between Kaffee and Galloway when she asks him out for seafood.
I’m also a little surprised that they didn’t acknowledge the beauty of Sorkin’s writing.
If they don't discuss what the plan is beforehand then you don't get the moment of Cruise having to decide whether to press on when it doesn't look like he's going to get Nicholson to confess. There's a point where Demi Moore and Kevin Pollack give up and try to get Cruise to quit, but he ignores them and goes on taking a huge risk.
That movie was so awful. As a former Marine myself, I never saw a colonel act in the arrogant way that Nicholson's character did. Nicholson was portraying a caricature of a Marine colonel, and not a real Marine colonel. The courtroom scenes were ridiculous as well. No military judge would ever allow a lawyer to grandstand like Cruise's character did. That would never happen.
I agree with you completely. It wasn't about surprise. It was about tension because the question is whether or not Jack Nicholson's character is going to let his ego get him into trouble and initially it doesn't look like he will. So, Tom Cruise's character is taking a huge risk and it doesn't seem like it's going to pay off.
' Roger Ebert was less enthusiastic in the Chicago Sun-Times, giving it two-and-a-half out of four stars and finding its major flaw was revealing the courtroom strategy to the audience before the climactic scene between Cruise and Nicholson....'
Here's an example of a TOP movie critic watching a movie, reviewing poorly, and with his review reveals he didn't understand what he just watched. Letting the audience know their strategy before this scene is KEY to the drama of it. If Kaffee didn't get the admission of the code red from Jessup, he would have been held in contempt of court, his career would have been over, and worse. He's shaking when he begins the examination because he knows all of this. If the audience was in the dark about the team's strategy, then much of the dramatic tension here would have been lost.
I agree Cruise is so underrated as a actor
He was really good in this and I don’t think he was even nominated for it
I used to watch these guys all the time and I miss them but man did I disagree a lot
Well I liked it, Roger.
I love this movie , Another 90's classic
Sorry, but Ebert's analysis is a big failure. Cruise does explain what he intends to do to Nicholson in the courtroom, but he clearly says that he has "NO IDEA" how to do it. Hence, most of the audience still don't know the critical question of "Why the two orders?".
If anything, I would say that the flashback of Nicholson preventing the victim's transfer is the one that spoils the movie. It completely undermines the scene where Cruise finds out about it in his car.
***** I don't think he revealed the role that the men from Andrews were going to play until the last conversation in the movie, so for any viewer who didn't already know, that'd be a surprise that he was pulling a Batman Gambit.
futuremovieactor More than that, we were led to believe that he found something solid when his closet reminded him that the victim never packed on the night of the "murder". But when he presented all of that to the court, it completely failed.
they revealed it that early on so we would be inclined to see Jessup as the villain right away and have someone to hate though it all. I think it worked.
futuremovieactor His villainy is eventually established in the "you gotta ask me nicely" scene.
Ebert was wrong on this one. I am surprised he gave thumbs down. I find it refreshing that Tom C and Demi didnt have an affair. Not everyone hops in the sack every time they meet. I love this movie.
Ebert was a great critic. Like all critics, he was sometimes wrong. This is one of them (and, oh boy, watch the Full Metal Jacket review). This show proves that great critics are worth watching/listening to even if you disagree with them.
They’re both right. it’s a contrived plot, everything carefully lined up to it’s predictable conclusion. And it’s pretty entertaining.
i love siskel and ebert as much as the next guy, but man am i glad i saw the movie before the review! this gave away so much!
Thumbs up for Siskel !
One of my favorite all time movies. 🤣
I usually agreed with Ebert more than Siskel, but occasionally Roger was wrong. This was one of those times.
Despite the movie being popular and something I have enjoyed watching, Ebert makes a good points. I think the performances of Cruise and Nicholson elevates a largely forgettable movie.
Millions of people disagree with you about being a forgettable movie.
@@watchmanonthewall14 How so?
@@petercofrancesco9812 This is kind of like saying a popular hit song wouldn't be so popular without the chorus
@@shredd5705 The proper music analogy would be Thriller would not have been the hit that it was if Michael Jackson didn't sing and dance to it. How many popular covers of the song since he performed? zero Jack Nicholson was in 5 minutes of this movie and that the part everyone remembers.
Jack Nicholson totally saved this movie from an ok flick. Excellent performance
Did Ebert even watch the movie? He was way off in his breakdown of the Cruise and Moore characters and their interaction
Ebert's first point is a valid one but I liked this movie. The performances are so good it's enough to enjoy the picture.
Saw this yesterday . Great film
They’re NOT soldiers! They’re Marines! Siskel and Ebert never understood the military.
How heavy movie spoilers are these days compared to how they used to be. I can’t imagine these guys reviewing films, they would be giving away the ending in every review.
It shows how good a lawyer Cruise was!
This TV show (watched as a kid) was just brutal.
In retrospective it's so bewildering that Ebert was considered the almighty film critic of his generation. Never mind his occasional complete misunderstanding of movie premises and plot devices. His reviews more often than not are just shallow bickering. This whole adulation of Roger Ebert is just plain weird.
I thought my previous response was clear: I'm not responding to the movie. I'm responding to their review of the movie.
It's never guaranteed that Nicholson's character will come out and admit to it. Cruise's character just thinks he will. And there's a point in the courtroom where it looks like he's not going to. And he looks at his co-counselors, who shake their heads and urge him to back off. But he looks at the defendants and presses on. It's a character-defining moment.
These two are off in their assessment of this one. It's an excellent movie.
Ebert is actually wrong quite a bit. THEORY: Eat too much steak you dont appreciate a good burger.
Exactly. Critics like this become cynical after a while because they have to see so so so many movies.
Ebert stayed an expert at criticizing movies on their own terms throughout his life imo. This is just one of them that hasn't aged that well, but also simply his opinion. I think he has a pretty good point, but Sorkin knew very well what he was doing laying everything out clearly for the audience. The drama is in the specifics and the performances.
So Roger thinks the movie can't handle a climax
😂😂😂
Damn, Roger missed on this one badly.
no he didn't, 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. rob reiner is over rated
I wonder if the studio edged Meathead to rewrite a love interest between Moore & Cruise into the script.
If he would've read the original script to the Broadway play (which came before the movie), he would've known that the character of Jo Galloway was always written as and played by a woman (originated by Megan Gallagher on Broadway). I loved this movie and play!
Thank God Rob Reiner isn't making movies anymore
I agree with ebert with the first thing, but the movie is both thumbs all the way up, my favorite movie ever!!
Ebert's got a point about the climax.
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
Siskel got this one right. What is Ebert thinking giving this Thumbs Down? It's great!
siskel was always clueless..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
Ebert didn't like Star Wars, A Clockwork Orange or The Usual Suspects (Ill never understand that either). ALL classics. The man was a genius in many ways, but so genius I think he overlooked the simple pleasures and winks and nods of movies. At times he almost took them TOO serious. Siskel was SUCH a great counter to his over-intellectualzing as if almost to say, "Robert shut up, your missing the point again." They were the PERFECT critic team. PS: A FEW GOOD MEN ROCKED!
He loved star wars what the hell you talkig about
I love these guys, but they totally missed the point, and the brilliance of it:
#1 - It is a classic movie trope that if a character tells you what the plan is, the plan fails.
#2 - Thus, Sorkin threw a curveball: Cruise says his plan, gets a bit flustered, but eventually pulls it off. BUT . . .
#3 - What Siskel & Ebert overlook is that even though Nicholson gets arrested, Cruise's clients are NOT CLEARED OF ALL CHARGES.
After the big scene, we are supposed to think Cruise wins, but his clients are only cleared of 2 out of 3. THAT is the twist, they didn't win.
The plot is NOT about whether or not Nicholson is accountable, but whether the two soldiers are.
A courtroom confessional is the cheap and easy way to go.
I agree with Roger that the plot is predictabe but the movie works because ofthe great performances. What stands out is Gene liking a manstream film that Roger doesnt. That didnt happen often. Love these guys still.
In the broad general sense, yes, you DO know how it will all end. But we do in most movies of this ilk, the same way that in most sports movies the beloved underdog will triumph. But I can't trash Sorkin's writing, which is layered and has some stellar dialogue.
Thumbs down????? Are you kidding me!!!
The movie as a whole is over-the-top and hard to swallow. I agree with Ebert on this one and his point about Cruise's character. Marginal thumbs down, the movie isn't subtle enough for Cruise's character shift.
Thumbs down Rog? Come on!
Ebert is dead wrong here. When you reveal the ultimate plan in advance, then audience watches the whole courtroom scene like “is he gonna be able to do it?” (suspense), whereas when audience don’t know anything about the plan, then they will watch it like “wtf is he doing” and when the confession comes “oh yeah that’s it” (surprise). Please refer to Hitchcock’s bomb under the table analogy (suspense vs surprise).
This was a fantastic movie. No clue what movie Ebert watched but then he's wrong a lot with his reviews so I suppose I shouldn't be surprised.
I agree that it's a refreshing change of pace that Cruise's character and Moore's character didn't have a relationship.
And Cruise lays out his plan beforehand because the object of the courtroom scene isn't to surprise us with what his strategy is, but rather to let us know what it is, and then watch in anticipation to see if he can pull it off, while taking into account what Cruise is risking of himself and his clients by employing that strategy.
Just a big miss by Ebert here! This is a classic.
Ebert was wrong...it's based on a play written about actual trial. In the play, Caffey knew Jessup ordered the code red. As for Demi Moore, her character is based on the screenplay writer's sister, so no, not orginally a male character.
This is a great movie, despite what some critics think!!
Why did they need to spoil the end?
Ryan Santos I am certainly am glad I saw the film before the review. Total spoiler