Siskel & Ebert - A Few Good Men

A review of A Few Good Men starring Tom Cruise , Jack Nicholson , Demi Moore , Kevin Pollack and Kevin Bacon . Director Rob Reiner

[@EyeMixMusic]

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.

[@frankielambardo9268]

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

[@JustinArnhikes]

Exactly. It's about laying out the stakes.

[@GT-wo2oj]

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

[@jameswilliams-zr8co]

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

[@Andrew-qu7lq]

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.

[@DS-wk1kn]

I never had a problem with Cruise's character laying out his strategy. He still had to make it happen.

[@zacharysiple783]

Exactly!

[@VtRD]

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

[@cygnustsp]

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

[@soakingbook]

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.

[@jefflandreneau7027]

Exactly. Ebert's an ass

[@danielmaler4722]

This is one of my favorite movies of all time.

[@Presley3]

and Me too.

[@crobarus]

How can anyone thumbs down this classic?

[@sunnyv5718]

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.

[@ysamuel88]

Exactly!! So spot on

[@Sportz4Seth]

This movie is f'n AWESOME!

[@chuckr9938]

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.

[@patrickdoyle3525]

Semper Fidelis

[@jaykraft9523]

Nobody had any idea HOW Kaffey was going to lead Jessup exactly where he wanted to go. That was the surprise (obviously).

[@dynamicvoltage9765]

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.

[@jasonmarcel4823]

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.

[@evangelitssachancey1791]

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.

[@sidviscious10]

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

[@robbie192]

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

[@sellcryptonow6806]

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.

[@RC19786]

Still one of the best court room dramas ever made...Cruise was unfairly ignored Oscar time!

[@camtron]

Well, it became a classic. Predictable or not, it's one of my favorite legal films.

[@SingMeSomethingGood]

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.

[@adamzanzie]

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.

[@deliman]

the screenplay didn't give away the ending, Roger. You did.

[@munckymagic]

Yes that was an outrageous spoiler

[@kennethlatham3133]

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.

[@LesiureBoy]

I really thought long and hard on this movie and why it's so goddam re-watchable. I mean I've literally seen this movie more than a dozen times and in fact I just recently downloaded the movie and watched it in its entirety two days in a row. I NEVER DO THIS WITH OTHER MOVIES, LIKE EVER! So why? Why is this movie so re-watchable for me? Because it's safe. It masterfully uncovers every possible question/problem before it enters out minds. We're cradled and held tight as a viewer telling us "Don't woooorrrrry, we got you...so just sit back, relax and enjoy." I thought Tom Cruise was absolutely brilliant. 9/10.

[@tommonk7651]

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.

[@kyrieeleison8645]

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.

[@tommonk7651]

@@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.

[@toddleroux4745]

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

[@Paul-vf2wl]

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

[@pts5217]

Tom Cruise 1988-1994 was an all-time great run which is under-appreciated. So deserved multiple Oscars.

[@johnstrawb3521]

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...

[@markozbunjol625]

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

[@warriormanmaxx8991]

@@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?

[@GQElvie]

@@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....

[@davidcoombsbestmegadethalb9780]

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

[@robotpanda77]

A lot of court films celebrate the law but the ending of this film just makes it so clear how little justice there is in the world and that politics reigns supreme.

[@mikefields2243]

Love the movie and watching Jack on the stand is worth the price of admission.

[@fuzzytabby4304]

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.

[@asianmalaysian]

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

[@isuriadireja91]

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

[@Ryooken]

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.

[@michaelwainscott2633]

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.

[@4seeableTV]

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.

[@rochelle123ist]

A few good men is one of the greatest movies of all time!

[@PlaceItHereOrThere]

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.

[@LawoftheLandPA]

If this movie isnt great...I dont know what is.

[@markdeady2194]

Grow up.

[@nysguy07]

Movie is good but far from great.

[@nbadraft08]

Lots of bad in this movie.

[@asianmalaysian]

Yes its a great movie.

[@Gitfiddle]

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.

[@jamminjackhammer]

one of the best scenes in history

[@nongthip]

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.

[@gheller2261]

How anyone can give a thumbs down, even if he thought it was predictable, is beyond any reasonable comprehension. First and foremost, a movie must entertain. A Few Good Men is one of a handful of films where, if you are channel surfing and come across it, the search for something to watch ends no matter how many times you have seen it.

[@kensmith7048]

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.

[@cat-lw6kq]

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

[@paulhart2021]

He was to smart to admit it

[@shredd5705]

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

[@saljablo2767]

Probably

[@LeoWhalen1933]

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

[@jus3278]

Classic film. R.I.P Siskel and Ebert

[@kdmdlo]

I so miss Siskel & Ebert. Great movie reviews. Good men.

[@natepeace1737]

“Becwause.” Lol Elbert. RIP gentleman. I would so love to have seen you in the balcony in 2020 and beyond!

[@toptab]

If Roger Ebert ever missed a couple of critical points of a movie they were in " A Few Good Men", a favorite of mine. First, a romance in this film would've have been totally distracting from the story and main point of the movie. Second, I think the fact that Kaffey explains his strategy toward Jessup the night before is just brilliant, because with the help of next few scenes like losing his star witness and then being advised by his aid not to go after Jessup just before entering the court room, the one who dared him to do it in the first place, builds interest and suspense, is he going to do it? is he going to be able to pull it off?... you could hear a pin drop in the theater during the whole court room scene......and then what a climax. It shows the best can make mistakes as well

[@9MilNorm]

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

[@taroman7100]

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

[@WastedPo]

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.

[@66HTown]

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.

[@tellurye]

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.

[@ronaldshank7589]

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.

[@theivory1]

He's has a point about giving the trick away but when the trick is this good it still works. I haven't seen it in awhile. I would like to see it again with the kids.

[@jasoncase9481]

So Horrid that Tom Cruise did not win a academy award for a brilliant first rate performance. This is a undeniable amazing movie.

[@awesome420ication]

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.

[@jasoncase9481]

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.

[@linkbiff1054]

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!

[@jasoncase9481]

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

[@linkbiff1054]

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

[@LukeLovesRose]

I think A Few Good Men is a great movie. Tom proves once again how great he is

[@TheSoundOutside]

If he was still around, I'll bet Roger would like to have this review back. This is a terrific film in every sense of the word. AFGM is easily one of the best films of the 1990's.

[@jeepthing98]

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.

[@GaryHMan]

I definitely side with Gene on this one. It's a very solid movie.

[@josiahambrose924]

Ebert definitely blew this one. This movie has more than stood the test of time.

[@bman342a]

Thumbs down on this from Ebert? This is one of the greatest courtroom dramas of all time. I think Ebert misses the point in his complaint that Cruise gave away the climactic scene the night before. It was about Jessup admitting to the code red, it was not about how Kaffee was going to get him there. So many movies we know the good guy wins, but it's about the journey not the destination

[@GnCFilms]

So well put!

[@trewhite7903]

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

[@gunkulator1]

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.

[@squatch570]

@@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.

[@jameswilliams-zr8co]

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

[@STONESGAM]

Caffey laying out his strategy did not spoil anything. We didn't know if he was actually going to go for it when he could get in major trouble or if Jessup would take the bait. The genius was how Caffey riled him up before that when he told him he wasn't done examining him and to "sit down". He knew Jessup didn't like him and his cocky "harvard mouth" and he knew how to push his buttons. I don't normally like courtroom movies that much but this was top notch with a terrific cast. Nicholson was worth every penny they paid him and the movie wouldn't have been the same with a weaker actor in that role.

[@buffalobraves9]

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.

[@robertfreedman6651]

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

[@9MilNorm]

Thumbs down? That is insane. This movie has some of the greatest acting ever done in it. Stodgy buzzard.

[@GasCityGuy]

Huh? Thumbs down to one of the iconic scenes in modern movie history? Must've been some bad popcorn at the concession stand that night.

[@shogunblade]

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.

[@doublestrokeroll]

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.

[@DanRSL]

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.

[@markdeady2194]

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

[@bobbyellis5006]

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.

[@wildwest1832]

IDK I thought the whole point was they had a plan, but the best plans dont always work out. Watching the plan unfold, and be executed was what it made it still exciting I think this is one of the best movies of its kind ever made. Well executed

[@machngunjoe]

Ebert is overly harsh here

[@mitchclark1532]

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.

[@asianmalaysian]

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

[@JuanRodriguez-im6ul]

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

[@davidhazera9851]

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

[@malafakka8530]

@@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?

[@elsierich935]

This movie is approximately 30 years old; I enjoy it as much now as when it was originally released, the chemistry. I feel, is very profound. Surprisingly to me, Tom Cruise was more than equal to the task, when confronting Jack Nickolson, this movie, I feel, is one of the great ones, all the actor involved Under the direction of Rob Reiner, contributed to this.

[@jcarlmark]

Fun to watch one of the greatest movies and performances being criticized back in the days, little did they know

[@NealX_Gaming]

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.

[@Bill-jc1fy]

Great movie, the cast is great, especially Cruise & Nicholson

[@michaelanderson2881]

I think Siskel and Ebert were among the first to realize what a very good actor Tom Cruise is, and has always been.

[@dashrirprock]

That point is relevant to their discussion at the end, when they explicitly call out the screenplay for what it didn't do -- namely, the love connection between the characters played by Moore and Cruise. Now, maybe Ebert's correct that originally Moore's character was a man (I've never seen the play). But for awhile it was a woman, and the filmmakers DID go the conventional route to give the two the promise of a love-relationship, which was later dropped for one reason or another.

[@jbrumundsmith]

Great movie. Cruise in his best role ever; his personality was perfect for the character he was playing. And the writer/director were smart enough to not overuse Jack Nickolson.

[@LeoWhalen1933]

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.

[@robertbotelho9702]

Cruise's character did sarcastically say to Jo Anne, "I'm sexually aroused, Commander." So there's that.

[@SparksDrinker]

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

[@robertbotelho691]

+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".

[@dynamicvoltage9765]

@@robertbotelho691 promote 'em all, I say

[@michaelrose1466]

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.

[@StanleyKu]

Im with Siskel on this one!

[@RikerLovesWorf]

The thing is, the surprise IS there. When Jack Nicholson's character maneuvers around Cruise's "why didn't he pack" argument.

[@Danimal77]

It's one of my favorite movies of all time.

[@zacharysiple783]

Me too! :)

[@syracuse6651]

I love this movie , Another 90's classic

[@bobzani]

My all-time favorite movie.

[@isuriadireja91]

my top 5 Tom Cruise performances: 1. Magnolia 2. A Few Good Men 3. Jerry Maguire 4. Collateral 5. Rain Man

[@jameswilliams-zr8co]

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

[@jonathanfunnell4167]

JACK NICHOLSONS AT HIS BEST ALONG WITH SHINING

[@danzemacabre8899]

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.

[@mikeh4818]

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

[@thespotteddog]

A great film. Period.

[@VideoMask93]

Ebert is wrong about Galloway; she was female in the original play.

[@sha11235]

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

[@crystalward1444]

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

[@yaywhewclips242]

Both Demi and cruise are quite good here. But Nicholson is fabulous and 1st class and deserved another Oscar.

[@jasonh.2439]

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.

[@mikeh4818]

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

[@citygirl5705]

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.

[@geoycs]

Thumbs down? It’s so compelling and interesting. No f%#ing way do you give it thumbs down. Roger is over thinking it.

[@draganminic4928]

Is this guy SERIOUSLY criticising this movie for NOT following a cliche, and not creating unresolved sexual tension despite an opportunity?

[@rubenreyna2198]

I was very & pleasantly surpised that Cruise & Moore didnt have a romance. Im glad the film was all "business." Great acting & the courtroom scenes were tense & heartbreaking.

[@MrBenMcLean]

I wish there were more good law movies like this.

[@jamierabinowitz7102]

Saw this yesterday . Great film

[@mrwoods22]

Gene keeps calling them soldiers. Aren't they marines?

[@DanRSL]

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.

[@mrwoods22]

LOL Marine isn't a rank.

[@DanRSL]

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

[@mrwoods22]

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

[@sha11235]

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

[@davidmaddox8914]

What are they talking about? Demi Moore's character practically asks him to go on a date. How do they not address that one is a man and one is a woman?

[@circuh1981]

ebert's not budging.. love it

[@matthewbyrd398]

Exactly why I NEVER listen to critics.

[@animalwillopus79]

OK script but the star power and performances are definitely what make this a must see.

[@canuck_gamer3359]

I find this review particularly interesting because I've watched a lot of these videos and I've heard Roger give a movie a lukewarm review and then say 'I recommend it but the ending (or this or that) was terrible'. If any movie deserved a pass from him on that basis, I would think it would be this one. He does make a valid point though, just imagine how much more drama there would have been if there was more ambiguity about the legal strategy and the options for defense.

[@GQElvie]

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....

[@jp3813]

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?".

[@jp3813]

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.

[@futuremovieactor]

***** 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.

[@jp3813]

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.

[@futuremovieactor]

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.

[@jp3813]

futuremovieactor His villainy is eventually established in the "you gotta ask me nicely" scene.

[@ltcolumbo9708]

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

[@LegitLaughs1]

How do you give this movie a thumbs down??

[@gregoryfrancis3422]

Progressive Talk Bernie took the money and ran 💰💰💰

[@sexytyper88]

this movie is INCREDIBLE! Ebert can eat SHOE!

[@nocalsteve]

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.

[@taroman7100]

I'm with Siskel on this one.

[@jesusmetal92107]

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!

[@jackkitchen737]

This was a great review from both of them. LOL One gives a thumbs up, the other a thumbs down....yet their reasons are both good to hear.

[@montieluckett7036]

They both agreed that the movie had no surprises. And after all these years with the greatness of the movie only becoming more and more apparent as time goes on; unsurprisingly they are both found to be wrong. Critics, who needs 'em.

[@Historian212]

Ebert was wrong. Moore’s character was not originally a man. Aaron Sorkin, who wrote the original play - which won a Pulitzer Prize, so I guess Sorkin knows something about writing and storycraft that Ebert didn’t - has explained that the story is based on a true incident that he learned about from *his sister,* who was a lawyer in the JAG’s office, and upon whom Sorkin based Moore’s character. Honestly, did they do no research in those days? I’m sure that this wasn’t a big secret. Sorkin can be seen discussing it in multiple interviews after the play became a hit on Broadway and he won the Pulitzer. It was also the first play he ever wrote. RIP, Siskel and Ebert. I was a big fan back in the day, but you both dropped the ball on this wonderful movie.

[@mckenna8663]

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!

[@Tbone51]

Cruise may have outlined it, but it was not a given. Watching Cruise and Nicholson spar and Cruise get him to do it was well worth the watch. I think Ebert's dead wrong here and thoroughly have enjoyed watching this movie several times. As Siskel said, watching Cruise develop over the course of the film, to the climax, is terrific!

[@SaginawCareerComplex]

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

[@ronaldh8446]

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.

[@scotthix2926]

Laying out the plan was good. The tension is not to get general to confess, but should Cruise do the plan thus risking his career if general does not confess. Also liked the ending - where they are dishonorable discharged becuase "just following orders excuse" is not a valid argument for defense. Which I considered a surprise ending, this is not a fairy tale or 90's sitcom where everyone goes home happy.

[@captcorajus]

' 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.

[@Locadel2003]

Jack Nicholson totally saved this movie from an ok flick. Excellent performance

[@BigSleepyOx]

Damn, Roger missed on this one badly.

[@jameswilliams-zr8co]

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

[@Dim4323]

You put it thumbs down. Ebert: i god dam did put it thumbs down. Ebert: YOU WANT THE TRUTH YOU CANT THE TRUTH!

[@saljablo2767]

It’s a great movie and a remote dropper no matter where it is.

[@robertmarginean164]

To think that this was someone's first script, GOD DAMN DID SORKIN DELIVER