Skip to main content

You want to investigate me, roll the dice and take your chances.

A Few Good Men
(1992)

(SPOILERS) Aaron Sorkin has penned a few good manuscripts in his time, but A Few Good Men, despite being inspired by an actual incident (one related to him by his sister, an army lawyer on a case at the time), falls squarely into the realm of watchable but formulaic. I’m not sure I’d revisited the entire movie since seeing it at the cinema, but my reaction is largely the same: that it’s about as impressively mounted and star-studded as Hollywood gets, but it’s ultimately a rather empty courtroom drama.

Roger Ebert summed it up well at the time (“the film doesn’t make us work, doesn’t allow us to figure things out for ourselves, is afraid we’ll miss things if they’re not spelled out”): everything’s too easy, almost too competently structured. Even Tom Cruise’s against-the-odds lawyer, because he’s such a cocky so-and-so (patented Cruise at the time), is a foregone conclusion. We’re shown the culpability of the superiors at the base in a crude early flashback, and there are no subsequent twists or how-do-they-get-recover-from-that setbacks that would warrant putting this into the annals of classic, edge-of-the-seat legal thrillers (which hasn’t prevented it having a fantastic life as a stage production).

Sure, Tom vs Jack at the conclusion is fun (it needs to be, with Tom finally getting someone to yell at who can yell right back at him), but it’s too well-oiled and insufficiently inspired (the old “trip up your witness” routine, combined with the old “witness you’ll never use” bluff, even foreshadowed in the pre-interrogation prep) to truly satisfy. It’s perhaps telling that, even though A Few Good Men garnered a Best Picture Oscar nomination, Sorkin’s screenplay – brushed up by William Goldman, which elicited, in a rare case, endorsement by the original writer, who incorporated some of the changes into his stage version – did not.

The role of Lieutenant Kaffee fits Cruise like a glove (Tom Hulce had already played the character on stage), and he needed a hit coming off an expensive underperformer (Days of Thunder) and a romantic fizzler (Far and Away). Kaffee’s insufferably sure of himself and dismissive of others, with Demi Moore principally serving as his straight woman; Lt Commander Galloway is a thankless part, the character required to make obvious gaffes, suffer sexist comments from Jack’s Jessup in an attempt to get a rise from her, give Kaffee morale-boosting pep talks at crucial moments, and get no kind of cathartic scene in return (Cruise is more than recompensed for the insult to his “fagoty” wardrobe).

Kaffee’s also saddled with rote daddy issues and made-to-order “depth” of character, so obviously cynical that they play as entirely artificial and insubstantial. Andwe have to suffer a Tom drunk scene, something no one deserves. I’d actually kind of forgotten why Cruise used to irritate me so much, as he’s long since left this performance mode behind, but there are times in A Few Good Men where he’s actively encouraging you to give up on the movie.

When he’s the baseball bat wielding smartass he’s fine, but once he gets into serious mode – struggling against the ghost of daddy and facing the knowledge that he was picked for the role because he was expected to take a plea – he’s repetitively over-emphatic in his delivery and terribly unconvincing, be it berating (repeatedly) his defendants or having a go at Galloway. He also does an off-putting amount prop eating acting and is the focus of far too much didactic, hammy, “You’re this kind of person” lines of the sort Sorkin loved in The West Wing (“You know nothing about the law. You’re an ambulance chaser with a rank”; “You got bullied in the courtroom by the memory of a dead lawyer”). There’s a degree of playing on the Cruise charm, but he’s doing so much to discourage you that, when he plays the innocence card (“Have I done something to offend you?”; “You don’t like me very much do you?”) we think the offended parties have a point, particularly Jack exclaiming “You snotty little bastard!

Elsewhere, this is an entirely impressive cast. Nicholson is good shouty value - $5m well spent – but it’s very much a “wind him up and let him go” part and included his much-lampooned classic line (apparently Spielberg’s suggestion). The Best Supporting Actor nod reflecting that lack of extra spark; Hackman won for his far more impressive Little Bill villainy. Kevin Bacon was segueing into character work at this point (see also JFK) to commendable effect, the late JT Walsh is as peerless as ever and the likes of Noah Wyle, Cuba Gooding Jr and Reiner regular Christopher Guest also show up. Most impressive is probably Kiefer Sutherland (previously in Reiner’s Stand by Me) as a God-fearing but coolly malevolent lieutenant who ordered the hazing that led to the death of Private Santiago (and so the trial).

The US Military refused to cooperate with the movie, but that couldn’t be taken to imply it shines a deep and meaningful light on its more suspect methods and attitudes; as unconscionable as the marine’s hazing is made out to be, it’s also stressed that those responsible are serving at Guantanamo (pre-public infamy, and pre-Bad Boys 2) and so discipline is paramount, and that merely being commanded by an officer is no excuse for abandoning one’s own moral compass (hence the verdict against the two soldiers).

DP Robert Richardson had previously shot several military pictures for Oliver Stone, so that’s doubtless why he was called upon, and he duly does a very polished job, while Marc Shaiman delivers an utterly forgettable, vacuum-formed late-80s/early-90s score. Perhaps most notable is that this was Reiner’s most successful movie but simultaneously the beginning of the end of his hot streak. Everything he’d touched previously may not have been unified by genre or any kind of style – by very definition, he had proved himself the most versatile of journeyman – but they all had the distinction of his picking idiosyncratic subject matter and making accessible successes of them. This was the first time he really went after something purpose built to be a hit, and it’s both his least interesting picture up to that point and in retrospect a signal of the fading of his discerning eye. He’d go on to make underwhelming romcoms and dramedies, and still happen upon the odd success (The American President, The Bucket List) but with such reliable mediocrity of content that his initial form seems like a freak aberration, or some kind of witchcraft.

Still, in the immediate moment, A Few Good Men worked out very nicely for everyone involved. The seventh most successful picture of the year worldwide, and recognised with four Oscar nominations (no wins). And as by-numbers as it may be, it’s still more satisfying in its courtroom dramatics than the decade’s subsequent slew of John Grisham thrillers (although, Cruise’s next film would be the exception, the first and by a significant margin the best Grisham adaptation).


Agree? Disagree? Mildly or vehemently? Let me know in the comments below.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

I just hope my death makes more cents than my life.

Joker (2019)
(SPOILERS) So the murder sprees didn’t happen, and a thousand puff pieces desperate to fan the flames of such events and then told-ya-so have fallen flat on their faces. The biggest takeaway from Joker is not that the movie is an event, when once that seemed plausible but not a given, but that any mainstream press perspective on the picture appears unable to divorce its quality from its alleged or actual politics. Joker may be zeitgeisty, but isn’t another Taxi Driver in terms of cultural import, in the sense that Taxi Driver didn’t have a Taxi Driver in mind when Paul Schrader wrote it. It is, if you like, faux-incendiary, and can only ever play out on that level. It might be more accurately described as a grubbier, grimier (but still polished and glossy) The Talented Ripley, the tale of developing psychopathy, only tailored for a cinemagoing audience with few options left outside of comic book fare.

You guys sure like watermelon.

The Irishman aka I Heard You Paint Houses (2019)
(SPOILERS) Perhaps, if Martin Scorsese hadn’t been so opposed to the idea of Marvel movies constituting cinema, The Irishman would have been a better film. It’s a decent film, assuredly. A respectable film, definitely. But it’s very far from being classic. And a significant part of that is down to the usually assured director fumbling the execution. Or rather, the realisation. I don’t know what kind of crazy pills the ranks of revered critics have been taking so as to recite as one the mantra that you quickly get used to the de-aging effects so intrinsic to its telling – as Empire magazine put it, “you soon… fuggadaboutit” – but you don’t. There was no point during The Irishman that I was other than entirely, regrettably conscious that a 75-year-old man was playing the title character. Except when he was playing a 75-year-old man.

Poor Easy Breezy.

Once Upon a Time… in Hollywood (2019)
(SPOILERS) My initial reaction to Once Upon a Time… in Hollywood was mild disbelief that Tarantino managed to hoodwink studios into coming begging to make it, so wilfully perverse is it in disregarding any standard expectations of narrative or plotting. Then I remembered that studios, or studios that aren’t Disney, are desperate for product, and more especially, product that might guarantee them a hit. Quentin’s latest appears to be that, but whether it’s a sufficient one to justify the expense of his absurd vanity project remains to be seen.

The guy practically lives in a Clue board.

Knives Out (2019)
(SPOILERS) “If Agatha Christie were writing today, she’d have a character who’s an Internet troll.” There’s a slew of ifs and buts in that assertion, but it tells you a lot about where Rian Johnson is coming from with Knives Out. As in, Christie might – I mean, who can really say? – but it’s fair to suggest she wouldn’t be angling her material the way Johnson does, who for all his pronouncement that “This isn’t a message movie” is very clearly making one. He probably warrants a hesitant pass on that statement, though, to the extent that Knives Out’s commentary doesn’t ultimately overpower the whodunnit side of the plot. On the other hand, when Daniel Craig’s eccentrically accented sleuth Benoit Blanc is asked “You’re not much of a detective, are you?” the only fair response is vigorous agreement.

You're skipping Christmas! Isn't that against the law?

Christmas with the Kranks (2004)
Ex-coke dealer Tim Allen’s underwhelming box office career is, like Vince Vaughn’s, regularly in need of a boost from an indiscriminate public willing to see any old turkey posing as a prize Christmas comedy.  He made three Santa Clauses, and here is joined by Jamie Lee Curtis as a couple planning to forgo the usual neighbourhood festivities for a cruise.

So you want me to be half-monk, half-hitman.

Casino Royale (2006)
(SPOILERS) Despite the doubts and trepidation from devotees (too blonde, uncouth etc.) that greeted Daniel Craig’s casting as Bond, and the highly cynical and low-inspiration route taken by Eon in looking to Jason Bourne's example to reboot a series that had reached a nadir with Die Another Day, Casino Royale ends up getting an enormous amount right. If anything, its failure is that it doesn’t push far enough, so successful is it in disarming itself of the overblown set pieces and perfunctory plotting that characterise the series (even at its best), elements that would resurge with unabated gusto in subsequent Craig excursions.

For the majority of its first two hours, Casino Royale is top-flight entertainment, with returning director Martin Campbell managing to exceed his excellent work reformatting Bond for the ‘90s. That the weakest sequence (still good, mind) prior to the finale is a traditional “big” (but not too big) action set piece involving an attempt to…

I’m the famous comedian, Arnold Braunschweiger.

Last Action Hero (1993)
(SPOILERS) Make no mistake, Last Action Hero is a mess. But even as a mess, it might be more interesting than any other movie Arnie made during that decade, perhaps even in his entire career. Hellzapoppin’ (after the 1941 picture, itself based on a Broadway revue) has virtually become an adjective to describe films that comment upon their own artifice, break the fourth wall, and generally disrespect the convention of suspending disbelief in the fictions we see parading across the screen. It was fairly audacious, some would say foolish, of Arnie to attempt something of that nature at this point in his career, which was at its peak, rather than playing it safe. That he stumbled profoundly, emphatically so since he went up against the behemoth that is Jurassic Park (slotted in after the fact to open first), should not blind one to the considerable merits of his ultimate, and final, really, attempt to experiment with the limits of his screen persona.

Of course, one m…

It's their place, Mac. They have a right to make of it what they can. Besides, you can't eat scenery!

Local Hero (1983)
(SPOILERS) With the space of thirty-five years, Bill Forsyth’s gentle eco-parable feels more seductive than ever. Whimsical is a word often applied to Local Hero, but one shouldn’t mistake that description for its being soft in the head, excessively sentimental or nostalgic. Tonally, in terms of painting a Scottish idyll where the locals are no slouches in the face of more cultured foreigners, the film hearkens to both Powell and Pressburger (I Know Where I’m Going!) and Ealing (Whisky Galore!), but it is very much its own beast.

Do forgive me for butting in, but I have a bet with my daughter that you are Hercules Porridge, the famous French sleuth.

Death on the Nile (1978)
(SPOILERS) Peak movie Poirot, as the peerless Peter Ustinov takes over duties from Albert Finney, who variously was unavailable for Death on the Nile, didn’t want to repeat himself or didn’t fancy suffering through all that make up in the desert heat. Ustinov, like Rutherford, is never the professional Christie fan’s favourite incarnation, but he’s surely the most approachable and engaging. Because, well, he’s Peter Ustinov. And if some of his later appearances were of the budget-conscious, TV movie variety (or of the Michael Winner variety), here we get to luxuriate in a sumptuously cast, glossy extravaganza.

I am constantly surprised that women’s hats do not provoke more murders.

Witness for the Prosecution (1957)
(SPOILERS) Was Joe Eszterhas a big fan of Witness for the Prosecution? He was surely a big fan of any courtroom drama turning on a “Did the accused actually do it?” only for it to turn out they did, since he repeatedly used it as a template. Interviewed about his Agatha Christie adaptation (of the 1925 play), writer-director Billy Wilder said of the author that “She constructs like an angel, but her language is flat; no dialogue, no people”. It’s not an uncommon charge, one her devotees may take issue with, that her characters are mere pieces to be moved around a chess board, rather than offering any emotional or empathetic interest to the viewer. It’s curious then that, while Wilder is able to remedy the people and dialogue, doing so rather draws attention to a plot that, on this occasion, turns on a rather too daft ruse.