From: jdooley@maemaster.eng.uci.edu (John R. Dooley)
Subject: Re: Q on A Few Good Men: Poison???
Newsgroups: rec.arts.movies
Organization: University of California, Irvine
Date: 5 Jan 93 23:26:43 GMT

In article <C0Dx4L.yx@gabriel.keele.ac.uk> phd69@seq1.keele.ac.uk (R.D. Hayler) writes:
>From article <2B432CC3.14456@news.service.uci.edu>, by jdooley@maemaster.eng.uci.edu (John R. Dooley):
>> 
>> This movie really was weak - a major disappointment.  
>> Virtually nothing about it made sense. The top performance
>> (by a long shot) was by the Texas A&M military drill team.
>> One great (though maybe unintentional) metaphor for the
>> entire movie - the magazine stand owner and Cruise 
>> talking in cliches.  
>> 
>> John D.
>
>	The ONLY weakness I thought the film had was in the way it made
>it all a bit too easy for the viewer - explaining everything as it went
>along and basically teeling you plot and motives right away. In
>particular, the "flashback" to before the victims death near the beginning,
> when Nicholson is discussing with Sutherland and the other guy (whose
>real name I can't remember) the letter sent by Santiago and over-rules
>Markinson's decision to have him transfered.     Why bother with this
>scene: IMHO it would have been better to find out what happened as the
>film developed. OK, it was a useful scene in that it established the three 
>characters and their relationship, but this could have been achieved
>without presenting a nice guide to the rest of the film.

Spoilers follow.


I agree that the flashback was not very effective, but 
the whole plot was a muddle.  First, would a lieutentant commander
(implying at least 10 years in military service) be assisting
a lieutenant (one year of experience.)  Pretty damn unlikely.  
Even more so when you consider the military's rank structure.

Then, the worst possible scene (which is saying something)
is when Cruise decides to quit because his client won't 
plea-bargain.  Moore pleads with him to stay on the case, 
because if he won't defend them "no one else can" do it.  Yeah, 
right.  First of all she wanted to do the defense, and was pushed
aside for Cruise, so it's unlikely she'd object too much if he quit.
Two, it's even more ridiculous when you consider that up to
that point his investigative skills had been totally 
incompetent.  Only Moore showed either the desire or capability 
to defend the defendants.  From everything that had happened up 
to that point, the only logical response from her would have 
been "good riddance".

Markinson's testimony at the trial would have been meaningless.
How much weight would a court put on a the uncorroborated
testimony of an AWOL commander?

None of the defense lawyers ever asked if the private was in the
room when the corporal was ordered to do the "Code Red"?  Yeah,
right.  Since that's the key point of the defense case, you'd
imagine they might go over what happened in detail.  (Where
were you sitting when the order was given?  What exactly did
the lieutenant say to you?) This level of negligence is 
too illogical.  

The final scene is completely inane.  Nicholson's knew that 
ordering the "Code Red" was against order's from superiors.
He knew enough to alter flight logs to cover his tracks.
I really can't believe that anyone would buy him being stupid
enough to admit ordering it.  In the heat of an exchange.
C'mon.  A successful combat officer (which we are led to believe
he is) is successful because he doesn't lose his cool when
under stress.  And, then on top of it, asking "what did I do
wrong?" after he gets arrested.  If he didn't know he was 
culpable, why was he altering flight logs. 

Because of its script, this movie is a waste of a lot of talent.
 
John D.


Newsgroups: rec.arts.movies