Hackneyed, hokey and contrived -- but good!

Rating: Null/10 (5 December 2001)

This movie is contrived and artificial and shows off the worst of Eastwood's tendency to portray invincible men. The dullness of the movie is minimally relieved by some essential spark that shows through the barrage of stereotypes of people and scenes. The scenario of "gunnery sergeant breaking down the troops is done with a compelling rawness to it in contrast with (for example) the same work in "An Officer and a Gentleman". Eastwood's character is close to an unwanted but mandatory retirement, and this adds an engaging undercurrent throughout the movie.
Most of the other stereotypes are similarly leavened of their tedium by some originality, but only enough to barely keep us awake. These include: 1. Tough warrior clueless about his woman. 2. Men go into battle and miraculously enemy fire seems to miss them even when they are in the open in front of enemy guns. 3. Tough-man warrior-repartee from Eastwood. 4. Tough experienced warrior in conflict with paper-pusher from military academy.
If you notice how much I use the word "tough" here, it is forced into every part of the movie in typical Eastwood fare. There is no sense of vulnerability to his character nor intimacy in his relationships with men or women, only his overwhelming need to keep up his pretense of being more than a man while giving less. That said, there is no denying that he gives a convincing portrait of an aging warrior who has looked Hell in the face and outfaced it.
Even the movie's ending is contrived and make-shift, but somehow it is done with a deftness of minimality that combined with Eastwood's character's looming retirement makes the ending acceptable.
It is in these contradictions that the movie lives and manages to be watchable without being much fun to watch.