Overall good film with some unfortunate clichés

Rating: 7/10 (5 November 2005)

This is a well-made gripping movie -- with a great cast. Its central issue is quite timely.
**** SPOILERS **** The film concerns the firing upon an American Embassy in Yemen by dozens and dozens, perhaps hundreds of people - some on the roof of a building across the courtyard, more in the courtyard itself. Audio tapes of speeches or sermons (it's not clear which) in which the people are informed it is their duty to God to kill Americans are later found at the Embassy and by the bedsides of some of the people.
After three Marines rescuing the Ambassador have been shot, the furious fire from the Yemenis is returned by a Marine detachment that has rescued the American Ambassador and his wife to safety. The return fire kills 83, wounds another 100, and successfully stops the attack.
The courtyard is immediately cleaned by Yemenis of all the weapons dropped by the dead and wounded -- and then photographs are taken of the dead and wounded lying there. The governments in Yemen, Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Jordan all decry the action taken by the Marines and Ambassadors are withdrawn.
The photographs are published in newspapers. The Embassy's outside television camera has recorded the dozens of old people, children and others who were firing machine guns at the Embassy and the Marines -- but in order to blame the Marine colonel in charge of the rescue, the National Security Adviser destroys the tape.
The central drama is the court martial of the Marine colonel in charge -- defended by a former comrade from the Vietnam War. The Marines who were present at the incident had been under cover and unable to see the courtyard and the dozens firing upon the Marines. Only the Colonel in charge and another Marine who died on the spot were in a position to see the crowd.
There are three unfortunate matters in the movie: i) the cliché of "higher ups" being utterly evil and willing to do anything to blame others - in this case, it's just so difficult to believe that someone as senior as the National Security Adviser who had absolutely nothing to hide -- would deliberately destroy evidence that would exculpate the colonel.
ii) the cliché of the North Vietnamese having been somehow "honorable" -- and available to testify in courts martial in Washington D.C. The salutes exchanged between the Marine colonel and the former North Vietnamese soldier at the end of the film -- made me cringe.
iii) the entire motivation of the National Security Adviser - there's no reason whatever to think that the conviction of a Marine colonel is going to lessen anger at the United States for the incident. If anything, I would think (a false) establishment of the Marines' guilt for these deaths would increase, rather than diminish anger at the U.S. So the motivation of the National Security Adviser that "if this man isn't convicted, the U.S. will be blamed" makes no sense to me -- yet that is the entire motivation for the destruction of the exculpatory evidence.
The action sequences are absolutely gripping - and seem very realistic. So are the scenes that take place when the Marine's lawyer journeys to Yemen to search for any further evidence.
Another matter I liked as a litigator, was seeing the judge make correct judicial rulings throughout the trial. The courtroom scenes are fine stuff - similar to "A Few Good Men" in drama.
**** SPOILERS END **** The cast is astounding - Blair Underwood, Anne Archer, Tommy Lee Jones, Samuel L. Jackson, Sir Ben Kingsley, Guy Pearce. They're all quite fine - Jackson and Jones are superb. I was surprised that actors of the caliber of Archer, Underwood and Kingsley would take such small parts - they don't have terribly much to do. And I found the Australian Pearce's extremely thick New York accent quite off-putting - he sounded American, but phew - what an ugly sound.
This is a gripping film that will certainly hold your interest throughout - and despite a few clicheed improbabilities, is quite well done.