Gripping Courtroom Drama; Difficult Moral Dilemma; Powerful Movie

Rating: 9/10 (14 April 2001)

This is an absolutely superb film however you choose to approach it. As a courtroom drama, it is taut with suspense; as a moral statement it raises unsettling questions. There is very little one could identify as being wrong with this movie.
Samuel L. Jackson and Tommy Lee Jones offer powerful performances. Jackson plays Marine Col. Terry Childers, who faces a court martial after men under his command kill 83 civilians taking part in a demonstration outside the US Embassy in Yemen. Jones plays his defence attorney, fellow Marine Col. Hayes Hodges, a lawyer with a less than stellar background, whose life was saved by Childers during combat in Vietnam.
There are two main storylines in this movie, which weave together perfectly. The first is the actual court martial, which is developed superbly. It is tense and suspenseful and I had no idea which way the verdict would fall until we actually heard it. The moral dilemma involved in the story is very real and very powerful, and can be summed up with a number of questions: (1) what standards should be expected of those in combat situations; (2) can those who have never been under fire in a combat situation really judge the actions of those who have to make difficult decisions in the heat of combat; (3) will the US Ambassador (Ben Kingsley) really sell out the man who saved his and his family's life just to curry favour with his superiors in the State Department? Powerful questions, with answers that aren't entirely clear - but surely that's the point! There aren't always easy answers. The underlying subplot of a government cover-up of evidence led by National Security Advisor William Sokal (Bruce Greenwood) fits in nicely with the rest of the movie.
Director William Friedkin does a fantastic job of building up suspense, and his flashback scenes to Vietnam are used to good effect. (I don't always like flashbacks, but these were appropriate and helped move the story along without taking over.) Friedkin's decision to focus on the little girl who had lost her leg during Hodge's trip to Yemen to investigate the incident was poignant and powerful.
Is there anything wrong with this movie? Some might complain that it presents a too stereotypical view of the "bad Moslems," but if this is the storyline, where else would you set the Embassy incident? At one of those really violent demonstrations that are always breaking out around the US Embassy in Ottawa or Stockholm? But I do have a few minor concerns: I didn't think Greenwood was that well cast as the National Security Advisor; the fight scene between Childers and Hodges struck me as silly and unnecessary; Friedkin introduces tensions in Hodges' family over the case but then never really develops it beyond the initial family discussion over a meal. But these are relatively minor points. Overall this movie is wonderful. Good story, great acting and directing. There's not much more you could ask for.
9/10