Absolutely brilliant

This is a must-see and one of the best documentaries - and films - of this year.

The story, direction, characters, and writing/dialogue is akin to taking a tranquilizer shot to the neck, but everything else was so well done.

An old-fashioned movie made with new-fashioned finesse.

I watched this film back in the day and i was tripping oot my nut..it was a gripper. Auld jack was quality

This is one of my favorite movies, and one of the best courtroom dramas ever. I can watch it over and over again. It's one of those movies that if I flip the channel and it's on, welp, that's it, I'm going to end up watching the entire thing. (Also in this category: Apollo 13. The constant? Kevin Bacon!) .. A Few Good Men is gripping. It's one of those rare films that is built almost entirely on it's dialogue, and succeeds brilliantly. The script is intelligent and thoroughly engaging. The directing is crisp and suspenseful. The performances are top-notch. Specifically, this is some of Tom Cruise's best work. There are, of course, a few unforgettable quotes, but the build up to these scenes is what makes them unforgettable. As the viewer, you feel like your fighting for justice right along side the cast. Their battle becomes yours, and the movie is all the more powerful for it.

Let me get started by saying there's no story even resembling reality here. Navy lawyer Kaffee (Tom Snooze) is a little pee-on, yet he decides all on his own to take a sensitive case to court, a maneuver which would have found him stone-walled as soon as the higher echelon discovered he was filing to try the case.Of course, we wouldn't have a movie without writer Aaron 'Copy-n-Paste' Sorkin's silly plot. We also wouldn't get to see Jack Nicholson's fine performance as Colonel Jessup. After all, he makes this his show while concomitantly dwarfing the poor excuses for actors on hand (Tom Snooze, Dummy Moore, and Kevin Haddock). Therefore, let the carnage begin.We are introduced to Kaffee when he is LATE for a meeting showing up without a PEN (he's a lawyer - with a briefcase and everything - but he forgot his pen). Naturally, his commander is understanding. This is where the smart-alek chutzpah begins as Kaffee is proved to be a selfish fool, but all his contemporaries mysteriously still admire him.The next ignorant screw-up by Kaffee happens as he arrives at a superior's office where Kaffee plops down in a chair while munching on an apple. As he sucks the dripping juices off his wrist, the silliness is snapped back to the old 'understanding commander' gag, rather than the more believable (and preferable) event of the superior barbecuing Kaffee for being such an arrogantly clueless putz.As the film drones on, Kaffee has not realized that he should probably go to the nearest five-n-dime store and purchase a package of pens (this running joke was meant to be funny..... it was not). Kaffee's stupidity and total lack of military bearing was more than just Sorkin's failed attempt at comedy. It was also very annoying which resulted in a dislike of Kaffee. What a jerk.When the BIG SCENE materializes (where, in the court room, Kaffee gets Jessup to 'admit' to ordering a forbidden 'Code Red'), we are supposed to believe that Jessup's career is over. This is a half-witted plot point by Sorkin as Jessup could easily appeal and just say that he was angered by the arrogant Kaffee (who truly is an obnoxious little fart). Following Jessup's demise, we see Kaffee stand proud to serve in the Navy, something he's balked at for the preceding 2 hours-plus.As previously stated, this is Nicholson's movie. But added to that, there is no story here, at least if one strives for reality in a film, which is what all involved in movies strive for. When Kaffee (who was specifically chosen by the Navy to plea-bargain this case) decides all by his lonesome to try the soon-to-be-general Jessup in a court of law, the Navy would have escorted Kaffee back to his little cubical and shoved a stale donut in his mouth to shut him up, all of this while they begin to process his foolish butt out of the Navy.Rent, watch, enjoy, but don't forget..... there's no realistic story here.

This is a great film. One of my favourites. There are many interesting themes and the ethical questions being posed are hard to answer.Starting with more superficial matters, though, this film does show that everyone looks better in a uniform. Tom has never looked more handsome, or Demi more hot. Even Jack has a kinda rugged thing going on. Keiffer Sutherland is the exception, but, to be fair, his character is very ugly in every way, and Sutherland plays it perfectly. In fact, that is true of all of the characters. This is a film full of good acting, facilitated, as always by superb writing and excellent direction.So, onto the ethics. It is a fight between deontological ethics, and consequentialism. To say it another way, it is a question of whether a 'bad' act is always bad, or whether it can be justified on a 'ends- justifying-the means basis'. Would you torture someone to save London being bombed? And so on.I was a little bit disappointed (albeit unsurprised) that the Kantian, Judeo-Christian ethics win out. There was a big part of me cheering Jessup on. "You sleep under the blanket of protection I provide then dare to question the manner in which i provide it..I'd sooner you just said 'thank you' and went on your way"Next, it is a rights of passage movie. Cruise becomes a good, proper lawyer, making his lawyer dad proud (albeit posthumously), and ends up earning the respect of his clients rather than their contempt.I thought that a good line of cross-examination was missed. I mean, Jessup has ordered the disciplining of one of his own, an act, ultimately that amounts to manslaughter. Then, this man with his 'code of honour' comes to court and lies about it. How about this:Cruise: Colonel Jessup, you have a code. That code involves telling the truth, something you have sworn to do here today. So if you HAD ordered the code red and then hung your men out to dry and THEN came here, looked the judge in the eye and lied about it, what would that say about you and your precious code?Yes Kevin Bacon may have objected on the basis that this is argumentative, but the jury would have heard it and you cannot, as they say, unring the bell.Finally, one is left asking the question "who is the movie referring to in the title?". Are Colonel Jessup and his marines the 'few good men', or the accused? Or Cruise, and the lawyers?