UNLIMITED STREAMING
WITH PRIME VIDEO
TRY 30-DAY TRIAL
Home > Drama >

A Few Good Men

A Few Good Men (1992)

December. 11,1992
|
7.7
|
R
| Drama

When cocky military lawyer Lt. Daniel Kaffee and his co-counsel, Lt. Cmdr. JoAnne Galloway, are assigned to a murder case, they uncover a hazing ritual that could implicate high-ranking officials such as shady Col. Nathan Jessep.

...

Watch Trailer

Cast

Similar titles

Reviews

Vashirdfel
1992/12/11

Simply A Masterpiece

More
Forumrxes
1992/12/12

Yo, there's no way for me to review this film without saying, take your *insert ethnicity + "ass" here* to see this film,like now. You have to see it in order to know what you're really messing with.

More
Juana
1992/12/13

what a terribly boring film. I'm sorry but this is absolutely not deserving of best picture and will be forgotten quickly. Entertaining and engaging cinema? No. Nothing performances with flat faces and mistaking silence for subtlety.

More
Staci Frederick
1992/12/14

Blistering performances.

More
wsj-09658
1992/12/15

I enjoyed the movie however a full bird Colonel ordering a code red is highly unlikely and Lt.Kaffe is obnoxious, arrogant and disrespectful, even to superior officers, which would never be tolerated

More
jesubarthakur
1992/12/16

Tom Cruise Shit his pants in this movie around 20 minutes.

More
pmassey-23533
1992/12/17

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?

More
Weiming Sheng
1992/12/18

Half way through the movie, I found myself utterly unable to endure such a dumb plot, dumb characters, and dumb thematic message. One part of me really really wants to turn this off, but another part reminds me of the reason to watch this at the first place: no not for Tom Cruise or the director whoever he is, but for Jack Nicholson. Until then he was only in the movie for two scenes, and magically these two scenes work well. Jack delivered his lines in such a masterful way that he somehow hides how trite they really are; and when he can't hide it, he simply alters it and makes it great ("you can't handle the truth"). Almost all other acting are horrible. Tom Cruise delivered a few good lines, but his character is entirely predictable and cliché, which brings us to the character design. The character design is so lazy and bad. No character is lovable, except perhaps Jack Nicholson, who probably does not have a character at the first place as well but he somehow makes the character come true. Tom Cruise has one of the easiest motivation for a writer to conceive-- his dad is a great lawyer so he has this burden on him, nice and easy. And the film uses this newspaper stall thing to build up Tom's character, which works so unbelievably bad that you would wonder what's the purpose of the scene, and what's the purpose of filmmaking, and what's the purpose of life. The heroine is an extremely unlikable character. I really wanted to like her but she just goes around like a grumpy prick that I cannot relate to her at all. The two soldiers, especially Dawson, are terrible. Somewhere in the middle of the film, Dawson I think shouted out something to Tom Cruise, and as audience I am supposed to feel for his sense of honor, but I can't because his acting is so so bad. The other lawyer guy is forgettable. I do not know why he was there. Is he there to make a reaction face? But whatever he was quite bad as well. Overall, the only good character is Jack Nicholson, and not thanks to the writers, but thanks to his experience and talents. I am giving this film a four entirely because of his acting, and some of Tom Cruise's.

More