A FEW GOOD MEN

This solid slice of 1990s entertainment gets 84% on Rotten Tomatoes, and at first I thought that the 1 in 6 critics who didn't rate it were being a bit harsh, but on reflection maybe it's fair: despite all that it has going for it (Tom Cruise v Nicholson, Tom Cruise v Kevin Bacon, a screenplay by Aaron Sorkin) it does have a couple of weaknesses, which we'll get to.  

But to be clear, I'm not counting Demi Moore's presence as a weakness, because she doesn't get to do much, and because thankfully there is no cutesy romance between her and Cruise.

Cruise and Moore are military lawyers defending a couple of soldiers charged with murder in a military court, and no, I don't understand why the military get their own justice system.

A fellow soldier has died as the result of a 'punishment' meted out by the defendants that went  badly wrong,  but the nub of the case, and therefore the film, is whether the punishment was instructed by their commanding officer, played by Nicholson, a fine piece of casting since the CO has an ego the size of a Sherman tank.  This turns out to be his undoing, in a gripping climax to the trial which includes Nicholson delivering the famous line: "The truth? You can't handle the truth!"

Bacon plays the prosecuting counsel, and I enjoyed all the scenes of cut-and-thrust between him and Cruise, both in the courtroom and outside.

But good as the principal actors all are, for me the acting honours are stolen by Wolfgang Bodison.  

He was a location manager on the film who was persuaded by the director to play the part of the more senior of the two defendants.  He is convincing as a soldier who is totally committed to the military code, above all of following orders without question.  The highlight of the film is maybe the moment at the end when he has to explain to his co-defendant why it is right and proper that they be discharged.

So what are the weaknesses?  

Well, firstly it's all a bit predictable, as we work our way through the inevitable courtroom drama tropes, although it helps that the military setting is a novel one, and that unusually the defendants are clearly guilty of something.

More importantly,  how much do we care about what is at stake - indeed, what is it that is at stake, given that the defendants are guilty?  It doesn't help that Sorkin makes no effort to make us care about the victim - he appears to have no friends or family present at the trial, and we learn remarkably little about him. 

I guess it's about the military code, and about following orders whatever the cost.

That's not something I lose sleep about.  But so what if what we have here is more style than substance, when the entertainment on offer is as well-crafted as this?

RATING: ✓ If You've Nothing Better To Do