As students at the United States Navy's elite fighter weapons school compete to be best in the class, one daring young pilot learns a few things from a civilian instructor that are not taught in the classroom.
In this dramatic courtroom thriller, LT Daniel Kaffee, a Navy lawyer who has never seen the inside of the courtroom, defends two stubborn Marines who have been accused of murdering a colleague. Kaffee is known as being lazy and had arranged for a plea bargain. Downey's Aunt Ginny appoints Cmdr. Galloway to represent him. Also on the legal staff is LTJG Sam Weinberg. The team rounds up many facts and Kaffee is discovering that he is really cut out for trial work. The defense is originally based upon the fact that PFC Santiago, the victim, was given a "CODE RED". Santiago was basically a screw-up. At Gitmo, screw-ups aren't tolerated. Especially by Col. Nathan Jessup. In Cuba, Jessup and two senior officers try to give all the help they can, but Kaffee knows something's fishy. In the conclusion of the film, the fireworks are set off by a confrontation between Jessup and Kaffee. Written by
Matt Curtolo <firstname.lastname@example.org>
The original play was inspired by an actual Code Red at Guantanamo Bay. Lance Corporal David Cox and nine other enlisted men tied up a fellow Marine and severely beat him, for snitching to the Naval Criminal Investigative Service. Cox was acquitted and later Honorably Discharged. In 1994, David Cox mysteriously vanished, and his bullet-riddled body was found three months later. His murder remains unsolved. See more »
The most likely year of the trial is 1991. 6 September 1991 was indeed a Friday. 3 October was a Thursday, and 4 October was a Friday, all consistent with dialog and key scenes. But Judge Randolph then announces the court would reconvene on "Monday 19 October." In fact, 19 October 1991 was a Saturday. The correct reconvention date would have to be Monday 21 October, not 19 October. Either the incident and trial opening dates are therefore inconsistent with the reconvention date. See more »
See more »
This is one of the movies, I have watched many many times. First few times, Tom Cruise seemed to be giving an ordinary performance; probably my shortcoming that I was not able to understand his character. But, then I realized that he was playing exactly the character he was supposed to portray and he did it in a impeccable manner - wow!!!! He was just second to Jack Nicholson.
I could not imagine if anyone else could have replaced Jack Nicholson - his stellar performance (as always) and the intensity and ferocity with which he delivered his dialogues - man, even his facial expressions at times were worth a watch.
Story line and plot don't seem to be so strong and there will be many people who would not agree with its end and even with the message of the movie, which is although not so clear but definitely points towards some of the not so best practices being followed in any country's army (over discipline in the name of straightening the people and getting things in order or even avoiding any further chaos or things being run by certain people just to settle their personal scores and run in a way they think is the best, even disregarding other people's reasonable opinions). However, the other things apart, movie was a treat to watch. Director Rob Reiner and writer Aaron Sorkin didn't leave any stone unturned when it came to dialogues in the movie - in fact, the dialogues delivered by each and every character (not only Jack Nicholson) have been simply stunning.
46 of 62 people found this review helpful.
Was this review helpful to you?