Misses being a truly great film because of 1 scene
-
Sweet_and_Lowdown77 — 9 years ago(May 06, 2016 05:30 PM)
In the very FIRST scene, you see those same 2 "pathetic" robot soldiers tie up and murder Santiago.
Ever see a Ted Bundy interview? He looks pretty sane right. He probably didn't look like that when he was killing women.
And, again, the film goes on to explain that ONLY Dawson was told the order. Downey was following Dawson's order. So Downey could've been lied to by Dawson keeping him, in his mind, under the impression he was under orders. So Downey could look "pathetic" because in his mind he was innocent b/c his crime was believing Dawson.
Fair? -
yusef-ghanima — 9 years ago(May 06, 2016 07:54 PM)
your way is possible but the writer's choice isn't wrong either, he didn't want to have a shalock holmes thing
edit, the writer wanted to concentrate on the emotional political issue and the moral choices that the lawyer had to do rather than make people minds busy with who did the crime -
Sweet_and_Lowdown77 — 9 years ago(May 11, 2016 07:06 PM)
I disagree.
There was never a doubt who did the crime. Even Dawson & Downey admitted to attacking Santiago.
What was at issue was whether or not they were given an order.
Take out the scene I suggest. Keep the entire film the same. What is posed in almost every scene. Did Jessup give the order or not. Can Kaffey prove jessup gave the order. Sutherland specifically told the unit Santiago wasn't to be touched.
In almost every scene, the question gets raised. Kaffey trying to suggest Dawson & Downey were given an order and Kevin Bacon highlighting that the men were told specifically NOT to touch Santiago.
Fair?
The prosecution proved that Downey wasn't in the barracks, they proved Sutherland gave an order not to touch Santiago and they proved Dawson had a motive to kill Santiago (re: the fence line shooting).
IMO, and I do not know this as a fact, I'm sure this scene was an addition to the script once Jack was cast. Jack is a huge star and he's barely in the film as it is. Without that scene, he's even in the film less. So I'm sure they asked Sorkin to write an additional scene b/c they wanted more Jack in the film.
Like I said, I love that scene. It just keeps the film from being great b/c the main issue of whether or not the guys were ordered to give Santiago a code red is answered by this scene. The audience KNOWS the truth, something Jack said we couldn't handle
-
Ithilfaen — 9 years ago(May 16, 2016 03:25 PM)
It never meant to be a murder mystery or one of those pathetic twist films. It was a character drama. The first scene sets up the players. Nothing wrong with that.
For every lie I unlearn I learn something new - Ani Difranco -
PopperTheKungFuDragn — 9 years ago(May 19, 2016 01:19 PM)
I disagree. Its not a murder mystery where we have to guess who the killer is, its a courtroom drama and as another poster says the story is all about getting Jessup to admit what he did and a very entertaining one at that.
Poorly Lived and Poorly Died, Poorly Buried and No One Cried -
Paul_Ke — 9 years ago(May 23, 2016 02:42 PM)
Oh my god, I cannot believe someone actually posted this. I have been saying the exact same thing for over 20 years! It's a great movie, one of my favorites, which I own on DVD and have watched countless times, but I think it would have been in my top 10 or 20 of all-time best movies if they just not revealed to us everything that happened at the beginning of the movie.
I couldn't agree more with the OP. The movie would have been even better as a mystery, where we have to figure out what really happened behind those closed doors, along with the characters.
The way they made the movie was that the viewer knows more about what really happened, than the characters do. Movies are betterin my opinionwhen we know as much as the characters, not more, and learn new info at the same time as they do.
If we had not known for certain that Jessup had actually ordered the code red, it would've heightened the risk of them going after Jessup the way they do. It also would have made Markinson's revelation in the back seat of Cruise's car more of a bombshell and all the more dramatic.
You could actually still use the scene where Jessup orders the code red, but put it at the END of the movie, not the beginning. For example, when Jessup says: "You're goddamn right I did!" immediately cut to the flashback of the scene where Keifer Sutherland and Markinson argue their positions to Jessup and Jessup orders the code red.
Great movie, but missed opportunity to be a flawless masterpiece. -
movieliker1 — 9 years ago(June 16, 2016 11:15 PM)
I kind of agree. The first few times I watched this movie I caught on TV after it had already started. I missed the beginning. I believe I enjoyed it more because I didn't really know what had happened. It wasn't until the last time I saw it, I finally saw the beginning. But by then, I already knew the rest of the movie.
-
Sweet_and_Lowdown77 — 9 years ago(October 19, 2016 11:18 AM)
So in your opinion, that scene MAKES the film?
All I'm suggesting is that scene - while great - keeps the film at very good instead of great.
It already is a mystery. Even with that scene. Every scene is about trying to prove a code red happened. The entire film is about "the code red".
But the inclusion of that scene takes away ALL the suspense on whether or not Cruise is right.
I believe with a poster a few up. A film is better when the audience learns facts as the protagonist does. Once the audience is ahead of the characters, you lose something.
Does anyone know if THIS scene is in Sorkin's original play? -
Paul_Ke — 9 years ago(October 20, 2016 01:07 PM)
It wouldn't be that different a movie really. If you delete that early scene with Jessup, Markinson, and Kendrick (or move it to the end of the movie as a flashback scene right after Jessup says: "You're goddam right I did!" - which would be my preference), the movie changes very little. The audience will still suspect Jessup and Kendrick are corrupt and gave the order for a code red, and then when Markinson tells Kaffee in the back of his car that Santiago was never going to be transferred and that Jessup gave the code red, the audience will believe it even more.
-
whoiamnow — 9 years ago(November 21, 2016 02:09 PM)
For me, them movie wasn't about if the Code Red was ordered but how the defendants are going to be saved from prosecution. So it's more than it was a Code Red but also how to get that fact known.
(Consider a review site if you don't want spoilers. This is a discussion board.) -
spasek — 9 years ago(December 05, 2016 09:01 AM)
Except that the point of the movie isn't if the marines killed Santiago. It's knowing that they didn't and how Kaffee was going to get Jessup to confess that he had ordered the Code Red.
Kaffee knows he doesn't have much of a defense, and his clients are most likely going to be found guilty unless he can get Jessup to own up to what he did. He knows that he has to play Jessup as if he has the evidence and force Jessup to confess. Will it work? That's the point of the film. -
har07045962 — 9 years ago(December 12, 2016 01:36 PM)
I feel like that would have resulted in a totally different film as opposed to correcting one flaw. It would have taken all of the drama out of watching the three protagonists try so hard to win the caseyou wouldn't be able to completely root for them because you wouldn't know if they were fighting for the right side.
It might have made for an interesting film, but everything would have had to be changed rather than just removing that one scene. I think the drama works because you know whose side you're on.