For all the hype it got I was expecting a lot more!

The storyline feels a little thin and moth-eaten in parts but this sequel is plenty of fun.

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.

The film may be flawed, but its message is not.

Amazing from start to finish, how Tom Cruise didn't win an Oscar is baffling! Amazing support cast 10/10

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

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?

Aaron Sorkin leaves a unique mark on all his work, and if you like "The West Wing," you'll like this movie, even if it is imperfect.A Few Good Men is about the trial of two US Marines stationed in Cuba who have been charged with killing one of their peers in a hazing ritual. They are appointed attorneys Lt. Kaffee (Tom Cruise) and Lt. Commander Galloway (Demi Moore). The two attorneys feud at first, but end up working together to expose a sinister cover-up job within the Marines.Sorkin does what he does best in "A Few Good Men": writing intelligent, engaging, and wit-filled dialogue. The characters feel like real people because they talk like real people. The wit in the dialogue also adds a lot of levity to this film with a pretty dark subject matter. Characters toss out jokes at each other that never feel out of place or silly, setting a nice tone for the entire movie. Some parts of the film have the potential to be dry, but they never are due to the nature of the dialogue.Since the film is based on Sorkin's stage play and the screenplay is written by Sorkin, so his idiosyncrasies come through much more strongly than those of the actual director, Rob Reiner. As the case of many films based on stage plays, film elements like cinematography and editing take the back seat to dialogue and acting. It's a good thing that the performances across the board do the script justice.The criticism I have of the film is just how predictably things unfold. Big reveals and turning points in the case are predicted by the characters during trial preparation meetings. When these big reveals actually happen in the courtroom, the audience is already expecting them, and their power is lost. The underwhelming reveals pale in comparison to films like "12 Angry Men," or other similar court dramas with unexpected narrative twists.The film is also pretty uncompelling on a larger, thematic level. It seems to be an indictment of the "for the greater good" moral system that the military operates with. Military bigwig Col. Jessup (Jack Nicholson) is a stereotypical testosterone-filled figure with warrior-like pride. Jessup is not likable and not very complex at all, an easy target for the audience to vilify. Even lower-ranking soldiers are blamed for following orders that perpetuate the military's culture. The film almost comes off as purely anti-military more than anti-military culture.In a lot of ways, "A Few Good Men " plays like a long episode of the West Wing. Sorkin's style comes through clearly and the film is fun, even though it feels like it could have reached greater heights.