A Few Good Men (1992) featuring Demi Moore as Lt. Cdr. Galloway

A Few Good Men

I know an Air Force Colonel. A woman. A Few Good Men is her favorite film. It inspired her to pursue an illustrious career in the U.S. military.
The power of filmmaking, folks. Wonders abound.

The Behavior of Several

The title makes no sense.
‘A few’ = three.
But this is A Couple Good Men & A Good Woman. Quite the oversight for the prestigious writing-directing team.

Even viewers who haven’t seen The West Wing can sense Aaron Sorkin’s fingerprints early on. This is pre-West Wing Sorkin—witty, loaded dialogue delivered with pacing that never lets up. He and director Rob Reiner would reunite three years later for The American President (1995), the test run for Sorkin’s future in television.

Top 6 Sorkin Writings

  • The Social Network (2010)
  • Charlie Wilson’s War (2007)
  • Molly’s Game (2017)
  • Moneyball (2011)
  • Steve Jobs (2015)
  • A Few Good Men (1992)

Six of the best films ever made. Using words & ink. Sorkin may be our finest living screenwriter.
His first piece, thirty years later, still holds up!

Guantanamo Bay

Gitmo. Is that the one where the watermelons grow?
Heard of it a million times, never retained anything on the location. Until now.

But only a small portion of this courtroom drama is set on the marine base. Guantanamo feels a lot less bay-like afterward. The scenes set on the military base leave an impression of sadness and desperation.

The film opens strong with the color guard—rifle tosses, clean camera work, tight sound. It’s a fast immersion into military tradition, and the stakes get serious quick. A tribute to the fallen.

Our protagonist is Tom Cruise’s Lieutenant Kaffee who wrestles with personal doubt.
It’s the external tension—the legal maneuvering, the moral lines—that holds the viewer. The film asks: What is truth? When is justification justified?

Demi Moore as Lt. Cmdr. JoAnne Galloway is the deuteragonist.
Kevin Pollack is excellent, the tritagonist, Lt. Sam Weinberg. He delivers a meaningful performance. He refuses to rise to Cruise’s energy – to the film’s benefit. His clean delivery grounds the audience.

Moore, on the other hand, perhaps makes the mistake of trying to meet Cruise’s intensity head-on. There’s a level of self-consciousness in her acting I hadn’t noticed before—not until seeing The Substance. Her scenes with Cruise hum with tension, but her performance strains when she tries to match his rhythm. She’s strongest when still—when she leads with principle, not pace.

Despite that, I’ve enormous respect for the woman’s career.
Her decision to take on this challenging role helped inspire a woman to become a Colonel in the Air Force.
That matters.
Her cap—like Cruise’s, like Sorkin’s—is full of feathers.

Nicholson plays the antagonist, Colonel Jessup, with a chilling balance of calm and menace. You sense his entitlement before he ever raises his voice. The man is dangerous because he believes in what he’s done. He doesn’t just lie—he reframes his actions as necessary.

The One Bad Man

Because while the legal case is complex and the ensemble deep, this is really a film about one bad man. Jessup’s early dialogue is delivered in such a measured tone, we’re not sure whether to distrust or admire him. He doesn’t exude chaos—he exudes control. That’s what makes him dangerous. He believes himself righteous.

And yet, what makes us turn on him isn’t the legal gray area—it’s the moment he machismos a line about “nothing better than getting a blowjob from a superior officer,” while Galloway’s his captive audience. She’s forced to sit through it. That’s the moment his mask fully drops.

The hazing, the lies, the cover-up—they stack up. But that moment reveals he doesn’t deserve the power he holds. He doesn’t respect the rank he hides behind.

That’s when we want him punished. That’s when the facts better fall in line, because the audience is ready for justice.

The film is dense with legalese and military jargon, but that’s part of the texture. Sorkin’s dialogue keeps the momentum—even when we’re not sure what’s at stake, we stay locked in. Kaffee and Galloway may be sharp lawyers, but they’re still feeling each other out. We’re watching that tension build.

Early signs of Sorkin’s walk-and-talks are here too. The characters roam through hallways, hit grounders to the infield, eat apples—always moving. Always talking. It’s real, kinetic. It’s what makes the film so alive.

Cruise brings relentless energy. He’s magnetic. Demi Moore holds her own, even if there’s strain. Pollack’s steady; reliable.
And Nicholson? He’s seamless.

Even when we know precisely where the plot is heading, the most effective films keep us engaged thruout the foreseen unraveling.
The ethics of hazing and forging flight manifests. The nuances of physical fitness exams.
These materially factual details don’t need to line up perfectly when the film ends.

We know justice has been delivered to an individual who desperately needed it.
Facts be damned.
We can feel the evidence.

★★★★ ★★★★

Shorter versions at IMDb and Letterboxd.

Emily Blunt in combat gear in Edge of Tomorrow (2014)

Edge of Tomorrow

If you see one flick all summer then look no further.

It’s not only the best of the season, Edge of Tomorrow is the top release so far this year. It’s still playing in some theaters so catch it before it completely leaves the big screen.

Whether you’re a film buff or just the occasional theatergoer, you’ll love this science fiction thriller. It’s riveting, smart, inventive and fun.

With a massive budget, a strong supporting cast of knowns and unknowns, and top-notch special effects; the cinematic experience doesn’t get any better.

But it’s the story you’ll dig most. EoT is similar to last year’s Ender’s Game by offering an original take on extraterrestrial invasion. The ‘mimics’ are organic, menacing and wildly compelling.

To pile on top, the plot fiddles with time travel in the smartest way.

Let’s discuss discouraging numbers.

Edge of Tomorrow pulled $28 million for third place in the box office opening weekend, behind Maleficent in 2nd place, and The Fault In Our Stars which made $48M.

According to budgetary estimates on IMDB, TFIOS cost $12M to produce, and EoT cost $178M. So far EoT grossed almost $95M, but still tails behind its wretched usurper (TFIOS) at nearly $120M.

EoT is making up for it overseas, but the statistics speak for themselves: American moviegoers reward bad dromantic quirkedies over well-crafted science fiction.

This disappoints me.

Anyway, back to the film.

A common criticism regards the title. I’ve heard four separate voices speak out about it. But there’s a trend: Nobody ever suggests a better one, or explains why it’s poor.

It’s certainly better than the title of the novel the screenplay’s adapted from, “All You Need is Kill” by Hiroshi Sakurazaka.

Perhaps ‘Precipice of Yesterday’ is better? ‘Threshold of Today’ is definitely a downgrade.

Now. If the argument regards the title’s inadequacy in capturing the attention of the American viewing audience, I’m listening. It’s got to be more than just, “Edge of Tomorrow is a bad title.”

Tom Cruise never gets enough credit. He stars (as two different characters named ‘Jack,’ ironically) in two great movies from last year, Oblivion and Jack Reacher. He’s acted in at least fifteen fantastic films (and no, this doesn’t include Jerry Maguire) most of which he’s the leading role.

Quick T.C. top five: Rain Man (1988), Magnolia (1999), Minority Report (2002), Risky Business (1983) and Eyes Wide Shut (1999).

He’s one of our finest, most accomplished actors working today. You can add yet another fantastic film to the list and consider him adequately credited.

Emily Blunt’s acting is perfect, but we don’t get enough combat out of her.

Although she’s often wielding an awesome futuristic sword, she doesn’t dispatch many mimics with it. Probably due to the unfortunate PG-13 rating.

There’s a shot of Blunt as she gets up out of a yoga pose. As enjoyable as it is, it happens three or four times and it’s one too many.

Another undesirable moment occurs when Nance (played by Charlotte Riley) uses the phrase, “Could I trouble you for a glass of shut the hell up?”

It’s a jarring cliché and her phrasing’s not realistic. She’d choose a stronger curse word.

As irksome as it is, one can argue it’s a nod to the Nursing Home Orderly played by Ben Stiller in Happy Gilmore. This interpretation’s a stretch, but it’s preferable.

All in all, these are small scratches on a fresh finish; unworthy of dwelling upon.

What’s worthy of dwell is the ending. (Beware, a spoiler follows.)

Something doesn’t add up. According to screenwriter Christopher McQuarrie the filmmakers only solidified the ending while shooting was underway. Some of the backlash responds to the ‘happiness’ of the movie’s conclusion.

I’m more concerned with the pre-established rules of the fictive universe, and how the time reset could work in such a way on the mimics’ final day. There’s no precedent to suggest the time interval would increase upon the aliens’ destruction.

Again, this is neither here nor there.

Whichever way you slice it, Edge of Tomorrow is terrific.

I can’t wait for Edge of the Day After Tomorrow, where the mimics rise again and develop flight capabilities. Let’s get Blunt in jet-propelled boots, and give her a second sword, just in case.

★★★ ★★★ ★★★

Briefer takes at IMDb & Letterboxd.