21 reviews
- WildBill-15
- Jul 28, 2006
- Permalink
The television movie version of THE CAINE MUTINY COURT-MARTIAL is a nice production by Robert Altman. It lacks the briny spirit of the film - so much of which was shot on ships or at sea (including a typhoon sequence). But it is taught and claustrophobic for most of the story - it being set in the Court-Martial room (a bit of the end of the play is at the post-trial acquittal party). The results is a different telling of the story, and one relying on the audience's own evaluation of the truth or lies of the different witnesses. While it still ends in the revelation of Queeg's (Brad Davis's) behavior on the stand, there is more that comes out.
I've mentioned this when reviewing the movie. Queeg is first taken down a peg by Greenwald (Eric Bogosian) not on issues of fitness of command, but on his honesty. It turns out that Queeg (like other commanders of the naval ships) were allowed a certain level of tax free purchases from Hawaii to the mainland of various luxury items, such as alcohol. Queeg had overused this right - actually exceeded the legal limit, and was chastised for this by the Pearl Harbor command. Queeg denies this happened, but Greenwald explains that he can ask for an hour's delay to get the necessary officers to come and testify if necessary. So Queeg suddenly "remembers" there was some kind of chastisement. It is the first misstep the Captain makes in his testimony.
Greenwald also faces secret hostility (not shown in the film, by the way) as a Jewish officer. There is an undercurrent working against Greenwald and his clients in the anti-Semitism of the Navy brass, especially the prosecutor. At the end of the trial, aware that Greenwald has destroyed what should have been an open-and-shut case of mutiny, the prosecutor actually reveals his anti-Semitic feelings about the "tricks" used by Greenwald.
The other major change is at the conclusion. In the film, a drunken Greenwald (Jose Ferrer) confronts Lt. Tom Keefer (Fred MacMurray) at the celebration party as the real manipulator of the Caine Mutiny, who kept himself clean at the expense of Maryk and Keith), and after tossing a drink into his face and saying if he wants to make anything of it to come outside. Greenwald also tells off the crew officers present that they failed to give Queeg the support he asked for at one point - that Queeg for all his flaws was defending the country while they were nice and safe. The stunned men leave the party one by one, leaving a disgraced Keefer all alone.
In the play, Greenwald does show up, and does tell off Keefer and the crew's officers, but all the officers (except Keefer, who is disgraced), are already drunk, and they don't listen to what Greenwald is saying. Not even Maryk and Keith (Jeff Daniels and Daniel Jenkins) - who are too busy celebrating to care. It is an interesting difference from the movie's conclusion. Nice production, with a different style and angle to the story.
I've mentioned this when reviewing the movie. Queeg is first taken down a peg by Greenwald (Eric Bogosian) not on issues of fitness of command, but on his honesty. It turns out that Queeg (like other commanders of the naval ships) were allowed a certain level of tax free purchases from Hawaii to the mainland of various luxury items, such as alcohol. Queeg had overused this right - actually exceeded the legal limit, and was chastised for this by the Pearl Harbor command. Queeg denies this happened, but Greenwald explains that he can ask for an hour's delay to get the necessary officers to come and testify if necessary. So Queeg suddenly "remembers" there was some kind of chastisement. It is the first misstep the Captain makes in his testimony.
Greenwald also faces secret hostility (not shown in the film, by the way) as a Jewish officer. There is an undercurrent working against Greenwald and his clients in the anti-Semitism of the Navy brass, especially the prosecutor. At the end of the trial, aware that Greenwald has destroyed what should have been an open-and-shut case of mutiny, the prosecutor actually reveals his anti-Semitic feelings about the "tricks" used by Greenwald.
The other major change is at the conclusion. In the film, a drunken Greenwald (Jose Ferrer) confronts Lt. Tom Keefer (Fred MacMurray) at the celebration party as the real manipulator of the Caine Mutiny, who kept himself clean at the expense of Maryk and Keith), and after tossing a drink into his face and saying if he wants to make anything of it to come outside. Greenwald also tells off the crew officers present that they failed to give Queeg the support he asked for at one point - that Queeg for all his flaws was defending the country while they were nice and safe. The stunned men leave the party one by one, leaving a disgraced Keefer all alone.
In the play, Greenwald does show up, and does tell off Keefer and the crew's officers, but all the officers (except Keefer, who is disgraced), are already drunk, and they don't listen to what Greenwald is saying. Not even Maryk and Keith (Jeff Daniels and Daniel Jenkins) - who are too busy celebrating to care. It is an interesting difference from the movie's conclusion. Nice production, with a different style and angle to the story.
- theowinthrop
- Oct 22, 2005
- Permalink
Filmed theatre and made for television, yet as brilliant as any of Robert Altman's feature films, (and more brilliant than some), "The Caine Mutiny Court Martial", as its title attests, deals only with the trial that makes up the last part of Herman Wouk's novel "The Caine Mutiny" and is based on the Broadway play rather than the 1954 film version with which it will undoubtedly be compared. Of course, Dmytryk's film has already become legendary thanks almost entirely to Humphrey Bogart's brilliant turn as Captain Queeg, here played by Brad Davis and he's this films weakest link. What made Bogart's performance great was that his Queeg was a multi-faceted character whereas Davis comes across as a certifiable loon from the get-go. On the other hand, everyone else is just fine; Jeff Daniels as the lieutenant charged with mutiny, Eric Bogosian as his defending lawyer, Michael Murphy as the presiding officer at the court martial, Peter Gallagher as the judge advocate prosecuting the case and Altman's roving camera and use of sound ensures this is as cinematic as anything he did.
- MOscarbradley
- Jul 12, 2014
- Permalink
Robert Altman's simple and brilliant reprise of the celebrated fictional naval trial succeeds both as a series of character studies, and, more effectively than the Bogart film, as a rebuke of the sprawling anti-military novels (such as the Naked and the Dead) that followed World War II. Unlike the 1954 movie, this version is based on Herman Wouk's stage play and focuses exclusively on the trial itself. As events focus on the progression of witnesses in the temporary courtroom (it's a converted gym), each man is scrutinized under a microscope which reveals strengths, weaknesses, hypocrisy and anguish.
Facing the thankless task of following in Bogart's wake, Brad Davis gives an edgy performance as Qeeg, a ticky personality that slowly melts and becomes unglued in the witness chair. Eric Bogosian is just as watchable as Lt Greenwald, the razor-sharp defense lawyer who is torn as the issues of the trial tear into his own changing moral attitudes about the war. A cynical intellectual when he entered the Marines as a flyer, Greenwald now sees the pragmatic need for a structured military to defeat the evils of fascism (particularly as a Jewish American). To win the trial, he must destroy the life of a career officer and he's sick about it.
Jeff Daniels, Peter Gallagher and the rest of the cast are all top drawer. The 1988 TV Movie version is also able to briefly touch on issues of anti-Semitism and homosexuality that were expunged in the 50s big-screen version. The Caine Mutiny Court Martial offers that all-too-rare treat of allowing Hollywood stars to get into some meaty characters and performances which are normally reserved for the stage. Offered with Altman's trademark overlapping dialogue, it's great drama, an under-appreciated gem, and is well worth 100 minutes of your time.
Facing the thankless task of following in Bogart's wake, Brad Davis gives an edgy performance as Qeeg, a ticky personality that slowly melts and becomes unglued in the witness chair. Eric Bogosian is just as watchable as Lt Greenwald, the razor-sharp defense lawyer who is torn as the issues of the trial tear into his own changing moral attitudes about the war. A cynical intellectual when he entered the Marines as a flyer, Greenwald now sees the pragmatic need for a structured military to defeat the evils of fascism (particularly as a Jewish American). To win the trial, he must destroy the life of a career officer and he's sick about it.
Jeff Daniels, Peter Gallagher and the rest of the cast are all top drawer. The 1988 TV Movie version is also able to briefly touch on issues of anti-Semitism and homosexuality that were expunged in the 50s big-screen version. The Caine Mutiny Court Martial offers that all-too-rare treat of allowing Hollywood stars to get into some meaty characters and performances which are normally reserved for the stage. Offered with Altman's trademark overlapping dialogue, it's great drama, an under-appreciated gem, and is well worth 100 minutes of your time.
Overall, this is an entertaining, if not instructive, rendition of what Wouk got onto paper. It's well worth watching for everyone who loved Wouk's novel. The richness of what he wrote has led us to the world of private imagination, and films can seldom satisfy the complexity here. The problem seems to be miscasting in several directions. One is expecting a little more gray and perhaps a bit more subtlety in Davis's performance of the paranoid Queeg; this constant rolling of steel balls is probably overdone. That is to say, perhaps, there is only one Bogart, but there is a certain plausibility missing here. Bogosian makes a capable Greenwald, but once more, there is no solid grounding here of a wounded flier -- and so we also have a puny Keifer and a Maryk without the hue of seamanship. The callow Willie, however, fits the bill, as does Ken Michels as Dr. Bird, the smug psychiatrist. That, we found entertaining. We agree with the first reviewer that the director stepped on some lines with background noise, and we'll never understand why Greenwald had to fight to be heard at the party. In addition, everyone seems about the same age in this movie, like a fraternity costume party. Wouk's work has much to tell us about our own times. We'd like to see someone do this again, with a deeper commitment than what Robert Altman has provided.
Excellent dramatic rendition of the final segment of Wouk's great novel. All the players made this picture come off looking like a real court marshall. Davis' portrayal of the oddball Queeg showed a man with a skewed personality and totally obsessed with an authority complex. Finally, Bogosian's Barney Greenwald's rant at the celebration party was the high point of the film. Courtroom enthusiasts should go for this one.
- helpless_dancer
- Jun 24, 2002
- Permalink
This was an good adaptation of the Caine story. I've read the original book on which the story was based, and have seen the 1950s film version many times, but hadn't seen a stage version of this film. (Wouk wrote both the book and this play.) This version is interesting on several levels. First, unlike the original story, everything is stripped out except the courtroom scenes and the party afterward. This allows us to experience the story without having seen it first, which allows us to view the Queeg story fresh, without having seen it ourselves and formed opinions about it.
Also, Altman wisely chose actors which were very unlike (in most cases) the 1954 version of the story. The most noteworth, of course, is Queeg himself, with Davis doing a very credible job that is very different from the Bogart portrayal. (For one thing, Davis is a very different physical type than Bogart and is a lot younger.) Keefer is good too - and again, different than the 1954 version, with Fred McMurray in the role.
And, of course, this film has the usual Altman technique of using a lot of side conversations that are barely heard and added noises to make the film seem more naturalistic. As others noted, this is most evident during the party scene at the end, but it used with good effect during the rest of the movie too.
Overall a nice piece of work.
Also, Altman wisely chose actors which were very unlike (in most cases) the 1954 version of the story. The most noteworth, of course, is Queeg himself, with Davis doing a very credible job that is very different from the Bogart portrayal. (For one thing, Davis is a very different physical type than Bogart and is a lot younger.) Keefer is good too - and again, different than the 1954 version, with Fred McMurray in the role.
And, of course, this film has the usual Altman technique of using a lot of side conversations that are barely heard and added noises to make the film seem more naturalistic. As others noted, this is most evident during the party scene at the end, but it used with good effect during the rest of the movie too.
Overall a nice piece of work.
- hankhanks12345
- Oct 8, 2005
- Permalink
The story will probably be familiar to most, as it is a famous work that has been done many times over, both on the stage and screen. Unfortunately most of the other variations are probably better. It is a tribute to the original work that a flawed production like this can still capture an audience's imagination and manage to entertain even when 99% of the film takes place in a single, sterile location. The production relies on the strength its acting, with such standouts as Jeff Daniels, Brad Davis and Peter Gallagher delivering stellar performances. The film undeniably suffers from its spartan set though when it comes to the final act and Greenwald finally confronts Keefer. His anger seems so out of place because we've only seen Keefer in one brief scene and we are given nothing to hold against the character. Bogart's version at least had the benefit of flashbacks to the actual events to lend context to trial. Yet if one is a fan of the original play or movie you can do far worse than to see the material plays out like it would on the stage.
We have a phrase in England, a 'curate's egg', which means, good in parts.
On the positive side, this is very much a Robert Altman film in the best sense, He displayed again here to best advantage how he can create not just one backstory but a whole world of backstories just in a converted naval gym which is serving as ad hoc courtroom for a court martial. There were the stories of the principal characters, to be sure, to be given time and attention in the script - the Caine officers, crew, judges and advocates - but what Altman did even better I think than in his other films was make each person on screen, even in the background, and I stress every person you can see either in background or foreground, appear existentially real and three dimensional. They all appear more than just either a principal actor or an extra, as we know them variously to be as members of a cast, but in Altman's subtly shifting focus on screen, in what they are shown doing, even if we can't hear what they are saying or not quite sure what they are doing, they come across as real people, mostly naval personnel, of course, with real activities and real lives taking place simultaneously with the people and events staging in the foreground. I am not sure that any other director ever has managed that as well as Altman.
Focussing on the trial itself, the script is highly literate and gives a fascinating insight into naval protocol, attitudes and tradition, and, of course, into the conflict of personalities and within personalities, of men at war, with the advantage of the extra detail that such focusing allowed, in comparison with the 1954 Edward Dmytryk original film which had to cover both the actual naval action and the court room drama. Though, I want to say here, that the Edward Dmytryk film managed to portray with admirable faithfulness and admirable economy a long book, and with first class acting and production values of its own.
On the negative side, and it is no reflection on Brad Davis, but I have seen the film with Humphrey Bogart and also the stage play in London with Charlton Heston and none of them quite manages right the moment when Captain Queeg starts slipping from a reasonable officer, if something of a martinet, into one who, it turns out, has been over-promoted, probably because of the exigencies of war, to the point where he presents clear symptoms of mental disintegration. That is maybe a weakness of the writing in what is otherwise a very fine war drama by Herman Wouk which perhaps no actor can overcome.
I do miss the drama of the actual scenes aboard ship. As I say, the original film managed to portray the gripping action of the sea drama and then with well-judged economy the trial and compressed it successfully into about the same length of time as Altman's film concentrating almost solely on the trial. Also, the final party scene is far better handled in the 1954 film with the confrontation between the defending advocate, played by Jose Ferrer, and Fred MacMurray as the barrack room lawyer Keefer striking a far more dramatic note. After an otherwise taut film, Altman's ends on rather a flat note.
However, I am glad of this new adaptation of the Caine Mutiny, because it is fascinating to compare the two films which nicely complement each other. I think Herman Wouk's Caine Mutiny is one of the best ever World War II stories ever written and subsequently screened, not just for its action but its psychological subtlety and depth. Sadly, his Winds of War is a let-down but that is matter for another review.
On the positive side, this is very much a Robert Altman film in the best sense, He displayed again here to best advantage how he can create not just one backstory but a whole world of backstories just in a converted naval gym which is serving as ad hoc courtroom for a court martial. There were the stories of the principal characters, to be sure, to be given time and attention in the script - the Caine officers, crew, judges and advocates - but what Altman did even better I think than in his other films was make each person on screen, even in the background, and I stress every person you can see either in background or foreground, appear existentially real and three dimensional. They all appear more than just either a principal actor or an extra, as we know them variously to be as members of a cast, but in Altman's subtly shifting focus on screen, in what they are shown doing, even if we can't hear what they are saying or not quite sure what they are doing, they come across as real people, mostly naval personnel, of course, with real activities and real lives taking place simultaneously with the people and events staging in the foreground. I am not sure that any other director ever has managed that as well as Altman.
Focussing on the trial itself, the script is highly literate and gives a fascinating insight into naval protocol, attitudes and tradition, and, of course, into the conflict of personalities and within personalities, of men at war, with the advantage of the extra detail that such focusing allowed, in comparison with the 1954 Edward Dmytryk original film which had to cover both the actual naval action and the court room drama. Though, I want to say here, that the Edward Dmytryk film managed to portray with admirable faithfulness and admirable economy a long book, and with first class acting and production values of its own.
On the negative side, and it is no reflection on Brad Davis, but I have seen the film with Humphrey Bogart and also the stage play in London with Charlton Heston and none of them quite manages right the moment when Captain Queeg starts slipping from a reasonable officer, if something of a martinet, into one who, it turns out, has been over-promoted, probably because of the exigencies of war, to the point where he presents clear symptoms of mental disintegration. That is maybe a weakness of the writing in what is otherwise a very fine war drama by Herman Wouk which perhaps no actor can overcome.
I do miss the drama of the actual scenes aboard ship. As I say, the original film managed to portray the gripping action of the sea drama and then with well-judged economy the trial and compressed it successfully into about the same length of time as Altman's film concentrating almost solely on the trial. Also, the final party scene is far better handled in the 1954 film with the confrontation between the defending advocate, played by Jose Ferrer, and Fred MacMurray as the barrack room lawyer Keefer striking a far more dramatic note. After an otherwise taut film, Altman's ends on rather a flat note.
However, I am glad of this new adaptation of the Caine Mutiny, because it is fascinating to compare the two films which nicely complement each other. I think Herman Wouk's Caine Mutiny is one of the best ever World War II stories ever written and subsequently screened, not just for its action but its psychological subtlety and depth. Sadly, his Winds of War is a let-down but that is matter for another review.
Wouk's play is an ingenious bit of storytelling, and it's wonderful that he managed to convey so much information in such an absorbing fashion in the dry world of the courtroom. Altman strikes me as an odd choice as director of a play, since he insists as usual on periodically drowning out the dialog in background noise. The courtroom scenes that are the bulk of the movie are a good example of how distracting and artificial this technique is; it often feels like he just does these cutaways and miscellaneous chatter out of habit rather than necessity. Even Altman must recognize how distracting it is, as he jettisons this technique in Queeq's final testimony. On the other hand, the same chaotic, lost sound technique is quite effective in the final scene, where it actually makes sense and creates a sense of drunken anarchy that fits well with the scene.
Bogosian is excellent, exuding his usual caged tiger intensity to great effect. After seeing Humphrey Bogart's terrific performance it's a little difficult to accept Davis's pursed martinet, yet in the end he is probably closer to what such a character would really be like and his last scene is effective, with Davis and Altman both underplaying what in other hands could be an over-the-top scene.
Daniels is pretty forgettable, but it's a small role. All in all well worth watching.
Bogosian is excellent, exuding his usual caged tiger intensity to great effect. After seeing Humphrey Bogart's terrific performance it's a little difficult to accept Davis's pursed martinet, yet in the end he is probably closer to what such a character would really be like and his last scene is effective, with Davis and Altman both underplaying what in other hands could be an over-the-top scene.
Daniels is pretty forgettable, but it's a small role. All in all well worth watching.
- marktayloruk
- Apr 23, 2020
- Permalink
All of the comments before this one are perfectly true in saying this is a great film, even more so considering it was made for TV. Having read The Caine Mutiny and having seen the movie numerous times I already knew many of the incidents referred to in the courtmartial dialog. I wondered how good a film it would be to someone totally unfamiliar with the Bogart film and the book. Queeg was a stinker but I still felt sorry for the SOB. Now in REAL life, Maryk would have been found guilty no matter how loony his CO was.
- cousin_chuck
- Jul 28, 2002
- Permalink
I thought that this was a truly superb legal drama. Set within a court martial as Lt. Maryk (Jeff Daniels) is on trial for mutiny after relieving his commanding officer Commander Queeg (Brad Davis) on board the USS Caine during a typhoon, the movie has a gritty and realistic feel to it; the viewer gets a sense of being a fly on the wall at a real court martial, Pretty much the entire movie until the last 15 minutes or so is set in the gymnasium that's hosting the court martial. We watch the attorneys and the court, we hear the testimony. It's all quite fascinating. I immediately drew a comparison with a movie like "Twelve Angry Men," which was, of course, set completely inside a jury room as the viewer watches the deliberations.
The undisputed star of the movie was Erik Bogosian as Lt. Greenwald - Maryk's defence attorney. With his strategy seeming to be confusing at first, Greenwald manages to turn the tables with his examination of Commander Queeg - turning this from a trial about Maryk's actions into a trial about Queeg's competence. Bogosian was superb in the role. The lead prosecutor (Lt. Cmdr. Challee) was played by Peter Gallagher and Michael Murphy played the presiding officer of the court, Captain Blakely. All the performances were superb. I did think that Davis may have overplayed the role of Queeg, because I was thinking from the very first moments of his testimony why anyone would think he was competent to be the commander of a warship. Ken Michels (who is he - he made only this one movie and I can't find anything about him aside from it) also seemed kind of over the top as a very arrogant young psychiatrist called to testify about Queeg's mental state. But there are few complaints to be made about the performances.
But the last 15 minutes. They didn't work for me. I know this was in keeping with both the Wouk novel and the 1954 movie, but this movie could have and should have been allowed to stand on its own as a legal drama, with none of the melodrama of the party scene at the end. That's why "Twelve Angry Men" worked so well. The deliberations were over, the trial ended and the jurors went their separate ways. But here, after the trial was over, Greenwald goes to a party and lets loose shall we say. Yes, we learn about him and about his motives and goals in taking on Maryk's case. But without some essential backstory it didn't work that well, and I really just wanted this to be a courtroom drama. Were I ever to watch this again I'd stop with the end of the trial. As a movie about a court martial, this is excellent. But for me it loses a point for the way they chose to end it. (7/10)
The undisputed star of the movie was Erik Bogosian as Lt. Greenwald - Maryk's defence attorney. With his strategy seeming to be confusing at first, Greenwald manages to turn the tables with his examination of Commander Queeg - turning this from a trial about Maryk's actions into a trial about Queeg's competence. Bogosian was superb in the role. The lead prosecutor (Lt. Cmdr. Challee) was played by Peter Gallagher and Michael Murphy played the presiding officer of the court, Captain Blakely. All the performances were superb. I did think that Davis may have overplayed the role of Queeg, because I was thinking from the very first moments of his testimony why anyone would think he was competent to be the commander of a warship. Ken Michels (who is he - he made only this one movie and I can't find anything about him aside from it) also seemed kind of over the top as a very arrogant young psychiatrist called to testify about Queeg's mental state. But there are few complaints to be made about the performances.
But the last 15 minutes. They didn't work for me. I know this was in keeping with both the Wouk novel and the 1954 movie, but this movie could have and should have been allowed to stand on its own as a legal drama, with none of the melodrama of the party scene at the end. That's why "Twelve Angry Men" worked so well. The deliberations were over, the trial ended and the jurors went their separate ways. But here, after the trial was over, Greenwald goes to a party and lets loose shall we say. Yes, we learn about him and about his motives and goals in taking on Maryk's case. But without some essential backstory it didn't work that well, and I really just wanted this to be a courtroom drama. Were I ever to watch this again I'd stop with the end of the trial. As a movie about a court martial, this is excellent. But for me it loses a point for the way they chose to end it. (7/10)
- Irishchatter
- Feb 20, 2016
- Permalink
I went into this movie for one reason only--I'm a huge Peter Gallagher fan. That aside, it took some time for me, a non-military civilian to get past the military language and settle down for a remarkable movie about a navy court martial. The characters are brilliant, and the direction (by the always wonderful Robert Altman) was superb. The story is interesting to males and females, for different reasons I suppose. I found this movie much more interesting than a recent court martial movie, Rules of Engagement, which seemed to glorify in it's large budget and bloody special effects. The Caine Mutiny Court Martial is a simple film, shot in only 2 settings, but gives you a satisfaction and also a disturbing feel after the film is over. I highly recommend it.
- mark.waltz
- Nov 15, 2021
- Permalink
I love Robert Altman's persona, a kind of hippy apres la lettre. He'd be fun to have dinner with. But I can never get with his movies. No matter how carefully he explains why he constructed them as he did, it always comes out sounding to me like a burglar's explanation of why the victim brought it on himself because he should never have left the windows wide open in the first place. This TV production is better than most of his movies, though. As a courtroom drama it almost has to be since the focus is almost always on exchanges between two or three people in an otherwise silent courtroom. (When Altman gets a chance, as in the party scene, he lets everything go so that when Barney Greenwald gives his climactic speech, the signal is almost buried in the surrounding noise.) I hate to be negative because, as I say, I like Altman and think the novel is marvelous -- I reread it every two years or so. But the production seems underlighted and unnecessarily dark, which casts a gloom over the exciting proceedings. The performances are okay but they don't always fit the part. Bogosian is nice as Greenwald. Daniels is a bit trim and comes across as more intelligent than he might be. (He ought to be like a brown bull getting the banderillas placed.) The Keefer character is miscast, period. Here, he is soft-spoken and deliberate, completely in control of himself, whereas Keefer knew very well that he was tanking his close friend during his testimony and was nervous and guilty. (His right foot danced all during his testimony in the novel, and he could not meet Maryk's intense gaze.) Keefer is always nervous -- except when he's lambasting the navy, then he comes into his own. These nervous tics are here given to the psychiatrist, a guy who definitely should NOT have had them, so that his frosty complacency could be more effectively destroyed by Greenwald. Altman turns the shrink into a complete fool with big pursed lips and thick glasses, which is extremely amusing, whether it fits or not. Just looking at this poor neurotic is a treat! Much of the success or failure of the production devolves onto Brad Davis's performance, and again the results are mixed. He is the person whose presence undergoes the most dramatic change, and Davis delivers during the breakdown scene. When I first saw this, in 1988, I was somewhat surprised at a particular twist Davis gave Queeg's character, especially during his first court appearance, a kind of wispy lisping quality, and I thought, "Geeze, is Davis trying to suggest Queeg was a homosexual?" I worried that he was going to wind up in a snit when he went to pieces, but Davis in the end projects a genuine-enough paranoid anger. Maybe if I'd never read the novel I'd have enjoyed the movie more, although I did in fact enjoy it. At least it was never insulting. I'd happily watch it again if it were on.
- rmax304823
- Aug 4, 2002
- Permalink
Good rendition of classic, around the best stage-to-screen adaptation I have seen, not stilted and free to zoom, move the camera, etc. Worked well.
Writing is of course awesome. Most of the cast is entirely believable. And here's where it may be superior to the 1954 film. The court is really believable, in every way. In the original film they were played-too-straight as The Man.
But the defense. Eric Bogosian was outstanding. One of his best roles, and I mean that. Disappeared into it in ways I do not normally see. I thought I loved José Ferrer's final party speech, but Bogosian's - and the directing, having much of it drowned out by the ongoing partiers, then confused by the end - version is truly great.
Blasphemy I know, but dunno if I miss Bogart over Brad Davis as Lt Cdr Queeg. His final courtroom performance was spot on, and played against the script and especially the judges perfectly.
However, Kevin J. O'Connor was merely fine as the truly guilty one, whereas Fred MacMurray was delightfully charming-evil, in ways that I don't know anyone could replicate.
Writing is of course awesome. Most of the cast is entirely believable. And here's where it may be superior to the 1954 film. The court is really believable, in every way. In the original film they were played-too-straight as The Man.
But the defense. Eric Bogosian was outstanding. One of his best roles, and I mean that. Disappeared into it in ways I do not normally see. I thought I loved José Ferrer's final party speech, but Bogosian's - and the directing, having much of it drowned out by the ongoing partiers, then confused by the end - version is truly great.
Blasphemy I know, but dunno if I miss Bogart over Brad Davis as Lt Cdr Queeg. His final courtroom performance was spot on, and played against the script and especially the judges perfectly.
However, Kevin J. O'Connor was merely fine as the truly guilty one, whereas Fred MacMurray was delightfully charming-evil, in ways that I don't know anyone could replicate.
- shoobe01-1
- Aug 7, 2019
- Permalink
Whilst we've seen a lot of films about courtroom dramas this is one of the best. Great acting and intriguing development of the story under Altman's masterful direction.
The ending is very strange and a real twist but it's a cracker of a film imo.
The ending is very strange and a real twist but it's a cracker of a film imo.
- Vindelander
- Feb 12, 2020
- Permalink