The Caine Mutiny Court-Martial

I love the echoey, stark sound of the set....masterful. It shows how these things actually are on occasion. As a former military officer who sat on two courts martial, one was held in a small office, one was held in an actual courtroom that echoed eerily like this set.

It was refreshingly taut, and my gut was taut as well during the entire production.....bravo on that point. When these types of proceedings occur, people's lives are irretrievably altered...whether for good or ill.

And the lack of music was awesome! Real life has no soundtrack......

I thought the lighting was accurate, and the whole atmosphere felt like something large was going to happen....whether that was going to be good...or bad....we don't know....

As a lawyer, I was pleased that the objections and decisions by the court were pretty accurate.

Final verdict? We could all benefit from more productions in this sphere...well done.

Without revealing spoilers (the ending spoils things quite well enough all on its own), let's just say you'd be much better off reading the 1954 novel "The Caine Mutiny" instead...

This film adaptation attempts to modernize the book's story, which was originally set in WWII era, Pacific Theater, whereas the film is current time, Middle Eastern seas. The modernization itself wasn't really the problem per se, but it definitely didn't help that some of the events differed too much to properly illustrate the characters' mental states and reasonings behind their actions/behaviors.

The main problem with the adaptation arises from the fact that it only covers the court martial trial, cutting out huge chunks of the story both before and after the trial in the book...

This robs the film of the contextual explanations necessary to fully make sense of the ending; which, in the novel, are revealed by the cut story sections, as the reader is led to compare and contrast the different events that occur for the key characters (Queeg, Keefer, Maryk, etc).

Without the rest of the book's story, the conclusions drawn by and the actions of defense attorney Greenwald (in the film's ending) seem way out of line with what appears to have been the truth, as is revealed to viewers during the film version's trial-only storyline.

The result, in my opinion, is an ending that feels confused and disjointed; and ultimately stains an otherwise great courtroom procedural drama...

In well-cast Naval court-room drama "The Caine Mutiny Court-Martial" Executive Officer Jake Lacy is accused of a mutiny against overbearing (and unhinged?) Captain Kiefer Sutherland. Set almost entirely in the court-room Lacy is defended by Jason Clarke (terrific) & prosecuted by Monica Raymund, all before judge Lance Reddick (and his unspeaking peers) with summoned witnesses like Jay Duplass. Despite the stark unchanging setting, tv-standard production qualities, & some dodgy support performances, veteran writer / director William Freidkin summons some decent buzz & tension... though this will def'ly go down as a poor man's "A Few Good Men".

Having recently watched the original Caine Mutiny, I was excited to see how such a strong cast and director could retell the story for a modern audience.

Right out of the gate, the pace of the movie was off. Cut scene to each witness, no time spend on any transition between them.

Then there's the scene with Lt Keefer. The original movie provided a clear understanding of his motives. In this one the Keefer and Maryk dynamic during the trial is not explored. No dots connected for the viewer, just a simple glazed over opportunity to develop the story.

The final scene left me puzzled. The message it sends is diminished from the takeaway of the original. Moral courage and fortitude are nowhere to be found. Maryk is made to be a one dimensional buffoon.

9/10 for the actors, 4/10 for the message and muddled delivery.

I liked this movie, not as much as the 1950's version starring Humphrey Bogart or the original Herman Wouk novel, but I liked it.

Yes, this version is brought forward out of the WWII genre to 'present day', and yes, that pulls a little wind out of its sails, but it is also more 'iffy' on the occurrences and situations which means the viewer has more responsibility or chance to agree or disagree with what happened, i.e., was it a mutiny or a lawful act?

In the original movie, Bogart was shown to be pretty much off his rocker or at least sliding down the slope to being unhinged, but Kiefer Sutherland in this movie does not show much of that behavior which is why I say the viewer is left with the decision.

Yes, the ending could have been lengthened and strengthened a bit to really let the viewer know, but then again, here we have a Captain that does some outlandish things but was that enough to justify a mutiny? You have to really decide the verdict.

The actors were all pretty good in the film, Maryk was good as a po'd "I was right" type guy (that really fits in with the way people are these days), Queeg was more "I been doing my job for 20 years and have never had a complaint and by goodness I am the captain and I am the one who decides what goes on in my ship, this ain't no democracy", Greenwald was a bit sleazy or at least took that approach to a difficult case, the prosecutor was one of those "you violated the code of conduct and by goodness you are going to pay for it" zealots which was perhaps a bit too strong, the ordinary seaman was actually pretty sublime by showing how nervous he was, and the Chief Judge was very strong in his portrayal.

Some people may have problems with the way The Navy is portrayed in this film in that they don't understand that as the captain of a US Navy vessel, one is completely and ultimately responsible for every little thing that happens on or to that boat, good or bad, and that as a result, discipline, rank, and orders must be maintained otherwise the captain effectively becomes meaningless and we're at "who votes for sailing to Italy for some spaghetti and who votes for cruising to Greece for some souvlakia?"...