Reviews

Rarely does a horror film come along that chooses not to follow the current "safe" plot "trends of the moment." These films make a conscious effort to buck the system, and appear totally fresh and entertaining. One such franchise was the "Final Destination" series. Not only did these films ignore trends, they went out of their way to go against "normal" horror concepts. As a result, the films garnered quite a cult following. Unfortunately, it is this success that made a third film in the series almost doomed to fail by comparison. "Final Destination 3" attempts to trump the success of it's predecessors with more intricate deaths and odd twists of fate, but it ends up falling rather disappointingly flat.

Fundamentally, the film completely ignores everything that made the first two so fun. First and foremost is the lack of any likable characters. From the first frame, not a single person is empathetic. Even the lead, Mary Elizabeth Winstead, takes forever to be remotely relatable. Winstead's ally later in the film, Ryan Merriman, requires nearly an hour to seem friendly. The others vary from annoying to outright repugnant. Part of the reason for this is the lack of any backstory.

Truth be told, few horror films dwell on what makes characters tick--but the good ones do so in an unobtrusive yet effective manner. In "Final Destination 3," almost every character is a paper thin cliché. The athlete is portrayed as a cartoon strong man. The obligatory "sex fiend" is terribly flat. The valley-girl tanning room skanks are drawn so badly, they are from another movie altogether. The characters are so badly constructed, they can't muster up the least bit of empathy.

While that would be problematic enough, there's more: The story suffers from an overpowering "been there done that" feeling. This is inevitable with any sequel, but it's almost as if the filmmakers didn't even TRY to combat it here. Sadly, the very thing that distinguishes the "Final Destination" films--the death sequences--suffers from this the most. The scenes themselves are so involving that it seems as the director is trying too hard. But what's more unnerving is that there's no suspense: From the first drip of water on the tanning mechanism, to the nails on the floor of the hardware store, every death is telecast from miles away. Whereas the setups for each death in the first two films seemed more subtle, these seem more pedantic and predictable.

The other thing that undermines the sequences is that EVERY ONE is complex. The charm of the first two movies came from not only the "Rube Goldberg" deaths, but the "jarring deaths," as well. While the death of the French teacher in the first film was the result of temperature changes in her tea, one "survivor" at the end dies instantly while smiling on a street corner in Paris. These "shocking" deaths that made the complex ones so much more resonating.

Another misstep here is the lack any well-written comic relief, something the first two films were so successful at providing. Who can forget lines like "I'll put it on in silent mode" from "Final Destination 2?" Rarely does a memorable line like that appear, and it's sorely missed. True, Merriman's comment about Ben Franklin is great, but it's too little, too late. More moments like that could have saved this film.

The film seems oddly out of place among it's predecessors, as well. The first two films were about someone's "feeling" that something bad would happen, and their subsequent attempts to evade Death and convince others to do the same. Here, the film seems more about digital photography and weird visual clues that can help solve each death. It's almost as if the filmmakers were handed a script about a series of photographs that foretold the future, and were asked to re-work it as a sequel.

Another oddity is the intentional absence of adults in the film: We never hear more than two lines from anyone over 18. The result is a strange, vacuum world--kind of a horror film "Logan's Run." The first two films showed how people from several walks of life/ages were drawn together by Death's plan. In "Final Destination 3," the occurrences seem minimized-- as if they exist only in a campfire tale.

"Final Destination 3" also suffers from it's share of logic flaws. During the opening sequence, the Amusement park staff seems more disgusted than alarmed that someone is screaming for her life to get off the roller coaster. And after several kids say they want to get off, too, the staff literally says "NO ONE ELSE GETS OFF THIS RIDE!" This would never happen under any circumstances.

The film even falters technically. While the overall cinematography is mediocre, it's the death sequences that really suffer. Editing is shoddy, making things seem unpolished. The death scenes in "Final Destination" 1 and 2 were shot with odd angles and camera moves, and crisp photography. The scenes here are poorly photographed, and sometimes hard to follow. In fact, the film's key scenes--the roller-coaster and train--are especially bad, to the point where the viewer can't tell what is killing whom.

There are some positives: The chaotic gym sequence, the choice of songs, the fact that the Subway stops are "Booth" and "Oswald," and the visual transition from tanning beds to coffins. The problem is that these touches are only touches; the first two films were filled with creativity like this.

In the end, "Final Destination 3" is fighting against the current of mediocrity throughout. Any occasional sparks of originality seem like afterthoughts. The film suffers from an overall lack of effort on the part of the writers and the director--something they could have prevented. It's unfortunate that such an original franchise has fallen to the blade of film's version of the Grim Reaper: lack of originality, and being eminently forgettable.

***This review contains MANY spoilers--please be wary!***

"Identity" is an extremely well-crafted journey through the mind of a killer. And, aside from a few real-world plot problems, succeeds in just about everything it sets out to accomplish.

In the film, 10 people find themselves trapped by the weather in a roadside motel in Nevada. During the night, they become the targets of a systematic, brutal murderer. They also begin to realize they have more in common than they ever imagined.

What leaps out first about this film is the atmosphere it creates: gritty and foreboding, generating a sense of urgency and claustrophobia. In addition, the filmmakers take some bold avenues of exposition in the beginning--such as freeze-frames, contextual flashbacks, etc. Original techniques are employed to make what appears to be a slasher film seem fresh and compelling--deaths are shocking and hard to predict in nature, music is minimally used, character's reactions are used heavily to relay the brutality of the deaths rather than simply seeing the dead bodies, etc.

Acting is top-notch. One would be hard pressed to find one weak performance in the lot. As stated later, each character performs well in the setting of the motel, as well as an element of one man's personality.

The film beings in the vain of a "slasher" film, including several requisite "bait and switch" plot elements--not the least of which is making the audience believe the killer at the motel is the escaped convict (Jake Busey). Another is fooling viewers into thinking Ray Liotta's character is actually a police officer. Though these are respectful attempts at deception, one can't help but think they seem a little too easy to spot early on. But, that's the whole point--they're supposed to be easy to spot, because that's not the real mystery here.

About halfway through the movie, the director starts to hint at some kind of "other worldly" force at work when Jake Busey finds himself running to a structure a quarter mile away from the motel--only to find himself right across the street from where he just came from. This is where the film really starts to take off--and elements that will eventually explain the denoument start to arrive in bundles: A frozen corpse is discovered that strikingly resembles the killer on trial whom we learned about during the opening credits (Malcom Rivers, Played by Pruitt Taylor Vince); Each character discovers they share the same birthday; Victim's bodies begin to disappear with no trace whatsoever; John Cusack's character discovers each person seems to have a name based on a state or city.... and this is when it all snaps into place.

Once it becomes apparent that this meeting of people is actually a meeting of personalities in the mind of Malcom Rivers, the movie takes on a whole new level of meaning--and plot elements and characters can be analyzed for what they are:

representations of what caused this 9 year-old abandoned child to later become a murderer. Each and every plot element of the "story within the story" is actually an element of what Malcom Rivers must have experienced when he was abandoned: The story within the story takes place in an empty motel, which is where Malcom was found years ago; Characters eat from the vending machines--not unlike what Malcom may have been forced to do; An Indian burial ground is mentioned and shown--something Malcom most definitely feared during his abandonment. In retrospect, these elements are frequent and quite stunning.

But what's more stunning is how each character represents a singular element of Malcom Rivers personality at the time of the abandonment. The director graphically allows us to see the genesis of each "personality" in the story within a story:

• Paris (Amanda Peet) represents Malcom's perception of his mother as a "whore" who went from man to man, and ultimately abandoned her child in the hopes to start her life someplace else--without the burden of Malcom.

• Caroline Suzanne (Rebecca De Mornay) is Malcom's perception of his mother as a non- mother--someone only concerned with herself, her appearance, money, and without the least concern for human life. In other words--she is what Malcom saw most as a child.

• Ginny's (Clea Duvall) representation is twofold: she is Malcom himself as a child who is scared of the cold, wary of the Indian burial grounds, and cries in fear. But she may also be the side of Malcom's mother who undoubtedly had a relationship not unlike that of Duvall's in the movie: An attempt to first salvage, and then dissolve a marriage with an abusive mate by using a false pregnancy.

• In turn, Joe (William Lee Scott) most definitely represents one or more of the little boy's mother's suitors--abusive and immature, and obviously flirtatious with other women. In other words, the only father figures Malcom ever had.

• Larry, the manager (John Hawkes), represents Malcom as a guilty culprit: hiding things that might embarrass him; creating stories to get him out of trouble; In addition, he's the part of Malcom's personality who bears the guilt of "killing" the original, unadulterated personality, before the trauma--someone who "died" long ago in that hotel: the body found in the freezer. This frozen body lies dormant, and is the only "dead" body that doesn't disappear--Malcom's personality can still be saved and "resurrected."

• George York (John C. McGinley) is Malcom's inner perception of what a father should truly be: caring, forgiving, always following rules and the proper course of action. He looks after his son when his mother cannot; He can fix a flat; He doesn't argue with his wife; He reassures his son throughout the movie.

• Alice York (Leila Kenzle) rounds out Malcom's perception of the "perfect family." She is attentive, sweet, and has an emotional bond with her son. One can also say she may represent the soft side of the child's mother--something he probably rarely saw, and something that was only shared in private between the two (the hand-touching scene). She has the least to say in the movie, because Malcom rarely saw this side of his own mother.

• Timothy (Bret Loehr) represents Malcom's purely emotional side as a 9 year old. He never speaks throughout the film, and is relegated to symbolic emotional expressions only. He first shows love (touching hands with his mother), then fear, then sadness (crying after the death of his parents is complete), and finally anger--which drives him to kill.

• Rhodes (Ray Liotta), on the surface, can be interpreted as one of Malcom's mother's many "male partners" (hence the flirtation he has with Peete). However, Liotta may also represent the part of Malcom's personality that draws attention away form the real evil (Timothy). In other words, Liotta is an internal "defense" created by Malcom to, oddly enough, protect the discovery of the real culprit among his personalities. In the end, the Liotta character is successful, in as much as he takes the fall for the real "killer" inside Malcom's mind.

• That being said, Robert Maine (Jake Busey) is the overt counterpart to Liotta's character. Both he and Liotta serve to distract us--and Malcom--from the real killer personality. Liotta is does it subversively, and Busey does it obviously.

-Last but not least is Ed (John Cusack). He represents two elements: First, he is the hero/strong personality Malcom wishes he could be--he solves the crime; he protects his mother (Peet) and saves her from a life of prostitution--giving her a "second chance" (in an idealistic life: a farmer in an orange grove... something a child might dream up).

But Cusack also represents Malcom's lifelong, ongoing attempt to wrangle the other personalities into submission--the last remaining shard of reason in Malcom's mind. We see the motel setting through Cusack--he tries to come to grips with every other character, and he's the one who "discovers" the link between them in Malcom's subconscious (the map scene). He thinks logically and intelligently--albeit within a fantasy world. Cusack is the character that Malcom identifies with while at the hearing, and he is the one entrusted to root out the "evil" personality that killed those people 4 years earlier in the housing project. Tragically, this last remaining shred of reason ultimately fails--leaving Malcom at the end of the movie in complete dementia, and under the control of the only personality remaining--one driven purely by killer emotion.

Which brings us to an interesting conclusion: Malcom Rivers was so far gone in his dementia, and so consumed with revenge and anger--he did not want to be "saved." Since we all know dreams and fantasies are controlled by ourselves--and every element is placed there by us (even in our subconscious), we can only assume Malcom actively sabotaged his own efforts to "find the killer." In other words--he pulled the most interesting bait and switch of the movie on himself: making his last spark of reason (Cusack) believe the killer was someone else (Busey, then Liotta)--thereby letting the real "killer" inside (Timothy), go free--and preside over the mind and body forever.

This journey through the mind of a person with multiple personality disorder is both creative and enlightening: Many movies on this subject simply offer a character with the same disorder and blame it on an abusive father, a mother with no self respect, and childhood abandon. "Identity" actually graphically depicts each element as a character/ event in a fantasy, and even goes as far to show the struggle within the mind to regain itself versus the internal attempts to sabotage it's own well being.

The only thing that keeps this film from being excellent is the flaws it suffers during the "real world" elements of the film. A last-minute hearing to stay the execution of a convicted mass murderer is not only unrealistic, but it's justification in the film is unrealistic as well. Apparently, the only thing that saved Malcom Rivers from execution is a journal that was "just found" at this late date. Are we to assume that there were no doctors studying this man for the four years he was being held in prison? Was a journal really required to see this man could have plead insanity? Why was this a "last minute" decision?

The only explanation for such an odd turn of events is to facilitate the fantasy world of the motel story. In that setting, there is a feeling of urgency and time-sensitivity. The people must survive until dawn; Malcom Rivers has to find the "inner evil" and get rid of it quickly before it takes any more lives, etc. The only explanation for having such an unrealistic "last minute" discovery of Malcom's insanity is to maintain the feeling of urgency in the real word as well as the fantasy world. In other words--the film would most definitely lack a certain "punch" if the real word events were happening over a period of four years.

All in all, "Identity" is a great psychological study. It's technically not a thriller--as the story really is the journey Malcom Rivers must make to rid himself of evil. Once viewers accept it as a creative attempt to dissect multiple personality disorders, "Identity" truly shines.

One note of warning: Don't be swayed by reviewers who portray themselves as

extremely intelligent for having "figured out" the twist of this film within the first few minutes of viewing it. Their attempts to impress are based on luck, advance

information, and hindsight. Some people feel they have to prove their self-worth by claiming they can deconstruct a movie within minutes of its opening credits-- especially one that requires more thought than they probably have the capacity for. "Identity" is not a film that can or should be deconstructed in the first few minutes: It deserves much better.

"Panic Room" is a stylish thriller about a single mom (Jodie Foster) that relocates to an upper West Side apartment with her daughter (Kristen Stewart) just after her divorce. The apartment has everything one could possibly desire-including something called a "panic room"-an impenetrable safe room used for surveillance, and in times of dire emergency. Unfortunately for mother and daughter, three armed intruders break in during their first night in their new home. What follows is a tortuous ordeal spent in the only refuge they have: the panic room.

Given David Fincher's track record, one goes into this movie with high expectations. Add to that the caliber of the actors involved, and "Panic Room" seems that it will indeed be a sure bet. Unfortunately, this is not the case. While the film is masterfully photographed and contains some great performances, illogical story elements greatly diminish the tautness and excitement this film could have generated.

***MAJOR SPOILERS AHEAD***

1) Burnham (Forest Whitaker) breaks into the apartment-he does NOT disable the system first. Since no one responds to the break in, we are forced to assume he has somehow arranged (through his connections) for everyone working at the monitoring station that night to disregard the call. This isn't too horrible on it's own, but…

2) Meg (Foster) and her daughter decide to STOP signaling "SOS" just as the next door neighbor BEGINS to look out the window and see the light. Why? Why choose to yell through a tiny vent across a 30 yard separation during a hellish rainstorm to a neighbor behind a closed window?

3) Meg probably wouldn't be alive after lighting the gas from inside the panic room's ventilation shaft. She would most likely die from her lungs collapsing due to all the oxygen in that room being sucked out. At the very least, most of her body would be burned horribly. Her eyebrows aren't even singed.

4) Whenever a 911 call is placed, it's immediately logged-whether you hang up or not. At least one Police cruiser is dispatched to EVERY 911 call just for safety's sake-there are NO exceptions to this.

5) The gap between the ex-husband's arrival and that of the police is wholly unbelievable. And even if you stupidly assume the NYPD "takes forever to respond to 911 calls," they would never hesitate when the call is coming from THAT neighborhood.

6) When a 911 call AND a call from a frightened husband regarding the SAME ADDRESS come into the police dispatcher's office, more than one car would be sent to the premises. In addition, the police would not leave that address without an investigation-it may be a child or domestic abuse case.

7) Since when do police officers interrogate women about "unfinished sentences" on their doorstep? This isn't a plot hole as much as it is annoying.

8) When Raoul (Dwight Yoakam) sees Meg disabling the many surveillance cameras around the house, he asks, "why didn't WE do that?" Good question. When the intruders realized someone else was in the house, shouldn't that have been the FIRST thing they did? Or are we to assume they wanted to leave them connected for drama's sake?

9) When someone gets hit squarely in the head by a swung sledgehammer, they don't get up. When they additionally fall down a stairwell, they REALLY don't get up. And, if that same person miraculously survives the shattered skull, that person would not run up the stairs, and suddenly find reasonable use of a hand that was completely crushed in a mechanical steel door.

***END SPOILERS***

Any one of these points wouldn't be noticeable. But as the film goes on, the cumulative effect makes "Panic Room" lose its edge. And this leads to an even larger problem: once the story loses believability, the audience becomes less involved, excited and thrilled. The movie then starts to feel long and tedious. **SPOILER** Strangely enough, the denouement seems to hurtle out of control, and the film suddenly stops on a dime at the end-with an odd dramatic music swell as we watch Jodie Foster staring (presumably) at Forest Whitaker and… nothing happens. Go figure. **END SPOILER**

It's a shame this film is weakened by flawed logic. I stress "weakened," because the film has some very positive elements. The cinematography is very exciting, chock full of interesting camera angles and moody lighting. In addition, the acting by everyone involved is great. Jodie Foster once again shows she's still one of the most underrated actresses in Hollywood. Jared Leto is magnetic, and Stewart terrifically underplays her role as Jodie Foster's daughter. In addition, the filmmakers did a great job establishing backstory in some creative and efficient ways-something refreshing in a thriller of this type.

In the end, Panic Room is basically a good-looking thriller that lacks the punch. Perhaps Fincher and the writers should have concentrated more on believability rather than swooping dolly shots that travel through keyholes.

"Behind Enemy Lines" tells the tale of a U.S. Navy pilot shot down in Bosnia during the time of that country's conflict. The story is loosely based on the true events surrounding Lt. Scott O'Grady-a U.S. pilot shot down over enemy territory and recovered by American forces. The similarities to real historical events begin and end there.

Owen Wilson plays Lt. Burnett, who, while flying a standard recon mission, crosses into hostile territory to photograph suspicious military activity. A rebel group shoots down his plane, and subsequently hunts him down. He must now escape these hostile forces, traverse harsh terrain, and weather foggy politics to find his way to safety. Guiding him via radio is his commanding officer, played by Gene Hackman.

What one first notices about this film is that it's definitely aimed at the MTV generation. Quick cuts, variable film speeds, CG effects, hyper-real photography and heavy use of filters give the film a "music video" feel at times. Thankfully, this never overpowers the story, and in some cases, it adds to the drama. (Two great scenes involve the effect of a land mine on a soldier, and the inner workings of an ejection seat firing.) Some viewers will feel these techniques are overused-it all depends on your tolerance for stylishness.

Needless to say, the action scenes are stars of this film. While they aren't wholly original, they are presented in such a way that they seem fresh and exciting. The opening sequence when Burnett's plane is shot down is truly amazing, and there's a scene involving an abandoned minefield that's fantastic-a highly memorable set piece. Many of the combat scenes also feel reminiscent of "Saving Private Ryan"-frenetic yet crisply photographed.

An interesting point regarding the action: Some viewers have cited scenes where Burnett seems to be in danger, and in the next scene he is shown to be in relative safety-the scenes depicting his explicit escape "missing." While this is a valid point, there really isn't any "jarring" lack of continuity here. These "missing scenes" are directly related to the danger level of Burnett's situation. In other words, the filmmaker NEVER presents us with a scene in which Burnett triggers a land mine, and then cuts to him having a sandwich. The director simply omits scenes in which Burnett is not in any imminent danger. It's assumed he finds his way to temporary safe haven.

Some have also commented that the action here seems "far-fetched." True, yet the action is no more far-fetched than in any film in the genre. If you can stomach "Die Hard," "Goldeneye," "Mission Impossible 1," or any GOOD action film in the past 25 years, you shouldn't have a problem with this one.

As far as the performances go, there's much to like. Owen Wilson does a great job as an amiable "everyman." He gives us a refreshingly low-key performance, and presents us with a new take on the typical soldier character. Gene Hackman proves once again that subtlety is what acting is about. Many actors-especially in war films-feel that yelling and chewing scenery equals talent. Hackman continues to put actors like DeNiro and Pacino to shame in this area.

Unfortunately, these likeable performances are squandered on semi-flat characters. There isn't much depth or back story to Burnett or his commanding officer. The feeble attempts to show Burnett's home life are just that: feeble. There really isn't much for us to latch onto and care about, and that's a shame. In short, there's little more to these characters than what happens to them in the 2 hours we see them.

The film also stumbles in it's presentation of the overall conflict. One would think the filmmaker would attempt to present the confusing Bosnian theater in a simple, filmgoer-friendly manner, but he does not. While one can excuse that for the sake of drama, one can't ignore the loose ends left hanging when the director does decide to present a heavy political issue. *SPOILER* When Hackman's character leaks information to the press to expedite Burnett's rescue, a fellow admiral points out a flaw in his logic: He may save his pilot, but in doing so, he has endangered the peace process, which may result in thousands of deaths. Unfortunately, we never see how this point plays out. *END SPOILER*

In the end, the film never quite rises to the dramatic pinnacle it aspires to. It comes close, and many will undoubtedly clap when its over, but it seems a bit forced and flat. (Due to the flat characters.) It would not be surprising if many viewers forget this film days after seeing it. The filmmakers should have taken a page from "Crimson Tide" or even "Sniper"--military films that stay with the viewer.

Flaws aside, "Behind Enemy Lines" still manages to entertain. It's an effective action film that gives us a "fresh" style of action and a "new" type of soldier (thanks to Owen Wilson), and it's worth seeing. If I had to rate it, I'd give it a solid 6.5 out of 10.

(This review contains SPOILERS throughout!)

RULES OF ENGAGEMENT is by no means a fantastic film. Nor is it particularly memorable when compared to military thrillers over the past 20 years. However, the film is well directed, well acted, and presents some interesting issues regarding military practice.

The film concerns a colonel (Samuel Jackson) who orders his troops to fire on a hostile crowd of demonstrators during the evacuation of an American embassy in Yemen. ***** MAJOR SPOILERS***** At the time, the crowd is shown to be unarmed. However, by the end of the film, we are shown the truth: these "innocent" civilians were indeed armed to the teeth--even the women and children.

Friedkin does an amazing job generating a feeling of confusion and danger in the initial embassy scenes. At times, one feels as though they are under attack along with the characters. Combat is not something I've seen Friedkin attempt, and I'm glad he's pulled it off here with great skill. He also continues to be an expert at presenting memorable imagery--maybe not on the level of "the Exorcist," but well placed imagery, nonetheless.

The "meat" of the film involves a courtroom drama that will inevitably draw comparisons to A FEW GOOD MEN and COURAGE UNDER FIRE (which is a great film). Unfortunatey, it never really rises to level that we expect. ****SPOILERS**** In fact, the closing scene (when Jackson's character is found not guilty) we feel rushed --it's almost treated as an aside. In fact, I felt that the speed at which we reached the trial in general, and then the END of the trial, was too fast. It doesn't give us quite enough time become engaged (no pun intended)

Friedkin also has a bad habit of "teasing" the viewer with dramatic elements, and then never delivering. Examples: ****SPOILERS**** Even though it is destroyed, one always feels that a copy of that video tape will turn up... We also feel that MAYBE Anne Archer's character will help the case... but she doesn't.

What saves this movie from becoming completely forgettable are the courtroom twists, and the cast. It's rare and refreshing to see Jackson and Tommy Lee Jones so subdued. Many people think that good acting = yelling. The best roles these actors (and ANY actors) have ever had have been the ones when they are NOT yelling, but emoting everyday, tangible feelings. While not worthy of academy awards, the actors here make their characters somewhat believable and engaging.

The film also presents us with some interesting things to think about regarding military practice and how a combat situation is perceived. For instance: ****SPOILERS**** Even though Jackson's character was correct to fire on the crowd--should he have instantly? Should a soldier question his commanding officer when his commanding officer is the only one who sees the reality of the situation? Another interesting question: Snipers are shown to be intentionally shooting out 2 of the three cameras focused on the crowd. By the end of the film, we realize the demonstrators were working WITH the snipers, but this little detail reveals that maybe the people in the crowd were willing to be killed as long as there was no proof to show that fact...

Two last notes about this film you should know: Many people have said this film makes "no sense" and Jackson's character is exonerated for doing something "horrific." I have to assume these people missed the last third of the movie. ****SPOILERS**** the plot makes perfect sense: Jackson did NOT fire on unarmed people! The people WERE ARMED! There's nothing horrific except the fate these people brought upon themselves. When a civilian brandishes an armed weapon on a soldier, he/she becomes an enemy. That's a fact, pure and simple.

In addition, many have dismissed this film as "jingoistic."I do not agree. Friedkin depicts a very believable occurrence--the attack on the embassy is something that could have actually happened WHERE it happened. The film does not paint the attackers/protesters in any worse light than they have painted themselves in today's real political climate. What's more, the U.S. doesn't come off as being infallible, perfect or wonderful, either. It's sad that "jingoism" seems to be a popular, trendy crutch for many reviewers lately.

Should you see this film? I think it's worth seeing on cable if you have a chance. Anyone who is a fan of military/courtroom dramas will find something to like about it. The acting is good, and Friedkin shows his skill as a director. However, don't expect COURAGE UNDER FIRE or A FEW GOOD MEN. The film never reaches the dramatic heights it could have, and it feels rather truncated at the end... but it is watchable if nothing else.