Recensioni degli utenti

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?"...

William Friedkin's final film is an updated to the present adaptation of Herman Wouk's famous tale. It's based more on the Stage play version rather than the novel and Friedkin (who did the adaptation) doesn't 'open it up' for the screen; Rather, he keeps the focus on the text and the performers.

It's a strong cast with Jake Lacy as the accused, Maryk, Monica Raymund as the Prosecutor and Kiefer Sutherland as Commander Queeg. Sutherland occasionally overplays the neurosis, but it's a good performance. Jason Clarke as the Defense counsel, Greenwald, is superb.

The late Lance Reddick plays Blakely the head Judge. It was nice to see Reddick get a full card dedication at the end of the picture*. A double dedication in this case, along with Friedkin, certainly. It's appropriate in a way that Friedkin would finish with a legal thriller, as his breakthrough was a hard-hitting 1962 crime Documentary The People Vs. Paul Crump.

I feel privileged to have met both men. A hearty RIP to each of them.

* Apparently, there are a couple of more performances by Reddick still to be released.

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.

Final films by William Friedkin and Lance Reddick RIP.

This is a single setting courtroom court martial hearing that expands on the legal themes of the original from the fifties.

The original showed the various incidents of Queeg and then the trial. This is just the trial and aftermath.

Everything is a lot more fleshed out. Jason Clarke is great as the prosecutor and Keifer Sutherland does a passable Borgart homage.

I watched it as a companion piece to the original and would recommend doing it that way.

I always find the ending, where the solicitor speaks to the officers party a wonderful scene. Watch it for that at least.

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.

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".

As a fan of Humphrey Bogart's portrayal of Captain Queeg in the 1954 version of "The Caine Mutiny", I approached this movie with some measure of trepidation. That being said, it is an engaging portrayal of a military court-martial, that benefits from lack of flashbacks to incidents that occurred on the ship.

If you are expecting a clone of "A Few Good Men" you will be disappointed. However this is a story of the trial as a stand-alone event, that benefits from a solid ensemble cast. The late Lance Reddick in one of his last roles, was particularly memorable as the chief justice, and Kiefer Sutherland deftly navigates both Queeg's power and vulnerability on the stand.

I strongly, I strongly encourage you to mute the movie at the start of the credits to maintain the tension of the final scene, and I encourage you to see both this and the 1954 version of this story.

And so it ended. With a career that comprehends more than 60 years in the film business behind classics such as "The French Connection", "The Exorcist" and "To Live and Die in L. A." William Friedkin was a towering expressive voice just as much as Coppola, De Palma, Scorsese and many others that revolutionized the world of cinema. At age 87, he still managed to get behind camera, gather up talented actors to appear in his film and deliver a quite masterful work worthy of appreciation. He puts to shame many young filmmakers out there who probably just watch films made in the past 25 years or so, but never beyond that to actually learn the craft of filmmaking and how to tell a story.

"The Caine Mutiny Court-Martial" it's Friedkin's final work, not exactly the send-off he deserved but it's the one he needed since it was a passion project and he knew his reasons in bringing an updated version of Herman Wouk's classic novel and play that had two filmed versions before: Edward Dmytryk's in 1954 which presents the whole action on board of vessel Caine and later on the trial; and Robert Altman's version in 1988, of which this film owes it a lot since they just cover the trial. All great films on their own; if compared with each other the criticism can affect the experience, of which I won't do all that much because others already did that, and one must think about the audience who haven't seen those other films and might want to see this new take and they must see it.

It'll be a mystery as to why Mr. Friedkin wanted to retell this classic ethical battle of a lieutenant (Jake Lacy) on trial for mutiny after relieving his commanding officer (Kiefer Sutherland) after considering that the man was out of his right mind as a typhoon approached their ship.

And most important, why updating it - the original story takes place during WWII and it makes more sense there than in a context of peace times of 2022.

Anyway, he had his reasons and there's also the factor of attracting new audiences to a highly important story so you have to make things a little flexible. It works in a way because the material is strong enough while addressing topics such as ethics, moral, the judgments on people and their actions in stressful difficult times and also how fallible and frail the men of force can be. It's never a high criticism on the institution (the Navy, here) but of the people in charge. And it also deals with the value of discipline and how the power of questioning authority can be used and enforced when one has a total understanding of discipline.

Friedkin's "The Caine..." is thrilling, with many edge of the seat moments and you never feel distracted or out of the story. It's quite fast-paced despite it's claustrophobic settings and wordy dialogues. I didn't agree with some of his choices, at times things make some abrupt transitions unlike Altman's patient work that gives you some time to breathe in between the cross-examinations of the witnesses. Small criticism, almost pointless.

And as usual, the director extracted great performances from his cast, being the highlights coming from Jason Clarke as the defendant's lawyer, and Kiefer Sutherland as Commander Queeg, a role previously played by Humphrey Bogart (Oscar nominated performance) and Brad Davis. Unlike the other two performers, as great as they were, his take on the delusional captain made the character more challenging for audiences to find out if he's really insane or not whereas with the other two I always knew what went on because it's a role that can easily go to an over-the-top direction. With Kiefer I had to give him the benefit of the doubt and sort of erase my memories of the previous films.

My take is based solely on the film alone and that kind of view must come sometimes, without judging a career as a whole or what came before with the same material. It's a highly commendable work by a master storyteller, it certainly has a great deal of importance with the themes worked and I had a great time with it. For a final film, it was really impressive and knowing that very few directors can pull it off with an outstanding final work, the man did it. Au revoir, Mr. Friedkin. 10/10.

I like military movies and dramas. This has a good update of present day for the US Naval version of a Mutiny with Court Martial. Great acting and story, except it was all courtroom. It could have been better to have scenes at sea when events were occurring to provide the audience with incidents taking place.

Otherwise, it's mainly legal proceedings with courtroom testimonies.

I liked previous movie versions of the story much better which filmed actions at sea and the courtroom. Humphrey Bogart did a superb acting job at sea and on land in the black and white version.

Makes me also think of the great acting and story with "A Few Good Men" which gave context and intensity to the court martial for young Marines with scenes on base in Cuba, in DC residences and in the JAG courtroom. Great performance by Tom Cruise and Jack Nicholson. This 2023 Caine Mutiny movie was nowhere close to that level of an overall great film.

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...

Although the 2023 version consists of the trial only, Sutherland's portrayal of Captain Queeg was not bad at all. Of course, following Bogart's portrayal in the original "Caine Mutiny" is a tough act to follow. Few actors can rise to the talent of Humphrey Bogart as a person consumed with paranoia. His Fred C. Dobbs in "The Treasure of the Sierra Madre" is another great example.

The rest of the supporting cast in this film were credible as well. The late Lance Reddick, was always excellent in every role he played. It was odd that Dale Dye, famed military film advisor had a non-speaking role and just appeared as a juror in the court martial.

I definitely recommend seeing both versions of this story before offering an opinion.

There's something so refreshing about a well written courtroom drama. This movie has zero action. In fact basically nothing happens outside the courthouse. And yet I was gripped for the duration of the run time.

I had a feeling as I was watching this that it was based on a play. I knew there were previous film installments of the story, but it had all the trademarks of being a play at one point as well - single-setting, dialogue-heavy etc. I often find myself really enjoying films based on plays. It makes me wonder if I should actually start going to plays.

There's not a lot else to say about this one. If you are able to sit back and engage with a good story based heavily around dialogue, then you'll likely enjoy it. If you need a bit of action and diversity in your films then this may be one to avoid. I really liked it. 7/10.

The weirdest part about this movie is that Kiefer Sutherland gives by far the best performance. Delivering pretty much every minute of it from a chair, he manages to convey the tension of restrained/unhinged quite effectively. The other actors are less impressive, particularly Lance Reddick and Monica Raymund. And the ending is incredibly lame.

They do a good job of moving it to the modern day, while still following the book quite well (as far as I recall, anyway-it's been a few decades since I read it). And the decision to focus entirely on the court martial is a good one, turning what could have been an expansive, huge-budget fiasco into a taut <2hr suspense flick. Nicely done.

William Friedkin's (The Exorcist/The Hunted) last film (which he adapted as well) currently airing on Showtime. In essence, this is the trial section of the Caine Mutiny where we now have Kiefer Sutherland stepping into Humphrey Bogart's shoes to play Captain Queeg as his leadership is brought into question when during a tumultuous sea storm, he was relieved of command by his subordinate, Jake Lacy. Lacy engages a defense attorney, Jason Clarke, to help him in his court proceedings as the prosecutor, Monica Raymund, lays out the case to bolster Sutherland's claims of systemic sabotage & undermining by his staff (yes we get the stolen strawberries rant!) while the tribunal judges (which include the late, great Lance Reddick & perennial combat advisor for film Dale Dye) hear the case. If you know the Herman Wouk story enough (I remember seeing it in film school for a courtroom on film course), the case itself feels chapter & verse of the original tome w/some changes to reflect current times but being the original film had cutaways to the actual incident at sea, Friedkin's approach feels more like a precursor to A Few Good Men (Aaron Sorkin would probably agree his signature creation owes a lot to Wouk's work) which is admirable for those seeking out a bare bones court drama full stop. Considering this is a more measured Friedkin outing (his Rampage feature from the late 80's also had a court case in the center of a serial killer yarn), you couldn't do any worse w/a celebrated auteur's final work.

A 7 is mighty generous for this stiff as hell, relentlessly uncinematic courtroom drama but William Friedkin has earned our generosity, if not our unstinting praise, for the body of his work. And this is his swansong.

There is also, as in most of Friedkin's films, lots of fine acting to be found. I especially liked Keifer Sutherland as Captain Queeg. This actor is given the very tough assignment of competing with Bogie in the original film and he damn near aces it. I like his Nixonesque take on Queeg's insecurity and paranoia and when he is finished destroying himself on the witness stand there is the distinct odor of tragedy about him.

As for Jason Clarke I actually preferred his tough, relentless performance to Jose Ferrer's too jokey Greenwald in the original. And Jake Lacey's Maryk is leaps and bounds better than Van Johnson while Monica Raymond is preferable to E. G. Marshall and Lance Reddick, in HIS final film, completely eclipses Warner Anderson. On the downside I feel the film missed the smarminess of Keefer that was so evident in the original with Fred MacMurray's great study of ambitious arrogance. Indeed, Keefer is such a cipher in this film that the climactic scene where Greenwald upbraids him lacks force, to say the least.

Bottom Line: RIP Bill and Lance. B minus.

William Friedkin's final film, completed just a little bit before his death with his health so precarious that insurance required a backup on set for the entire 15-day shoot (who ended up being Guillermo del Toro), The Caine Mutiny Court-Martial is an accomplished adaptation of a well-regarded play based on Herman Wouk's own Pulitzer Prize winning novel. It fits very easily in line with Friedkin's overall filmography in at least a couple of major ways, and it shows that even in his final days, he could still command a film set, effectively direct his actors, and keep things interesting within a limited setting. As a swan song, it's a strong goodbye from a major voice in modern American cinema.

Entirely skipping the actual events of the eponymous mutiny, almost the entire film is, as its stage play roots were, set in the room of the military court where Lieutenant Maryk (Jake Lacy), defended by Lieutenant Greenwald (Jason Clarke) and prosecuted by Lt. Commander Challee (Monica Raymund), is on trial for taking command under Chapter 11 of Navy regulations from his commanding officer, Commander Queeg (Kiefer Sutherland), in the middle of a maelstrom where Maryk, along with his friend and fellow officer Lieutenant Keefer (Lewis Pullman), decided that Queeg was acting insanely in pushing them south instead of north into the maelstrom when the storm had gotten too violent for the USS Caine to remain afloat any longer. If Maryk's decision was in line with Navy regulations, the removal of Queeg was lawful, but if not, then it was mutiny, the first since the USS Sommers more than 150 years prior.

These sorts of adaptations are really highlights for directing and, in particular, acting. Friedkin offers little in terms of changes to the basic story, updating dialogue to reflect the setting of 2022 instead of the Second World War and probably a couple of smaller things (I suspect the dialogue around mental illness has been updated). So, in a similar vein as approaching his adaptation of 12 Angry Men, the focus turns towards the actors mostly, and this is where the film really does do quite well. The central performance is Sutherland and Queeg, a bit of an oddball who seems put together nonetheless that Greenwald steadily dismantles through the use of small anecdotes throughout his career where he's obsessed with petty things to unmake him in front of the court, led by Captain Blakely (Lance Reddick).

The first half is more about setting the stage, though, with expert testimony about how to handle a minesweeping vessel in a storm and emphasis on two doctors who have observed Commander Queeg, noted his eccentricities, but determined that he was able to serve and to lead in the Navy. Greenwald dissects these pieces of testimony for exceptions and rhetorical situations that might create the groundwork for the turn in the storm to be correct and for Queeg to crack under intense pressure.

The focus on performance is really in the back end, though, with Maryk taking the stand in his own defense with Lacy feeling alternatively confident in the rightness of his course of action as well as completely in over his head in the face of Challee's questioning. It's also where Queeg returns to the stand to be confronted by all the little tyrannies he placed upon his men, including essentially tearing the ship apart to find an extra key to the galley to explain a missing serving of strawberries. Queeg getting on the stand to defend these calumnies is the real center of the film with Sutherland showing Queeg's descent in expert detail until the moment he realizes that he's lost.

I think my only real complaint is the ending. This gets handled better in the first cinematic adaptation of the novel, The Caine Mutiny, since it actually spends time on the ship to dramatize events, giving Keefer more screentime which is key to understanding the real backstory of how and why the action that led to the accusation of mutiny came about. Keefer is at the center of that, and in this adaptation, Keefer is largely forgotten for a very long section, his testimony happening early and never really being brought up again until the very final scene, the only scene not set in the courtroom. It's a twist, but it kind of feels like it comes out of no where because we don't have access to much of the supporting material in the forms of conversations between Keefer and Maryk that are present in both the novel and the original cinematic adaptation.

Still, with that hiccup, this remains a gripping portrait of a flawed man being put on the spot for following regulations, a man who could become obsessed with tiny imperfections in his men that would reflect badly on him. Was he crazy the moment he demanded that they follow regulations southward instead of turning northward considering the incredible, one-in-a-million situation that they may have been in? The film never answers it, but Queeg following regulations in an extreme situation after a history of petty tyrannies doesn't seem enough to destroy his career, and yet that's what Greenwald sets out to do.

There's a certain tragedy to it all. I think I feel it more completely in The Caine Mutiny, but in The Caine Mutiny Court-Martial the effect is similar. It's an accomplished, late-stage movie from a filmmaker who understood filmmaking after decades of practicing it, using his final go as a celebration of actors, a look into how pursuing something can change the pursuer, and the murky space of morality in the face of extreme duress. Honestly, it feels like a better sendoff than Killer Joe would have been.

Courtroom drama, acting, pacing....

Based off a very old movie perhaps locked in some of the script parameters, and is good content.

Just either an upsetting over the legal system nonsense, which probably is authentic, but quite an exploit in rules of evidence and objections. Example, can have witness but can't say have witness(?) And other convoluted facts that get obfuscated and... you know what!?

Just give the facts!

You want to hear details on what transpired? You want content and substance?

The OMG, "do it then Judge!", must be the carrying sentiments.

Castin is abusive and crazy making and finally a conclusion is made, which has been obvious!

Yet have a Defense Attorney deflecting any rational evidence.

You know, what is sad and true is: With out a trial, he'd still be in power and hurting people. And, the Navy would even give him a medal for such "seamanship". Sad and true. "Have to be good to get promoted..." What BS. Who they know and the "ring knockers. Not merit (Like other businesses!:)

Like.. Corporate America.

Keep failing upward!

The original novel and movie took place during WWII. The play now takes place during the Gulf War, but it doesn't lend itself to modernization. Kiefer Sutherland does a credible job as Captain Queeg, but lacks the depth that Humphrey Bogart gave to the character in the original movie. Jake Lacy, however is a bit shallow in his characterization of Lt. Maryk. I liked the acting by Jason Clarke as Barney Greenwald, but the gray hair on a fairly young Navy Lieutenant was a bit too much. I also thought Monica Raymond's portrayal of the JAG prosecutor was over the top. Yes, prosecutors have to be zealous in their duties, but...

Quartermaster 3rd Class Urban's character was clearly miscast. First, while it's not unusual for a 20-year-old to be an E-4, it would be virtually impossible for a sailor of his age to have been in the Navy for four years.

Now, to the makeup of the officers on the board. As far as I can remember, flag officers do not serve on courts martial boards for decidedly junior officers. Dale Dye's portrayal of an "Admiral Dewey" was not only farcical, but his uniform decorations were way over the top. There were also several incidents where Navy uniforms were not worn properly, although I can imagine that the short shooting schedule was a major cause of continuity errors.

Navy courts martial don't have Chief/Senior Chief Petty Officers as court MP's. Those duties are handled by U. S. Marines, especially at larger Naval facilities.

In all, the entire play would have been much better had more time been taken to "get it right".

In WWII, minesweeper U. S. S. Caine gets caught in a typhoon. Lt. Stephen Maryk (Jeff Daniels) takes over commander. Now he's facing court-martial for his mutiny against Lt. Commander Philip Francis Queeg (Brad Davis). Lt. Barney Greenwald (Eric Bogosian) is Maryk's advocate. Lt. Com. John Challee (Peter Gallagher) is prosecuting. Captain Blakely (Michael Murphy) is running the trial.

Director Robert Altman is doing a TV movie adaptation of Herman Wouk's novel-turned-play. With Altman, this of course has overlapping dialogue when it's appropriate. He's doing other things to add to the background noise. I'm not sure that the Navy band music is necessarily. In the end, it is a dry courtroom drama, even with the rain. There is limitation to the setting. Altman is not doing any flashbacks to the typhoon. That could have added some action to the movie. There is a purity to the courtroom drama. The best performer is Jeff Daniels. There is a compelling flow to his speaking voice. It's very enticing. One really visualizes the story as he tells it. Brad Davis does well to be manic. It does become repetitive, but it is very necessarily. As for the final party ending, I did not expect that turn or that view point. Keefer needs more screen time. Maybe he could be part of Maryk's defense team.