The whole point of Cruise's character laying out his strategy in advance is to show that a) he doesn't think it will work, and b) he knows that if he tries and fails it will cost him his career. It's absolutely necessary to build up the high stakes for the final showdown. Without the "obvious" buildup, that scene loses a great deal of its dramatic tension. Geez, when these guys got it wrong, they REALLY got it wrong.

I never had a problem with Cruise's character laying out his strategy. He still had to make it happen.

Nobody had any idea HOW Kaffey was going to lead Jessup exactly where he wanted to go. That was the surprise (obviously).

How can anyone thumbs down this classic?

I disagree with Mr Ebert here. Having Cruise's character lay out his prediction isn't an insult to the intelligence of the audience, rather it's a moment that shows us exactly why he is the right man for the case. Earlier in the film he says it doesn't matter what he thinks, it matters what he can prove. Well here, what he thinks gave way to what he was able to prove. He thought that with the application of pressure, he could get it out of him, and he succeeded.

This is one of my favorite movies of all time.

Excellent film. The purpose of explaining the strategy had more to do with the transformation in Cruise’s character. When he shared the strategy, we also learned what would happen to him if he failed (court martial, etc). Cruise’s character would go from the guy who always had an easy life and negotiated other people’s lives with no risk to his to finally taking a stand for truth and his clients and risking everything he held dear (his career).

Still one of the best court room dramas ever made...Cruise was unfairly ignored Oscar time!

the screenplay didn't give away the ending, Roger. You did.

This movie is f'n AWESOME!

I loved Ebert, reading his reviews, he was a great writer and made me appreciate many films. I agree that the set-up scene was unneeded, but this was still one of the great screenplays IMO, along with performances. It was also beautifully filmed. Court rooms never look like that in real-life, with big windows, comfortable lighting, nice wood...rather, they're generally awfully lit, have no windows, and fake looking wood...but since it's a film, it works OK, and the rainy court scenes are great cinema.

I really thought long and hard on this movie and why it's so goddam re-watchable. I mean I've literally seen this movie more than a dozen times and in fact I just recently downloaded the movie and watched it in its entirety two days in a row. I NEVER DO THIS WITH OTHER MOVIES, LIKE EVER! So why? Why is this movie so re-watchable for me? Because it's safe. It masterfully uncovers every possible question/problem before it enters out minds. We're cradled and held tight as a viewer telling us "Don't woooorrrrry, we got you...so just sit back, relax and enjoy."

Ebert was wrong on this one, the characters were so interesting you still wanted to watch everything happen. All good guy vs bad guy movies are predictable at the start of the third act.

I’m an attorney, and this movie has some of the best courtroom scenes I’ve ever seen on film. Bacon’s opening statement at trial was great. I usually agree with Ebert on most of his opinions, but he missed on this one.

If we didn't have that scene of Kaffee predicting Jessup would outright confess he ordered the Code Red, Jessup's confession wouldn't make as much sense to us. He confesses out of pride. Sorkin and Reiner want to make that clear.

If this movie isnt great...I dont know what is.

Tom Cruise 1988-1994 was an all-time great run which is under-appreciated. So deserved multiple Oscars.

Well, it became a classic. Predictable or not, it's one of my favorite legal films.

I so miss Siskel & Ebert. Great movie reviews. Good men.