This version is ridiculous. First, preface my review with I served, and I've read the book and seen the play on stage and a couple of the other film versions. 1. They move this to current times. No way this happens in today's Navy. The Navy has been very careful to prevent this kind of paranoia from making ranks for decades and they weed out pretty quickly. Even if they were to make it to XO or CO, in this kind of case, Queeg would be quietly retired, full retirement pay, no notations in his record. As they say in the movie, he would be "beached ". 2. The comment and calling out of the author/officer wouldn't happen. In the military now, they're expected to recognize unlawful orders and a lot of what was done in the book and presented in the follow up play, would never be allowed in today's Navy. It's absurd to try to transfer the old standards how the Navy was in WWII to what it is now. JOs and enlisted would know some of the demands are illegal orders in today's military. 3. The story is completely fabricated. There was no mutiny on any US Naval vessel in WWII. There has never been one before or after. The weird part in this version is referencing another time. I'm guessing they thought that was a "wave" at the original book timing. But it deflates the whole point of the book which was whether or not a mutiny would ever be justified. A nod to a previous deflates the question you're supposed to ponder. I gave it a 4. I like these kinds of movies, but I can't stand when they try to update an old dog to a new version with clearly no advice from anyone who would know the current circumstances and write it in the correct context.

This is the type of movie where you will probably know if it's your jam or not based purely on the title and genre. If you like small-scale courtroom dramas you will probably enjoy it, if you don't you won't. I really do like these types of movies, but never caught the original of this one, so it was interesting and compelling, thought I knew where they were going but it split slightly from expectations. Nothing too fancy, but a great platform for the actors to give long, detailed courtroom monologues. With Kiefer Sutherland of all people delivering the most impressive one and Jason Clarke taking runner up. Also always a pleasure to savor one of the last performances of Lance Reddick.

I enjoyed @tgrbabydoll's review; however, I'd like for it to be fleshed out with more detailed criticism. Service anecdotes add to the conversation, and I wish I had more insight about that. I watched this version first and thought I'd enjoy the Robert Altman (1988) adaptation better. I agree that setting it in contemporary times does nothing for the story. But the Altman version is truly terrible. I haven't read the text, but it seems like Altman expanded the identity politics with a drunken Greenwald in his final soliloquy, going into gruesome detail about his mom being turned into a bar of soap in WWII. Or developing (in a ranty by Queeg on the stand) allegations of homosexuality of the other officers. However, the worst part of the 1988 adaption is Altman's stylistic signature of overlapping dialogue. It's an inventive and great bespoke style for a film like MASH, but reduces this courtroom drama to a weird, boring cocktail party vibe. I don't have much to add to the 2023 adaptation except that I feel a lot more generous about it after watching Altman's previous version. Kiefer Sutherland (Queeg), Jason Clarke (Lt. Greenwald), and Land Reddick (Captain Blakely) are particularly strong standouts. I feel like the 2023 adaptation suffers from a different kind of identity politics, solipsism, in the sense that perhaps the plot requires itself to be updated in order to accommodate ethnic diversity in casting. I'm all for identity politics in civics life and, well, in politics. I'm for it in art, too, where it brings an authentic POV. But I hate it as a formulaic "solution" in art, which this film seems to be guilty of. The old studio system seems to be the standing winner with its played-out The Cain Mutiny (1954), which is a shame because the POV of a stripped-down courtroom drama is a really appealing alternate way to tell this compelling story.

Really enjoyed this. There’s been many film versions of this, and this production is the latest. All taking place in the courtroom, it’s a staple of theatres because of Herman Wouk’s clever story, layered characters and an unobvious resonating denouement. The absence of a soundtrack makes it all about the performances, which were uniformly restrained despite the opportunity to crank it up to 11. I particularly enjoyed Keiffer Sutherland, Monica Raymond, Lance Reddick and especially the often overlooked Jason Clarke. This offers a very enjoyable night of theatre streamed right in your home.

Loved it. Well done. They can reshuffle the cast and do Mister Roberts next.