MovieChat Forums > The Last Castle (2001) Discussion > Entirely Incorrect. A General is isolate...

Entirely Incorrect. A General is isolated from the others.

posted 15 years ago by NanoFrog
12 replies | jump to latest

Officers and enlisted men are rigidly absolutely separated in prison. A General would be absolutely segregated away from all other inmates.

Because of this, the entire general premise of the movie is not believable. Military code of the Uniformed Code of Military Justice absolutely prohibits mixing officers and enlisted persons.

Second, Redford is entirely unbelievable as a US General, completely and absolutely.

As a general movie it is ok, nothing special. The movie would have been much better with anyone other than Redford. He is embarrassing pretending to be a military officer. Why is he so popular? With such an overall good cast, how could this movie be made without understanding in the slightest how a military prison is organized. I worked in a military prison. they are all the same is this regard.

[–] wesleykelley 15 years ago

not sure where u get ur info from, but at the USDB in Leavenworth where this is supposed to be, the former officers and enlisted ar NOT segregated. worked there for 7 years

"Aint nobody here but two people in green"

[–] 15 years ago

[deleted]

[–] michael-tullo 15 years ago

burn

[–] socal-movielover 15 years ago

he wasn't a general when going into the prison,he lost his rank in a court martial.they are just prisoners.

[–] wesleykelley 15 years ago

true
"Aint nobody here but two people in green"

[–] wesleykelley 15 years ago

burn?
"Aint nobody here but two people in green"

[–] laxpv30 15 years ago

yes burn, it's a tearm used for when someone get's proven wrong with sufficent evidence.

[–] wesleykelley 15 years ago

yea I get the term thanks what is the burn for and how is it applied? I dont see anything so the admin deleted it. I wasnt proven wrong on anything.

"Aint nobody here but two people in green"

[–] djw1138 15 years ago

He was saying your response was a burn against the OP. Why would you assume anything else? You're defending yourself against no one.

[–] tjmac_imdb 15 years ago

I think you are mixing the UCMJ with the Geneva Convention relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War.

[–] Gwasgray 12 years ago

I bet in reality a top General would never go to prison, unless he murdered or raped someone. They'd just force him to resign/take early retirement, his lawyers would get him out of any serious charges or the powers-that-be would let him off more-or-less (because they'd want to cover blunders up so they wouldn't look bad as well) But I think in this film he chose to plead guilty and accept the maximum sentence, though a real General would probably never willingly choose this.

[–] tripper-09331 8 years ago

^correct^

Brig. Gen. Jeffrey Sinclair got convicted of sexual misconduct in 2014 and was demoted 2 ranks then forced into retirement with reduced benefits.

The government wouldn't even charge a real general (especially a famous, ex-POW) let alone allow him to plead guilty to attacking foreign soil against the President's order. It would be a PR nightmare and would become record if he was convicted.

It would be swept under the rug, he'd be tried for something else or more realistically just forced to retire. Which in the movie he said was about to do right before that last campaign anyway.

"Common sense is not so common"