Rules of Engagement (2000) Poster

User Reviews

Review this title
277 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
8/10
A good ride, good actors, some flaws.
moviecat-61 February 2001
Last week, as I considered ordering this DVD, I checked the IMDB rating and saw a "fair" 6.5. Since I like Tommy Lee Jones and Samuel L. Jackson, I placed the order. Like most roller coasters, I found it to be a good ride and Jones and Jackson did very credible jobs. The flaws in the movie have been correctly pointed out by numerous other reviewers. I was somewhat surprised that some of the most critical reviews were by US viewers. I fully understand how non-US citizens would be irritated by the stereotypes. I found it to be a very exciting movie from my particular perspective (US citizen, military family, male over 45). The scenes of combat when the marines are ordered to the US embassy in Yemen to safeguard our state department personnel were VERY well done, even to the point of gripping. The court scenes and conflicts of evidence or lack of evidence were interesting to me and I also understood, but did not agree with, the aims of the State Department. I don't think some of the reviewers are aware of what a person might do in such an extremely stressful situation as that of Colonel Childers (Jackson). It was fascinating to me to see what he did do and how he and others looked back on it. I would have given Rules of Engagement a 9 or 10, but for the flaws. It's a good movie though and well worth renting. It's an 8.
63 out of 91 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
2/10
History as told by the victors
Mephisto-2429 December 2003
Warning: Spoilers
SPOILER WARNING!!!



While this film has some good moments and strong performances from Samuel Jackson and Tommy Lee Jones (and a disappointing one from Ben Kingsley), I couldn't help but remember the "Chewbacca Defence" from South Park while watching the courtroom scenes: "This makes no sense!".

A marine colonel claims he gave the order to fire on a crowd, killing 83 people and wounding more than 100, ALL of whom were supposedly firing at his people with sub-machine guns and pistols - yet NOBODY else saw these weapons, not even the other marines who were returning fire (except, possibly, the three who died). Supposedly, none of them saw the weapons even AFTER the crowd was mown down.

The Yemenis then supposedly came in and removed every weapon, every spent cartridge, and - and this is REALLY ridiculous - every bullet and bullet-hole (the defence lawyer is told that all the shots came from snipers with rifles, and photographs a few bullet holes, but finds nothing to contradict this, throwing grave doubt on the colonel's judgement that the crowd was more dangerous than the snipers).

A videotape (destroyed by the National Security Advisor) shows the crowd shooting, but not one slug from any of those weapons is ever discovered. Were they all firing blanks? And why would the NSA and the ambassador (whose life was saved by the colonel) rather see a war hero executed than an aging ambassador lose his job and the Yemeni government embarrassed? (Maybe if it was Saudi Arabia, or Iraq in the 1980s, but Yemen?)

The court-martial then decides to believe that a videotape that they haven't seen, the existence of which can not be proven, vindicates their officer. Despite the glaring lack of any evidence to support his story and a mass that contradicts it, they acquit him. To believe this, you have to believe that the military will believe EVERYTHING they're told by one of their own, or protect them from the consequences even if they don't. The NSA and the ambassador are then blamed (okay, that's believeable if there was a change of government in between. They're political appointees, after all).

If this had been told RASHOMON style, without us seeing the videotape (or if the tape had been inconclusive), we could choose who to believe. Or if Jones's character had uncovered ANY evidence that supported the colonel's story or contradicted the official version, rather than making it a matter of faith. Instead, it's impossible to believe the film at all.
52 out of 87 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
Not as good as "A Few Good Men" but well worth watching
loubob14 November 2000
This is a military court martial movie with a few similarities to A Few Good Men. It did not have as much suspense, but overall it was still quite good. I thought the situation in Yemen made it very applicable to current day problems in Arab-American relations. The movie was released before the USS Cole attack, which reinforces the possibility of the event in question in the court-martial. I don't think the massacre that occurred would have been quite so bloody in a real world situation though.

The performances of Tommy Lee Jones, Samuel L. Jackson and Guy Pearce were very good. Probably no Oscars here, but well worth watching.
37 out of 61 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
Insight and Drama
adogg462915 January 2003
Headed by two unnerving performances, this film takes us on a journey through the gray area that is our military morality today. We live in a society insulated from realistic depictions of war. We get censored CNN and FOX news. We rarely get anything insightful, so it is a pleasure to have HOLLYWOOD offer up one of the most moving anti-military films in the past ten years. While the courtroom drama is by all means standard, the most unique attention is paid to the changing perception of TLJ's character. In his journy to defend, he comes to an all too real understanding of a culture whose leaders have no problem sending our boys to die, yet they themselves are either ignorant of the reality, or to politically motivated to be moved by it. In conclusion, this is an alienating film because it presents an alien culture that lives by its own moral code. That alien culture isn't middle eastern... it is our own military.

One more point; Watching this film post 911 gives it an all too creepy reality.
24 out of 38 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
Excellent Movie
dighambara11 August 2014
After serving a career in the Military, I definitely relate to every soldier in the story. I consider this a very honest portrayal, especially civilians misunderstanding the reality of 'Rules of Engagement'.

These previous reviewers have no concept of the reality of combat:

A Flag is more important than Marine's life ? (This person should read about Francis Scott Key, Ft McHenry and those who died to keep the flag standing) http://www.historybuff.com/newsletter/july08.html

The ending was absurd! ("The Corps, the Corps, the Corps" - not understood by civilians.

Propaganda at its best (Closer to truth than you know..!!)
5 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
A Bit Contrived, But Very Entertaining
ccthemovieman-117 November 2006
This story gets the viewer involved with it right away never lets up, with good performances all around, although Tommy Lee Jones stands out a bit above the rest.

There are some outstanding action scenes in the first 30 minutes and if you have a 5.1surround system, it gets quite a workout. After that, the story settles down into a court battle.

Its politics are typical Hollywood: the government is corrupt with the main villain the National Security Adviser who burns a video tape that would clear a U.S. Marine colonel from being framed for murder. That colonel also is a black man which makes the story even more politically correct. Samuel J. Jackson plays that role, a Col. "Terrry Childers." Jones plays his attorney, "Col. Hayes Hodges." The two veteran actors play off each other very well.

It gets even more dramatic when two other witnesses lie and make justice look almost impossible to attain in the case. But, dramatics aside, it's a good story and certainly an entertaining one. Once again, William Friedkin has directed a good movie.
32 out of 57 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
5/10
flawed
frankboccia6 March 2006
Warning: Spoilers
The first time I saw this movie, I loved it. But at a second viewing, I realized with dismay that there was a major discrepancy in it that invalidated the entire point of the film. Almost every movie has a goof or an inconsistency, and while that annoys me sometimes it usually doesn't take away from the overall value of the film: Silence of the Lambs, a great movie, has no fewer than four major inconsistent or contradictory moments in it. The problem with this movie is that the contradiction goes to the very essence of the movie's theme. Briefly, the plot goes thusly: Samuel Jackson is in charge of a unit of Marines which is sent to an unspecified US embassy to protect it from increasingly hostile mobs. At some point, the mob becomes violent and, more, begins attacking the embassy. Jackson spirits out the ambassador and his wife, along with other staff, and then defends the embassy. Finally, he gives the order to fire into the crowd that is stoning and shooting at the building, and the unit does so with devastating results. When the smoke clears, dozens lie dead and many more wounded, including many women and children, and not a weapon is in sight. The resulting furor and outrage leads to a court-martial for Jackson. The central thesis of the film is that Jackson and Jackson alone saw the weapons. For reasons which are explained but are not totally convincing, a State Department employee destroys the surveillance tape from the embassy which clearly shows the weapons being fired by the mob. The rest of the movie describes how Jackson is defended by Tommy Lee Jones, who undertakes his own investigation.

This whole thesis falls apart, however, when you watch the scene where the Marines begin firing into the crowd. There are two impossibilities here that Friedkin (the director) asks us to swallow: 1, that an entire platoon of Marines --roughly thirty men-- rise up over the wall, aim their weapons and fire for ten to fifteen seconds --and not a single one of them sees a weapon. Impossible. Even less possible: 2, after the firing stops, all the weapons that were in the crowd (and shown on the surveillance tape) disappear --just like that! Where did they go? Thirty marines are standing on a rooftop not fifty feet away from the square, looking down at it, and all those weapons are taken away without them (or the tape) seeing it. Absolutely impossible.

If this were a minor (or even major) discrepancy, but had no relation to the rest of the action, then I wouldn't even comment on it. But the entire movie rests on the idea that only Jackson saw what he did --and that is a flat impossibility. For me, that ruined what would have otherwise been a fine film. That is very poor writing. Too bad.
10 out of 15 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
Disengaged
Critical Eye UK21 October 2001
Warning: Spoilers
SPOILERS COMING UP: DO NOT READ THIS REVIEW IF YOU'RE INTENDING TO SEE THIS MOVIE

New to UK satellite television's Box Office pay-to-view channel, this movie comes with a cautionary warning from the channel that 'in view of recent events', viewers may find 'certain scenes upsetting'. Well yes. Almost all of 'em, in fact. But they're upsetting less on account of any contemporary resonance that might echo in the wake of 9/11 -- truth to tell, there isn't any such resonance, anyway -- and rather more because of the realisation that one has coughed up £3 25p in order to view a movie with so little idea of the rules of engagement where audiences are concerned that writer and director ought to get back (or possibly,enroll) in the nearest neighbourhood film school as soon as possible.

The plot is downright daft, the characterisation awful, and the script, dire. Jackson's military hero is self evidently anything but, and Jones's about-to-retire-in-two-weeks-lawyer straight from a cupboard in central casting (the shelf below the about-to-retire-in-two-weeks detective).

For Jones in particular, the about-to-retire bit is inadvertently cruel: in the preliminary 1968 flashback shot he already looks as though he was born with the century, his noble visage defeating all of Friedkin's technical wizardry -- i.e., getting the actor to wear an oversize hat to cover most of his face -- to assert otherwise.

When it isn't daft, it's risible: a couple of weeks after being machine-gunned and having one of her legs amputated, the six-year-old victim is out of hospital and miraculously adept with her crutches (whilst other victims of the same blood bath still lay in their hospital beds with the same bullet holes and blood stains).

An evil National Security Adviser (well yes, he would have to be evil, wouldn't he?) steals a video tape that wouldn't have excused Jackson's behaviour anyway, even though the film plainly thinks so.

Lawyer and hero have a Wayne/McGaglan-style fight after the lawyer realises how indefensible his client truly is, and then having rolled around smashing each other up and the studio set, bond together in macho male laughter. Appealing? Right. Nothing like having a laugh with a mass murderer to cement an audience's sympathy.

And so it goes on: incredbility piled on incredibility, the film with neither a moral core nor even a moral fix on its cardboard characters.

Someone, somewhere though, evidently thought audiences would be engaged by this dross and leave their brains behind: an excruciatingly awful end credit sequence actually has the temerity to chronicle the post-film fate of the movie's characters -- National Security adviser arrested, Ambassador arrested, military hero acquitted of all charges --as if for one moment anyone could ever believe them to approximate to real people.

Unfortunately, the only reality of Rules of Engagement is its utter awfulness. Amidst so much gunfire and blood letting, the loudest sound is of Friedkin shooting himself in the foot.
29 out of 54 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
moronic militaristic propaganda
bobbie-1213 December 2000
Big missed opportunity: This could have been an intelligent movie about the fine line between self-defense and murder, the ambiguity in perception and judgement faced by people in dangerous situations(real life example: A Chicago police officer killed a woman who made a false move with a metallic object in her hand--it turned out to be a lock, not a weapon. Was the policewoman guilty of murder? Would we have done the same in her situation?) Instead the director turned this into jingoistic drivel. The portrayal of Arabs/Muslims is a really offensive stereotype: Gun-totin, rock-throwin, jihad-lovin, towel-head fanatics, every last one of them, man, woman, and child. Most disturbing thing about it:
51 out of 103 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
Break these Rules
The Phan7 January 2001
What a mess. Sleepwalking performances by two otherwise very fine actors (Tommy Lee Jones and Samuel L. Jackson), impossible plot holes, the use of every military and courtroom cliche imaginable, an awful script, and a continual need to suspend the viewer's disbelief. It's hard to believe such a good cast (including Guy Pearce, Ben Kingsley, Bruce Greenwood, Ann Archer) give performances that are either sad or so brief you wonder if they left much of this film on the cutting room floor. Not that it would have mattered--very little could have saved this disaster.
19 out of 34 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
4/10
Despite a Classy Cast, Not Much Doing
d_fienberg16 October 2000
Rules of Engagement fits comfortably into that genre of military film in which the motivations inherant in the human character are subverted for the motivates of the The United States Marines. Assinine personal decisions can just be tossed off as being part of The Code. Unlike A Few Good Men, still the best of its kind, Rules of Engagement falls flat because even as none of the character actions make sense, nothing is surprising either, and that is the biggest sin of all.

This is all unfortunate, since Rules of Engagement was made by a lot of people who should know better. Or who at least once knew better. The recent rerelease of The Exorcist and a repeat viewing of The French Connection contrasted with this film can only lead viewer to a simple conclusion: At one point William Friedkin was a master of his craft, knowing how to tell a compelling story with a unique visual style. He can't do that anymore. It's shocking just how dull the early scenes in Vietnam and Yemen feel. There's no tension and at a certain point you just want the characters to move on. Friedkin isn't helped by the fact that usually reliable cinematographer William Fraker (a five-time Oscar nominee) has given the film a murky look, often mislighting actors, unless the purpose was to make everybody look bruised.

When all is said and done, only Tommy Lee Jones and Samuel L. Jackson are given fully developed characters. Even though they're often forced to say stupid things (Out of nowhere Jackson has an overly expositional insult about Jones's alcoholism, a problem that hadn't been mentioned previously and was never relevant afterwards), these actors are always reliable. The film's other interesting performance come from Guy Pearce, whose American accent is frequently preposterous, but unlike LA Confidential (where Pearce gave a fuller overall performance), the accent remains mostly consistant throughout.

The film's other actors are stranded without resolutions for their characters. Ben Kingsley and Anne Archer, as the weak Yemeni ambassador and his wife, are left stranded. Ditto Bruce Greenwood (so consistantly excellent as wounded heroes in Atom Egoyan films, and so badly wasted as one dimensional heavies in American movies), whose narrative arc involving a videotape is woefully without payoff.

In the end, Rules of the Game offers nothing new, and nothing surprising. The solid acting by the leads fits into this rubric of normality, but as does the absolute apathy the film produces.

I give it a 4/10.
8 out of 12 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
Can't believe they did it.
p1nguin10 February 2005
Warning: Spoilers
Film opens with US marines in an embassy surrounded by aggressive protesters, trying to rescue diplomatic staff in a random Arabian country (Yemen). Marines are entrenched on the roof while crowd is raging beyond, targeted by some sporadic fire. Till now, nothing wrong. Certainly a quite realistic situation: getting out diplomatic staff in dangerous areas is not always a peaceful job, particularly when surrounded by hostile population often manipulated by propaganda. Period. So marines are caught under fire, in uncomfortable position. Colonel played by S.L.Jackson is doing his best to have situation run smoothly. He asks soldiers to wave down the US flag. In the process about 3 marines get shot (some wounded, some dead, can't remember exactly) by some snipers we can't locate in the whole turmoil. That's some kind of war, and not exactly a clean one. Period.

Then the madness thing begin: Jackson's character orders soldiers to... WIPE OUT THE CROWD!!!! WOMEN AND CHILDS!!! Not firing warning shots, not push them back: firing rifles and machine-guns on full auto mode ON THE CROWD!!!

Could hardly believe it. From that point, I was thinking of the film being about a good soldier, with morals, being doomed for having made wrong choice in a situation he simply lost control. Explaining that soldiers often are in situation they have to take crucial decisions in critical situation, while being, in the end, only human beings and so committing mistakes. A kind of tragedy in Greek sense.

No way. The rest of the film will be about the colonel being a true hero, and will even try to convince us that he was right when giving the orders for that slaughter. So the trial begins. Can't say it's objective. First Jackson's character is a former Vietnam hero, and he's a good guy as he saved TL Jones' character there, another Vietnam veteran who will be his lawyer. On the other hand, opposing military attorney is a young aggressive, ambitious white collar without any battle experience. Too smart to be trusted. All the people prosecuting Jackson are depicted as cowards, and dishonest persons whose only objective is making Jackson a scapegoat (while gov has actually nothing to do with col's decision as he never got any order from above). Government agents even hide evidences that may give credit to Jackson. There I need some explanation: why would government make disappear some evidences that their soldiers acted in the right way, yeah why?

Anyway after some dull trial movie bits, incredible story holes and laughable pieces of speech, Jackson will receive absolution from a retired Vietnamese general (which in the same run solves all those pesky problems of guilt about Vietnam, thanks). Jury will buy it immediately and Jackson will be immediately freed without any serious charges and remorse.

Actually director will even let us think that col was right, implying that some people in the crowd were certainly armed. Looks like he managed to refrain adding something like: "and anyway, if they had had weapons, they surely would have used them against our soldiers so that's the same".

Lesson from this movie: an American hero's honor worths more than 83 anonymous arabian lives. Thanks but we already knew that, just watch news.
13 out of 22 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Interesting but too simplistic and lacking in courtroom sparks
bob the moo14 November 2003
Years have past since Col Hodges and Col Childers were comrades in combat. Hodges is now retired while Childers is still on active service in the Middle East. When he is called in to help protect and evacuate the US Embassy in the middle of a riot, Childers orders his men to return fire despite not having any definite targets. With a crowd of 80 dead, many women and children, the authorities are forced to go after Childers to have someone to blame. Childers turns to his old friend to help defend him.

With a pair of real heavyweights in lead roles I was quite looking forward to this film. It is quite easy to get into the film as the opening 40 minutes are pretty exciting and shocking in equal measure – it forces you to think where you stand on the action taken by Childers in both past and present. However as the film goes on the moral debate becomes simplified and it is clear where we are being steered, as opposed to being allowed to think things out for ourselves. The `debate' or thoughtful side is lost and we are left with the courtroom drama side of things.

I'm not a big fan of courtroom thrillers as they often rely on unlikely twists at the end and lots of shouting in place of substance. However I do enjoy the odd one if it hangs together and has energy. However, the courtroom scenes here never really get off the ground and surprisingly (given the emotive subject) really lack energy and twists. Even the conclusion of the film is a real damp squid, the verdict is simply delivered, so if you're expecting twists and turns and big revelations forget it. Inexplicably, the film puts up two or three captions over the final shot to tell us more information – for some of these the film would have been much more exciting if it had worked these into the final 20 minutes of the film. To have them as flat words on a screen is pointless (especially since this isn't a true story!).

Jones and Jackson both do good work, as you'd expect for a pair of tough nuts such as they. Jackson has the better character (until the script weakens itself). Pearce is OK in support but the script doesn't give him too much to work with, his side of the case is easy of course, so the film stops him overpowering the court case at the same time as it simplifies it's stance. Support from faces such as Kingsley, Archer, Greenwood and Underwood is OK but in some cases are so brief to be cameos.

Overall this starts well, but it fairs to really involve once the moral debate side of the film is simplified and phased out. The question `what would you do' is rendered null and void with each flashback Jackson has. The courtroom scenes barely fizzle let alone ignite the screen and the film putters to a poor ending that is badly done. Worth seeing with good performances from the leads but still a pretty big disappointment.
22 out of 42 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
9/10
" There is an unwritten rule in the military, you do not leave an injured soldier behind "
thinker16918 October 2009
Soldiers have been fighting since time immemorial. Equally long has been their history of military conduct in the field. Among the stories of men in combat is, at some point the established proper rules of behavior. As a result, a nation's flag becomes a symbol of the soldier's code of conduct. Too many men have paid the price to disgrace it in our modern era. Among the various branches of service, the U.S. Marine Corps, has created a plethora of heroic memories which exemplify their valiant attributes. Their courage have bequeathed to their country a magnificence unparalleled among the nations. That is the stage for this movie called " Rules of Engagement. " A decorated Marine Col. Hayes Hodges (Tommy Lee Jones) has retired after an illustrious career and now seeks peace and quiet for his retiring years. Unfortunately, a fellow Marine, one Col. Terry Childers (Samuel L. Jackson) has been ordered to rescue an American Ambassador (Ben Kingsley) from a besieged embassy in Yemen which is under hostile and armed mob attack. When his men come under direct fire from snipers and an armed crowd, some his men are killed. Without hesitation Childres orders return fire and eighty civilians are killed. When he returns to the U.S. Childers is arrested on charges of murder. Now Maj. Mark Biggs (Guy Pearce) is ordered by the National Security Adviser (Bruce Greenwood) to make an example of what he called a maniacal murdering marine with a hair trigger. If convicted, Childers faces a harsh 15 years in prison or execution. The courtroom drama is superior as is the gathered cast. An excellent film which gives due credit to our Servicemen and establishes the foundation of a military Classic. ****
9 out of 15 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
Great movie
weplaster24728 July 2016
Well this movie is 16 years old now, and I hadn't watched it in several years until today. Great casting Tommy Lee Jones performance was one of his best, Samuel L Jackson was very convincing in his role as Col Terry Childers as well. I'm no war buff, heck I really don't like war movies to be quite honest. So inaccuracies in the movie DO NOT bother me. If you're looking for historically correct was movies, may I suggest a documentary or some actual footage of a real battle. If you're looking for a good movie, this is it. Quite a bit on the vulgar language side, so not a good movie to sit and watch with the kids or your preacher. So just sit back, grab a cold one and some popcorn or pretzels and enjoy the Show.
2 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
Absolutely dire film
redvers3 January 2006
Warning: Spoilers
One of the most laughably bad films I've seen in a long time. I watched this film on the basis that Jones and Jackson were in it and it offered the chance to realistically depict a politically sensitive event. The mowing down of a crowd of apparently unarmed Yemeni civilians by US Marines. Unfortunately, it was an opportunity missed. When the survivors of the "massacre" in the hospital were shown - including a young girl who'd lost her leg - I really believed that this was going to turn into a controversial thriller. I mean surely there could be absolutely no reason for killing and maiming children, women and old men? Oh hang on though, when the missing video tape is found...there we have a scene showing an old man, a woman and (just to show that they all deserved it) the young girl, firing their AK47's at the marines. Sickening!
17 out of 34 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
Unbelievable piece of military propaganda
riz-520 November 2000
I decided to see this movie hoping that it would be like A Few Good Men, a good story about duty and honor. The trailers tricked me - I thought that Jackson was a scapegoat for some mission gone bad and that he had to fight some government agent/superior officer to demonstrate that he was innocent. Instead - surprise! - he is a lying murdering b****rd who is quite surprised when he is faced with 83 charges of homicide. He doesn't feel guilt or remorse when his soldiers massacre children and women, but we are supposed to like him because he cries every time he sees an American flag. This movie teaches us that it's right, moral and even honorable to kill unarmed prisoners; that you can break or ignore the rules of engagement so long as you know them by heart; that a Yemenite life is worth 0,036 times an American life; that it's normal to kill women, old men and children when you have several other options available (warning shots or retreat). The delicate subject of child-soldiers is treated with alarming lightness, civilian casualties are brushed away as irrelevant. Even more worrying, I read the comments of the other users and most of them considered Jackson innocent ("Hey, that small girl was SHOOTING him! She deserved to die!"). I advise those people to go out and buy some moral sense. I didn't walk out of the theater only because I hoped to see Jackson convicted - or at least that he understood what he had done. There actually was a surprise in the end - something so unbelievable that I was disgusted. It's incredible that this piece of trash was distributed outside the United States.
17 out of 35 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
An injured Marine and an injured Marine
Benjamin Wolfe13 January 2007
It occurs to me after seeing "The Rules of Engagement" how one thing can lead to another. 'Point'... things are not always as they would seem to be. For Hayes Hodges,(Tommy Lee Jones) a sort of 'underdog' lawyer, who is taking a case that, he feels he has been pulled into. You can see the doubt in his eyes. National Security Adviser Sokal, played by(Bruce Green)a great 'pick' for that role!! Sokal, is viewing an American embassy security video tape, wants to bury the copy, for his own career appeasement. Sokal offers no help, and seems in all sense to be anti-military as his actions show that he is not there to find the truth, rather to get an answer that will sit well with his boss and in the public's eye.

This shows the lack of backing that the government will sometimes give to the troops, or some military situations that tend to be to 'politically hairy', when the media takes over, bringing heat and starting to paint a picture about a story that is not fully accurate. That will get some people in harms way, fast and to some certain death! Samuel L Jackson(Childers) and Tommy Lee Jones' (Hayes Hodges) characters, are close friends. When Terry Childers approaches Hodges, with a crisis on his hands, it makes his friend that has 'chewed jungle' with Terry before, very uneasy and of of center. Hayes in his quest for answers takes a plane trip to the embassy and the surrounding city to investigate further, but ends up not liking what he is learning. Furthermore, Terry looks as if he has painted himself into a corner, by the story he has given to 'Hodge' and with Ambassador Mourain (Ben Kingsley) who Childers was coming to take out (rescue) from a fiery situation, is not any help at this point at all for Terry's defense. Guy Pierce plays an upcoming and hungry prosecutor, (Maj. Mark Biggs) who wants Jackson's character, to do nothing less than prison, for a middle eastern incident at an American base in Yemen. With Hodge getting upset and the upsetting turning to anger, things are starting to get done.

This is an excellent military drama that ranks with "A Few Good Men" only prefer this one, over, "Santiago had no code!" as far as an enveloping action drama story. Some will disagree, but this one doesn't let you down. Recommended highly!(****) Great direction, William Friedkin
6 out of 10 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
4/10
Morally disgusting, fundamentally confused, poorly constructed, blatantly manipulative.
Spleen27 March 2001
Let's take those points in turn.

(1) Okay, killing 83 civilians and injuring 100 more is something that can happen to anyone; what's amazing is that Terry Childers feels neither remorse nor regret. He's surprised that he's even being tried. (He's not, it must be said, the brightest of men.) His defence? When he deigns to justify his actions to people who haven't themselves killed anyone, all he can say - although he says it with an amazing tone of wounded moral outrage - is, "They killed ... THREE ... MARINES!" Oh, well, in THAT case ... I mean, it's not as if the 83 Yemenites were MARINES. (By the way, I wish the Americans would drop that ridiculous word, "marine". It makes it sound as of some of their soldiers have gills.) It's obvious that the film shares Childers's attitude.

(2) And yet, and yet ... Friedkin doesn't hesitate to give us lingering shots of all the dead and wounded civilians. What is he saying? "Yes, this is tragic, but..." But what? He doesn't have anything to say after the "but". It's as if he thinks he can show the people of Yemen respect by offering them screen time - the more screen time, the more respect. -And another thing: if Friedkin has any idea what he thinks the trial was ABOUT, I wish he'd let us know. Does he think that Childers is technically innocent on all three charges? I'm glad someone is in a position to tell; we're certainly not, since we never find out in enough detail what the legal issues are (what kind of conduct IS "conduct unbecoming a marine"?), and anyway, this is one of those grandstanding trials in which neither side makes a coherent case, or wants to.

(3) Do we care what happened 28 years earlier in Vietnam? Do we have reason to care? Of course not. This lengthy prologue is there simply to make the film seem twice as ridiculous (Tommy Lee Jones looks, if anything, older in 1968 than in 1996; the statement "If you call off your men, you can go free; you have my word. If you don't, I swear I'll kill you where you stand!" gets translated into just five syllables of Vietnamese), and to give characters "a past", as if any old past will do. The trial begins at precisely the wrong time: just when our exhaustion with all the setting-up has led us to believe that the end of the film can't be far off, but early enough so that it feels in retrospect as if the film is all trial. It would be better if it really were.

(4) As for "blatantly manipulative", where do I begin? With the soundtrack? You know the kind - muted snare drums, more-in-sorrow-than-in-anger solo trumpets ...it never varies from one piece of American military sentimentalism to the next. (This particular score is due to Mark Isham, but I can't blame him. I'm sure he had no choice.) Or how about the ambassador, who we see snapping petulantly into the phone, hiding under the table, and - gasp! - forgetting to take the American flag with him when he leaves. Gee, I wonder if he'll turn out to be a coward? And what about his son, who steals screen time solely in order to look up with his big puppydog eyes and ask some, faux naïve, mummy-why-are-those-people-shouting-at-us questions? Then there's the trial, with a charm-laden Tommy Lee Jones defending and some bug-eyed weevil prosecuting.... How much more effective this trial would have been if the prosecutor had had, at the very least, silkiness - if he hadn't been someone who could be counted upon to lose the case simply by rubbing the jury the wrong way. Bah.
6 out of 10 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Vile Reprehensible Propaganda
derek_30200016 March 2001
Without doubt this has to rate not only as one the worst films I've ever had the misfortune to view but also as one of the most disgusting. The moral basis of this movie is so unbelievably stomach churning and inhumane that it beggars belief. In my innocence I never believed such views and perspectives could actually make it onto the big screen where they could poison the minds of the impressionable. The whole movie amounted to a demonization of the "evil nasty" Yemenese people who seem to be quite a mindless bunch of rock-throwing gun-toting terrorists if you believe the spin this movie throws at you, and at the same time a rationalisation of a mindless bloody massacre by the U.S. marines. Surely any U.S. marines out there who have seen this movie must have been deeply offended at how they were portrayed. I reckon Dr Joseph Goebbels and his ministry of propaganda could have learned a lesson or two from this movie(propaganda flick). It defies belief that two fine actors such as Samuel L. Jackson and Tommy Lee Jones would consent to appear in rubbish like this, even though they gave quite good performances, despite the hole-ridden plot. Have they fallen on hard times or what is their excuse? The only reason I could possibly recommend this movie would be to illustrate how one goes about producing propaganda. There are so many flaws with this movie that I won't even begin to list them. One can't really appreciate how bad and vile it is until it is actually viewed, but do yourself a favour and avoid it like the plague. Terrible - morally reprehensible - vile!
5 out of 8 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
3/10
Rules of Retardation
Trevor Mcinsley2 March 2013
Warning: Spoilers
I cannot say I fully comprehend precisely what the writers were thinking... well, in fact it is just plain puzzling. They wanted to write a courtroom drama but when it came time to actually think of a point for the court case they apparently just drew a blank and decided to massacre a load of civilians for no conceivable reason.

The scene is just... ridiculous. So ridiculous I simply gave up watching. Samuel L Jackson (why is it every character he plays is called 'Samuel L Jackson'?) clearly sees the gunmen are on the roof when they fly in. The marines decide the best way of dealing with this situation is to run about on top of the ramparts and give the enemy a nice little game of duck hunt... rather than say, returning fire. Even if they had some standing order not to fire I think this rather gets superseded when half your men have just been shot...

Then when it comes time to engage Sam decides the best thing to do is to fire into a crowd of people throwing rocks as opposed to actually shooting the people shooting him... just... why? It seems there are genuinely a hundred other ways they could have had their civilian massacre plot short of just having the guy order his troops to pointless massacre them. He could have called in some inaccurate fire on a position, a building could have collapsed into the crowd from taking suppressive fire... even if he had just slipped whilst trying to throw a grenade it would have been more plausible. Ultimately I would have carried on watching it if this scene made the slightest bit of sense. If he had ordered his marines to fire on the snipers on the rooftops and had some of the women and children that were visibly clustered amongst them take some hits they still could have racked up the inordinate body count they so craved. Perhaps we could even see one or two rookie marines shoot into the crowd after mistaking a rock for incoming fire only for Sam to order them to stop. The prosecution would then be that of a looking for a scapegoat to avoid an international incident and the audience would be on the side of the war veteran defendant.

I gave up before the court case even started because frankly it would have been more plausible if they were trying to sue a unicorn from space for causing World War Three...

I am annoyed that I watched the first half hour of preamble in what looked to be a good film with a good cast only to find that the writer is a goddamn retard.
3 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Better than 6.3 currently given
IClaudius715 August 2011
Warning: Spoilers
Although this has been called "contrived" the factual basis, is not only possible, it is probable given all the deployments of our military personnel for the time frame depicted. Moreover, this piece of trivia would go against that assessment:

"James Webb provided the story for the film, based partly on his own military experience in Vietnam and his tenure as the Secretary of the Navy under President Ronald Reagan; in 2006, Webb was elected as Virginia's newest U.S. Senator."

I am not sure why it was given a "bad rap", but the courtroom scenes, especially with the prosecutor Guy Pearce, are some of the best I have seen depicted of a general court martial (I am an ex-JAG from the Navy). Moreover, the GCM result is also probable.

The NSA who hides evidence is VERY believable. Loved the flick - it's now a guilty pleasure. I recommend it as capturing a scenario which could happen in at embassy in a Muslim country.

As for production and direction, William Friedkin is a more than able director having won an Oscar for "The French Connection" and being nominated for another in "The Exorcist". The cast includes notables Oscar winner Ben Kingsley, Oscar nominated Anne Archer, and the ubiquitous warrior Dale Dye to go along with Oscar winner Tommy Lee Jones and Oscar nominated Samuel L. Jackson. All in all, it was given "short shrift" perhaps because of politics. The story was more than exciting for the purpose.
3 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
Typical but well acted
blanche-211 February 2013
"Rules of Engagement" from 2000 is a fairly derivative film. Directed by William Friedkin, it's the story of two men, Colonel Terry Childers (Samuel L. Jackson), a 30-year Marine veteran and decorated officer; and Colonel Hayes Hodges (Tommy Lee Jones), now an attorney, a man with whom he fought and whose life he saved in Vietnam and has retired.

Childers is sent on a rescue mission in Yemen that goes awry when the protesting crowd outside the embassy starts shooting at the Marines. Childers, who already has men down, orders his soldiers to fire into the crowd. He is able to evacuate the embassy but finds himself in trouble due to the fact that no one believes the protesters had weapons. He is put on trial and asks Hodges to defend him. Hodges doesn't feel he's a good enough attorney, but he agrees to take the case.

There is a tape of what happened, but the head of security (Bruce Greenwood) who doesn't want the United States to take the rap for killing civilians and would rather have it fall on a soldier, burns it. And Childers gets no support from the Ambassador (Ben Kingsley) or his wife (Anne Archer), and the attorney on the other side (Guy Pearce) is out for blood.

We've seen this film in various guises before, and the good versus evil is typical Hollywood. The acting is good but I have difficulty understanding the casting of Ben Kingsley, a great Oscar-winning actor, who is completely wasted in what is not even really a supporting role. Anne Archer plays his wife. The two have a small son and have been married for ten years. May I suggest that though it's entirely feasible that Archer at 43 had a child, the casting seems a little off. Often, when directors want a certain actor, the agency representing them agrees on the condition that the director take other people on his roster. I suspect this is what happened here; the casting is not quite right for these distinguished actors.

Tommy Lee Jones in particular is good as Hodges, though he has the showier role. Samuel Jackson is always very good and gives a strong performance as well, but there's something very stereotypical about both parts. Bruce Greenwood at least is interesting casting - he seems pretty mild-mannered as the Head of Security, but there's a treachery underneath.

All in all, this is an okay film, one where you know how it's going to end and basically what's going to happen while it's going on. We see two stars who have done their roles before in other circumstances. So in the end, while it has its moments, it's somewhat routine. One of those if you've seen one, you've seen them all type films.
4 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
9/10
More Real Than Real
libraefaciae2 May 2009
Warning: Spoilers
You will not find another reviewer who realizes Sen Webb's book, on which the movie is based, uses a different, but similar incident that actually did occur. He denies it, now, but there are early interviews which argue strongly for this point of view. Like so much which occurred in the Clinton administration, papers have disappeared and evidence is now missing. But to say that such things have not or do not occur, is to deny the evidence of Vietnam, Campuchia (Red Cambodia), and North Korea. Women, children, men dressed as women, do fire on troops and do kill people. Cynical foes of American freedom do count on the soft-heartedness of the people who let others fight for them to do their defaming for them.

With that said, the plot is not only believable, but portrayed accurately as we have seen over and over again from the savagery of sectarian extremists in Iraq. Friedkin was prescient.

The battle scenes are every bit as accurate as those of BLACKHAWK DOWN. The courtroom scenes are riveting. Every step of the way, the audience is led to a conclusion that to be an honorable Marine is to be a hopeless puppet of the government.

Even the ending (which we will not give away) forces you to understand the precariousness of the position of people under those with great power. This helplessness, I believe, is what gave most reviewers the uncomfortableness which directed their critiques. Yet it is the very theme of the movie: On an anagogical level, the highest level of allegory, it shouts Acton's Axiom of power and absolute power and the corruption it demands. And no matter which party is in power, the forces of that power make puppets of honor.

The movie has its flaws - the script leaves little for the presiding judge, who is a defacto voice of power, to say, although the editing makes up for it, keeping the courtroom scene ablaze with action.

The catharsis which wrings from the "uncomfortableness" of the film is paramount to its understanding. We feel better, knowing that rough justice has been served.
4 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
An error has occured. Please try again.

See also

Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews


Recently Viewed