Rules of Engagement (2000)

Director William Friedkin knows a thing or two about staging harrowing action sequences, and if you don't believe that, you've never seen The French Connection or To Live and Die in L.A. He comes through niftily in this film as well, with an opening Vietnam battle sequence that sets the stage for the rest of the story, and then with the central moment in the film: a rescue mission involving Marines extricating the American ambassador from an embassy surrounded by hostile protesters in Yemen. Unfortunately, Friedkin can't do much about the implausible plot that follows, in which the Marine commander, played by the always-terrific Samuel L. Jackson, is accused of slaughtering innocent civilians (who actually were shooting at him and his men). He must rely on an old Marine buddy--a lawyer played by Tommy Lee Jones--to get him through the jury-rigged court martial. But the central premise--that an evil presidential aide would perjure himself and destroy evidence simply to maintain good relations with U.S. allies in the Middle East, rather than defending a highly decorated Marine colonel who risked his life--is inevitably hard to swallow. And the ending is even flimsier. --Marshall Fine Amazon.com

Interesting as a Snapshot in Time

Interesting scenario; Battle hardened Marine Colonel drops in to secure a besieged embassy and evacuate the staff. His men are getting killed by snipers and a hostile crowd. He gives the order to engage, but is the only person among the group with a clear view of the armed bad guys in the crowd. The Marines fire on the crowd and it creates a firestorm in the press and the State Department with everyone trying to save their careers by sacrificing the Colonel.

Even more interesting to me is what this movie portrays almost exactly a year prior to 9/11. Although very relevant post 9/11, I suspect that nobody would touch this script with a 10-ft. pole today.

One of the stronger images in the movie, also more relevant today than when it was released, is when the Colonel leaves the courthouse after the verdict and is verbally attacked by the media and public but saluted by his former enemy, the North Vietnamese Colonel.

Not a great movie, but one worth watching. If nothing else, it gives a fictional example of why you should not believe everything you hear/see from the media.
October 5, 2007

Courtroom Drama

A good portion of this is set in the courtroom. Samuel L is a Marine officer tasked with guarding the US Embassy in an Arab country. An attack occurs and he is put on trial for violating the rules of engagement. He enlists the help of his friend and former lawyer to find the truth and defend him. Everything in this movie is JUST good (acting, storyline, entertainment value), not great. September 17, 2007

Leaves the wrong message

I don't understand why the filmmakers were trying to convince everyone that Samuel L. Jackson's character couldn't have violated the rules of engagement. The opening scene sets his attitude pretty well when he blatantly kills a Viet Cong prisoner to encourage the enemy commander to call off his unit which is killing everyone in Tommy Lee Jones's platoon. While the plot is different, the atmosphere of old, beat-down, used-up has-beens reminds me of Clint Eastwood's Unforgiven. The problem lies in the ending.

I think it could have been a good movie, but it lacked a key ingredient. I lost that suspension of disbelief that makes it necessary to enjoy the movie. I will illustrate this point next, but beware...

SPOILER AHEAD...

When the old Viet Cong commander who stopped the attack on Tommy Lee Jones's platoon shows up in the court room to testify, I was stricken with how unlikely that would be. When he testified that Samuel L. Jackson murdered his radio operator to force him to call off the attack, I figured it was a done deal. Regardless of all the emotion brought forth by Tommy Lee Jones's defense, which sounded good, but didn't change the facts, the whole time I'm watching this I'm thinking "guilty, guilty, guilty." I was sure they weren't going to convict the main character, I was just wondering how he was going to get out of it. The ultimate defense was Tommy Lee Jones asking the Viet Cong commander if he would have done the same if that had been his friend's platoon being killed. Of course, the guy says "yes." So the viewer is supposed to believe that makes it ok? Since when did the American military hold the values of the Viet Cong up to such high admiration that they condoned flat-out murder, point-blank, in the head, to an unarmed prisoner? This is just too unbelievable.
June 30, 2007

A Lot of Nothing

This movie goes from Dumb, to Dumber, and finishes with Dumbest. January 12, 2007

Important questions, disappointing answers

The charisma of Tommy Lee Jones & Samuel L. Jackson & the gripping theme of this film make it quite watchable. Hard not to be taken in. I rented it; I'm not sorry. Would I buy it? No.

In the last analysis, it's a cynical and manipulative film, not least because the final captions suggest it is a true story -- and I see from some basic internet research that it is not.

Also, it mericilessly milks a number of stereotypes: some of them concern the Yemeni characters; others Vietnam; the relationship between the black and white characters; the main characters' relationships with their families (the lawyer with his overshadowing father, estranged wife, and pacifist son; the colonel Childers with the Marine Corps, the flag, and his non-existent family). Finally, this is a gripping film that does not do justice to its underlying themes, which include a racial aspect that goes entirely unexplored.

Today -- July 22, 2006 -- there are desperate issues in the world that could have been illuminated by a film like this one. They are not, which may explain why Secretary of the Navy James Webb, who reportedly originally worked on the concept, ultimately withdrew. These are questions -- when does war become murder? what counts as torture? what as innocence? how complicit must civilian populations be before they become targets themselves? -- that are too important to be left to films as un-self-conscious as this one. July 23, 2006

More reviews at Amazon.com ...