Rules of Engagement (2000) User Reviews

Not as good as "A Few Good Men" but well worth watching

[loubob · 7/10 · 14 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.

Insight and Drama

[adogg4629 · 7/10 · 15 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.

flawed

[frankboccia · 5/10 · 6 March 2006]

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.

Manipulative

[Alex-372 · 28 February 2002]

Having just watched Rules Of Engagement, I have to say that although Samuel L. Jackson and Tommy Lee Jones are a joy to watch, I have to make some negative comments about this movie.

The movie is extremely manipulative, and comes from the equally manipulative director of The French Connection, William Friedkin. The movie's bad guys, oddly enough, are a crowd of irrational arabs, together with career politicians who won't just let military men do what they have to do.

The problem with the entire scenario is that the entire massacre could have been prevented with a couple of well aimed teargass grenades. Secondly, not a lot of time is spent on the character development of the 'bad guys', namely the Yemenis (in this case), who all seem to be very eager to die killing Americans, including their (the Yemeni's) toddlers. The later images of the little girl shooting a pistol is very manipulative indeed ("oh, see, she deserved to get her leg shot off after all!").

And thirdly, the incident most like it, namely the US Army Rangers debacle in Mogadishu, caused the death of 18 Rangers but 1000 Somali Mogadishuans, most of which were non-combatants. No-one seems to have been called to task for that event, let alone be thrown to the lions to appease public opinion, like Samuel Jackson's character is over a "mere" 83 deaths. (The same thing can be said for the invasion of Panama, where there was a similar death toll among civilians - the truth of the matter is that since WWII, conventional weapons have become infinitely more efficient, with the result that if conflict breaks out in built-up areas, _lots_ of civilians are killed.)

However, the one redeeming value (other than the acting) is that it shines a light on the changed nature of the political war that is required of the modern soldier in places like Somalia, Bosnia, etc., and that started in Vietnam.

Dramatic warfare in the jungle, the desert and the courtroom.

[michaelRokeefe · 7/10 · 22 April 2000]

There is an anti-American uprising in Yemen. Col. Terry Childers, played by Samuel L. Jackson, is sent to evacuate the U.S. embassy. Childers gives his Marines the order to fire back at hostile, armed civilians. This action results into a framed court martial. Defending Childers is Col. Hays Hodges, played by Tommy Lee Jones. Childers saved Hodges' life in Nam and the elder Marine lawyer feels obligated to return the good deed.

The scenes of engagement are very powerful and gruesome. Childers and Hodges have a knock down, drag out of a fist fight. The films climax kind of fizzles. The movie seems so potent up until the end. Don't underestimate a Marine's ethics or this movie. This is a winner, even if the plot seems so familiar.

William Friedkin directs and there is a decent supporting cast that includes Bruce Greenwood, Ben Kingsley and Ann Archer.

Very Accurate

[hody1953 · 7/10 · 4 October 2009]

I read the first summary in your list, and feel it is totally incorrect. The person believed this was an anti-military movie, nothing could be further from the truth. It was an anti-political control of the military, but supported the military point of view 100%. As a 20 year retired veteran of both Vietnam and the first Gulf War, the politicians continuously hang the military out to dry. They give the military orders, and the lie about what they did and let the military hang if things go wrong. This movie showed this in spades. The fictional account of the marine officer firing on civilians (who were firing on him and his men) was powerful, and showed the type of decisions made by good and not so good officers in the field every day. The only people shown in a bad light by this movie and Hollywood was the director of the NSA and the Ambassador (i.e., politicians). As far as the statement about the under-culture of the us military, well all I can say is if we didn't do this, you wouldn't be here, with the freedoms you enjoy. It wasn't the under-culture of the military that led to 9-11, it was another under-culture in this country, one that destroys other people's cultures.

Filled with flaws, but still engaging due to strong performances. *** out of ****.

[Movie-12 · 7/10 · 15 April 2000]

RULES OF ENGAGEMENT / (2000) ***

Starring: Tommy Lee Jones, Samuel L. Jackson, Ben Kingsley, Blair Underwood, Guy Pearce, Bruce Greenwood, Anne Archer, and Philip Baker Hall.

Directed by William Friedkin. Written by James Webb. Running time: 123 minutes. Rated R (for graphic violence and language).

By Blake French:

"Rules of Engagement" is a thriller of missed opportunities and noticeable failures. The film squeezes out of explanation and conclusive execution; it is riddled with unmistakable flaws are structural miscalculations. I found myself deeply engaged within the profoundness of the somewhat familiar story, however, even after these problems. This drama, directed by William Friedkin, is intense and strongly constructed, proving what accurate conditions the filmmakers accommodate.

The movie opens fifty years ago during a battle in Vietnam. We meet two main characters, Colonel Terry Childers (Samuel L. Jackson) and Colonel Hayes Hodges (Tommy Lee Jones). The two become good friends after Childers saves the life of Hodges during a brutal siege. Later, Childers is questioned due to a questionably inhuman, although effective, circumstance he embraces to achieve his quickly constructed strategy.

We skip ahead to the retirement of Hodges as a mostly unsuccessful military lawyer. Childers has accepted command of a Marine unit that finds itself at duty in Yemen after an American embassy becomes distressed. The US sends Childers and his forces to the country to recall the Ambassador (Ben Kingsley), his wife, Mrs. Mourain (Anne Archer), and their son, as well as to take charge of the rioting Yemenis.

Once at the embassy, the rioting crowd becomes too hostile. After a sniper kills one of his men, Childers commands his crew to open fire on the civilians. The Yemeni casualties number well over seventy-five. National Security Adviser William Sokal (Bruce Greenwood) placed charges on Childers because he does not think the U.S. should take blame for what he considers the actions of a one individual. The objection is transgressing the rules of engagement.

Other key characters in the film are the highly proclaimed General H. Lawrence Hodges (Philip Baker Hall), military prosecutors Major Biggs (Guy Pearce), and Capt. Tom Chandler (Mark Feuerstein), and Ambassador Mourain.

The setup, written by James Webb, takes too long to set up. Although well-depicted and clear, the rest of the movie hinges entirely on it. It may have been more effective if the audience did not know what happened in Yemen. There is also a possibility that it could have been more revealing and tense if the film had spent more time in researching its issues.

Another conflict in the setup is the fact that we are unaware of important details. Why are the Yemenis rioting? Obviously their reasoning has something to do with the US Ambassador. Such a critical plot point, one in which the rest of the story hinges upon, is never revealed.

The riot and war scenes feature swift and realistically sketchy camera positions and movements. Similar to "Saving Private Ryan," this production attempts to make little sense of the seemingly senseless violence. This quality composes "Rules of Engagement" in a relatively believable and intense style.

William Friedkin takes "Rules of Engagement" seriously, squeezing little dramatic relief within the film's context. Although focused direction is normally a very effective quality, Friedkin suffers from being too converged. The characters are giving few incidences in which they are able to portray any life apart from their occupations. The filmmakers give the characters a lot of smart and juicy dialogue to gnaw on, generating engaging depth in them. As such, these characters are not one dimensional, just one directional.

The courtroom scenes are some of the film's most powerful and truthful. Solid performances by Guy Pearce, Tommy Lee Jones, Samuel L. Jackson, and Ben Kingsley make for a rigid-atmosphere behind legal doors. For the first time in a long while I was unsure of what the jury's final decision would be. Maybe that is because we are unsure about our stance on the situations. Some of the actions, such as elements of perjury and withholding evidence, could be more explained. Overall, however, the notions were quite clear.

Perhaps the biggest success in "Rules of Engagement" is its strong narrative theme of action. The movie follows a steady through-line. Although excessively concentrated, each scene advances the story and complicates the initial problem. Despite flaws in numerous areas and a somewhat mixed review, "Rules of Engagement" is a solid, stark movie marginally worthy of recognition.

"Rules of Engagement" is brought to you by Paramount Pictures.

Typical but well acted

[blanche-2 · 6/10 · 11 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.

A good ride, good actors, some flaws.

[moviecat-6 · 8/10 · 1 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.

Forget the biased reviews

[ercfunk-445-950046 · 7/10 · 3 July 2021]

There's some seriously biased on here from people that are obviously either anti-military or anti-American. This movie is a decent military law story. It is fiction, no part of this movie is factual, nor is it entirely realistic. It's worth a watch but it's nothing special, it's not A Few Good Men quality.

History as told by the victors

[Mephisto-24 · 2/10 · 29 December 2003]

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.

A Bit Contrived, But Very Entertaining

[ccthemovieman-1 · 8/10 · 17 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.

A Good Movie, if you can ignore the holes

[mjw2305 · 7/10 · 30 January 2005]

I Like to enjoy a movie, even if it has flaws, and i don't like to nit-pick as a rule, bit i don't like movies to cheat, and this movie does exactly that.

Samuel L Jackson, is a highly decorated and Heroic Marine, that is hung out to dry by the American Government, after a siege in Yemen went bad. Under heavy fire, he loses Marines and orders the hostile crowd outside the US Embassey to be slaughtered. Refusing to let the United States take the fall, they destroy evidence and leave him without a chance.

With a cast of Samuel L. Jackson, Guy Pearce and Tommy Lee Jones, all delivering fine performances, and the basis for a good story, this movie is somewhat spoilt by the following -

WARNING MAJOR SPOILERS

During the Siege in Yemen, we see the unarmed crowd, before the order to waste the Mother F*****s. Later in the film we see a flashback through Samuel L Jackson Eyes, where everyone, even the women and children were armed and were firing at the marines. There was no reason for this, other than to try and fool us, the viewing audience that he may have been wrong to fire on the crowd.

SPOILERS OVER

That Said it is an enjoyable movie, but sadly nothing more.

7/10.

moronic militaristic propaganda

[bobbie-12 · 1/10 · 13 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:

Interesting but too simplistic and lacking in courtroom sparks

[bob the moo · 14 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.

A Very Foggy War

[rmax304823 · 6/10 · 5 November 2005]

"The Rules of Engagement" got some pretty crummy external reviews, but it's not that bad.

The performances are all quite good. Guy Pearce was nailed for his American accent but I don't know why. He comes across as somebody whose regional dialect was subject to some New York City gestation. Let's give him some credit. The Brits used to stick to Southern accents (viz., Scarlett O'Hara, Blanche DuBois) but have lately become more discriminating (viz., Daniel Day-Lewis in "Gangs of New York"). It's a big improvement over the generic American dialect that Russel Crowe and Charlize Theron come up with.

Where was I? Oh, yes. The combat scenes are well done. They owe a great deal to "Saving Private Ryan" of course. Every combat scene in every movie for the next decade or so will owe a lot to Private Ryan, in particular the abundance of bloody wounds and the sound of bullets clanking off metal surfaces.

The locations are well chosen and the photography is up to professional par.

If there is a weakness it's in the script. The Tommy Lee Jones character is presented to us as a drunk or a former drunk, but nothing comes of it. By the end he seems to have found the kind of redemption that all drunks find at the end of uplifting movies, except for Paul Newman in "The Verdict," who loses faith in friendship even as he finds redemption in good deeds. And he sensibly keeps on drinking.

There's a fight between the two macho Marines -- Jones and Jackson -- the point of which eludes me. We really don't need a brawl between two middle-aged men to pump up the middle section of the film.

The courtroom scene reeks of drama largely because the director has decided it should. People stand up in the witness box and shout angrily at the pesky prosecutor and admit things they shouldn't just because they're enraged. And there is a touching scene at the end, in which Jackson and a former enemy exchange salutes, but it's corny and there is triumphant music swelling in the background, all by the numbers.

I should mention something else that became more clear on second viewing. At the beginning of "The Green Berets" -- an atrocious John Wayne movie about Vietnam -- a civilian reporter seems to accuse Col. Wayne of militarism. "You been in Vietnam?", asks Wayne. No. "Ah-HUH," comments Wayne dismissively. A sharp contrast is thereby drawn between the characters we are to meet -- those who have been there and those who have not. A similar distinction is made in this movie, and in the most simple-minded way. There are three strata. From the top downward: (1) the heroic men who have been in combat; (2) the well-meaning Marines who haven't; and (3) the lying, perjuring, evidence-destroying suits who have no principles and are out only to further their own careers.

Yet, it's a thought-provoking mature movie in a way that, say, "A Few Good Men" was simply not. I would give "Saving Private Ryan" a higher rank because of its originality. Nothing in "The Rules of Engagement" is particularly clear cut. Jackson's character does order his men to fire on civilians, including women and kids, who are firing at him, and the firing from the crowd is covered up by the politicians who want to bury the guy so that the good old USA doesn't have to take the blame for all those deaths. But Jackson is given a good line. "That's not murder. It's COMBAT." Sometimes these days it gets a little difficult to distinguish combat from murder, and one of the reasons this movie may irritate some viewers is that the military comes off as both brave and honorable, if not exactly flawless. These Marines are gung ho, reasonably intelligent, and capable of remorse. I would guess there are many people who prefer the kind of idiot played by Jack Nicholson in "A Few Good Men," a sadistic, perjuring, stupid, male chauvinist pig. "A Few Good Men" is a more satisfying movie if you're into self righteousness and anti-militarism.

Marines and military people in general tend towards a certain set of common attitudes but there is as much diversity among them as in any other subculture, except maybe devotees of panjandrums of the more extreme stripe. The Marines whom I taught at Camp Lejeune were as bright, curious, and industrious as any students at the nearby University of North Carolina.

We all know what we would have done if we'd been Jack Nicholson. We wouldn't have done what he did. We'd have been legal and moral. But this movie asks a different question. What would we have done if we'd been in Jackson's boots? No easy answers there, though the ending kind of betrays the message that the movie itself carries.

I should add that it seems to be rare to "hang anybody out to dry" for making mistakes in combat. A week before this note was entered, Doctors Without Borders accused US forces of deliberately attacking its hospital in Afghanistan, as a top US commander said the deadly air strikes were a mistake. The hospital, also known as Médecins Sans Frontières, claims its medical facility in Kunduz was "deliberately bombed" three days ago, killing at least 22 people. General John Campbell said he could not provide more details about what happened, including who may have failed to follow procedures for avoiding attacks on hospitals. He said he must await the outcome of multiple investigations. "Await the outcome of multiple investigations."

A macho "semper fi" no brainer with a weak story.

[=G= · 6/10 · 11 October 2000]

"Rules of Engagement" is A-Few-Good-Men-wannabee with some excellent acting and production talent which fails because of a weak and flawed story. The film is one third combat, one third trial, and one third wandering around trying to figure out what kind of movie it wants to be. Okay to zone by.

Not realistic but entertaining

[stormyweather_keeps_raining · 7/10 · 18 August 2021]

I was entertained and thought the acting was well done but the fact that he ordered his men to fire with live rounds on all those people doesn't seem realistic to me. Would they not have dropped smoke or some kind of gas canisters that would have caused people to pass out or even leave the area? Surely they came prepared for such a thing.

The main plot point is too tough to swallow

[TBJCSKCNRRQTreviews · 6/10 · 8 November 2009]

Apart from The Exorcist, this is the only thing by Friedkin I've seen. Is it just me, or are these two the only particularly recognizable titles he's helmed? Why? His direction isn't half bad. The battle sequences manage to be intense and gripping, without disorienting the viewer; seldom is such a balance reached, and this does pretty well at it. Editing and cinematography are also great. The roles are well-cast, if Baker Hall is somewhat wasted with so little screen-time, and Kingsley, well, he does rather well for what he's given to work with. Teaming up Jackson and Lee Jones is a cool idea, and it really pays off. The two have nice chemistry, and they're both completely convincing. Acting is almost all impeccable. After a promising start, however, this turns out to take a simplistic approach to the conflict, abandoning all opportunity for exploration of the moral dilemma. Furthermore, the audience has a hard time accepting the problem presented to our leads. I won't detail it, you'll know what I mean when you see it, if you do. It is a gaping hole in the script, and credibility falls out of it. I guess the fault lies with the writers, or at least one of them. The courtroom scenes are average, never completely captivating the viewer, and the ending is downright poor. There is gruesome, bloody violence in this, as well as strong language. I recommend this solely to the biggest fans of those who made it. 6/10

Overall good film with some unfortunate clichés

[trpdean · 7/10 · 5 November 2005]

This is a well-made gripping movie -- with a great cast. Its central issue is quite timely.

**** SPOILERS **** The film concerns the firing upon an American Embassy in Yemen by dozens and dozens, perhaps hundreds of people - some on the roof of a building across the courtyard, more in the courtyard itself. Audio tapes of speeches or sermons (it's not clear which) in which the people are informed it is their duty to God to kill Americans are later found at the Embassy and by the bedsides of some of the people.

After three Marines rescuing the Ambassador have been shot, the furious fire from the Yemenis is returned by a Marine detachment that has rescued the American Ambassador and his wife to safety. The return fire kills 83, wounds another 100, and successfully stops the attack.

The courtyard is immediately cleaned by Yemenis of all the weapons dropped by the dead and wounded -- and then photographs are taken of the dead and wounded lying there. The governments in Yemen, Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Jordan all decry the action taken by the Marines and Ambassadors are withdrawn.

The photographs are published in newspapers. The Embassy's outside television camera has recorded the dozens of old people, children and others who were firing machine guns at the Embassy and the Marines -- but in order to blame the Marine colonel in charge of the rescue, the National Security Adviser destroys the tape.

The central drama is the court martial of the Marine colonel in charge -- defended by a former comrade from the Vietnam War. The Marines who were present at the incident had been under cover and unable to see the courtyard and the dozens firing upon the Marines. Only the Colonel in charge and another Marine who died on the spot were in a position to see the crowd.

There are three unfortunate matters in the movie: i) the cliché of "higher ups" being utterly evil and willing to do anything to blame others - in this case, it's just so difficult to believe that someone as senior as the National Security Adviser who had absolutely nothing to hide -- would deliberately destroy evidence that would exculpate the colonel.

ii) the cliché of the North Vietnamese having been somehow "honorable" -- and available to testify in courts martial in Washington D.C. The salutes exchanged between the Marine colonel and the former North Vietnamese soldier at the end of the film -- made me cringe.

iii) the entire motivation of the National Security Adviser - there's no reason whatever to think that the conviction of a Marine colonel is going to lessen anger at the United States for the incident. If anything, I would think (a false) establishment of the Marines' guilt for these deaths would increase, rather than diminish anger at the U.S. So the motivation of the National Security Adviser that "if this man isn't convicted, the U.S. will be blamed" makes no sense to me -- yet that is the entire motivation for the destruction of the exculpatory evidence.

The action sequences are absolutely gripping - and seem very realistic. So are the scenes that take place when the Marine's lawyer journeys to Yemen to search for any further evidence.

Another matter I liked as a litigator, was seeing the judge make correct judicial rulings throughout the trial. The courtroom scenes are fine stuff - similar to "A Few Good Men" in drama.

**** SPOILERS END **** The cast is astounding - Blair Underwood, Anne Archer, Tommy Lee Jones, Samuel L. Jackson, Sir Ben Kingsley, Guy Pearce. They're all quite fine - Jackson and Jones are superb. I was surprised that actors of the caliber of Archer, Underwood and Kingsley would take such small parts - they don't have terribly much to do. And I found the Australian Pearce's extremely thick New York accent quite off-putting - he sounded American, but phew - what an ugly sound.

This is a gripping film that will certainly hold your interest throughout - and despite a few clicheed improbabilities, is quite well done.

Can't believe they did it.

[p1nguin · 1/10 · 10 February 2005]

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.

" There is an unwritten rule in the military, you do not leave an injured soldier behind "

[thinker1691 · 9/10 · 8 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. ****

A flawed, but entertaining 2 hours....

[jennifer-99 · 7/10 · 1 February 2001]

Rules of Engagement just doesn't follow the rules of satisfying film making. This doesn't mean that it is a bad movie or that it is not worthy of a rental at the video store, it just means that when the credits are rolled, the viewer is not left with the feeling of total satisfaction at having watched an excellent film.

The movies strengths definitely lie in the strong portrayals turned in by the 2 male leads. Mr. Jackson was more subdued than usual, but extremely effective, as was Mr. Jones. With the exception of a poorly executed fight scene involving these 2 actors, their performances were the glue which held the movie together at its weakest moments.

The story line, while engaging and interesting, had an extremely choppy feel to it. Almost as if important scenes were left on the cutting room floor by mistake, while less important scenes had made it onto the final reel. However, this is a relatively minor complaint.

The last 10 minutes of the film were completely unforgivable. It's as if the film makers ran out of time, and instead of showing you how the story ended, we get a series of screens with captions depicting how the rest of the plot unfolded. There is no catharsis for the viewer. No feeling that justice had been served. I recall feeling angry as the credits rolled that they had chosen the "cop-out" way to end the film.

Maybe I am being too picky? I don't know. The rest film is good enough for me to recommend seeing it and drawing your own conclusions.

William Friedkin, RIP

[lee_eisenberg · 2/10 · 13 September 2023]

William Friedkin died recently, so I decided to watch this lesser known movie of his.

Think about this. Reports arise of US troops in a Middle Eastern country brutalizing the locals, with images of it splashed across newspapers worldwide. Hoping to put on a good face, the army decides to prosecute the perpetrators. The world awaits the verdict.

If I simply said this with no context, you might think that I'm describing events in Abu Ghraib. But I'm not. It's the plot of Friedkin's "Rules of Engagement". It's questionable enough that they set the scene in a Middle Eastern country and made it look as though the colonel was justified in opening fire on civilians. But the events take place in Yemen, now leveled by the US-backed Saudi intervention there (they filmed it in Morocco, now leveled by an earthquake).

My point is that this is very much not the sort of movie that I would expect from Friedkin. More like what you'd expect from John McTiernan or Michael Bay (except for the trial).

Undervalued and important film

[cjbarrett · 17 January 2018]

Should be viewed by anyone considering a career in the service. Great performances by a coupl of our best actors. Sadly the topic is an all too familiar one of the government selling out the men and women who serve it.