Rating: 
Summary: Rules Rulz
Review: Tommy Lee Jones and Samuel L Jackson, that is enough said.....
Rating:
Summary: The real thing is going on in Israel
Review: A you know by now, officer Jones (S. Jackson) is aquitted of war crimes in a court of law, after opening fire into a crowd of violent protesters in Yemen. I find it a shame that this could happen only in a hollywood movie. Today, and every day during the past 6 months, Israeli soilders and officers are facing the same situation, trying to hold back blood-thirsty armed arab demonstraters ( palestinian police officers among them ) among many fronts along the country. The use of children and woman as human sheilds ( as portrayed poorly in the film) is not uncommon either. Unfortunately, it would be hard to imagine the turmoil that would follow if an event like the one Officer Jones got caught up in took place on israeli soil. It would be unfortunate for both the Israelis and the arabs, although I would justify the Israeli officer in charge , I do not beleive it would be the opinion of International press , Isareli press and public opinion or even an Israeli court of law. As we talk today, an Israeli police officer is being prosecuted for allegingly being responsible for 13 dead arabs in one of the first demonstrations of the current arab Intifada, his name is Guy Reef.
Rating:
Summary: Entertaining movie. Excellent sounding DVD
Review: The movie is absolutely entertaining. Both Tommy Lee Jones and Samuel L. Jackson gave excellent performances. You should know the story line by now about a US army Colonel played by Sam Jackson accused of murder innocent civilians during peaceful demonstration turn deadly at US embassy in Yemen. I should point out however that this is the best sounding DVD released in the year 2000. Yes, I am more impressed with the sound of this DVD than the highly overrated T2 Special edition. Chapter 1 and Chapter 3 of this DVD will turn your living room into warzone. Excellent. Worth buying.
Rating: 
Summary: flawed but interesting effort
Review: ***1/2 Had William Friedken's `Rules of Engagement' had the courage to travel down a different route, it might have emerged as a great film rather than merely the good one it turns out to be. Credit this big budget action film with at least attempting to address a morally complex issue in a morally complex way. That the film doesn't succeed completely is probably due to the restraints imposed on it by both studio and box office considerations.The film poses a number of long-debated military questions: when used in the context of an endeavor like war - whose primary aim is to take away the lives of one's enemy - is the term "rules of engagement" itself an untenable paradox? Does it even makes sense to have "rules" when it comes to war? And can there be such a thing as an `innocent victim' killed in the heat of battle? And can a commander who orders the deaths of such people in a wartime situation be convicted of `murder'? Samuel L. Jackson stars as Colonel Terry Childers, a decorated Vietnam War hero who suddenly finds himself on trial for court martial for ordering his men to open fire on an allegedly unarmed group of Islamic protesters demonstrating outside the United States embassy in Yemen. Tommy Lee Jones co-stars as Hays Hodges, the man whom Childers saved in a battle in Vietnam who now, as a self-described mediocre lawyer, has the chance to pay back his buddy by clearing his name in court. `Rules of Engagement' raises a number of fascinating issues, but I contend that the film would have been even more interesting than it is (and it IS interesting) if it had left the audience in doubt as to Childers' innocence or guilt. Instead, we know from the beginning that Childers' version of the events in question is the accurate one, which robs the film of the kind of gripping human drama that can be achieved only through an examination of the ambiguities that make up human motives and actions. This means that we know who the heroes and villains are right away. There is even a tell-all video of the event to be secreted and ultimately destroyed by an unctuous government official. Thus, we end up with yet another David vs. Goliath story, yet another soldier-at-the-mercy-of-the-U.S.-military-industrial-complex scenario, when what we really crave is something more challenging, more ambiguous, more morally complex. These elements are what keep `Rules of Engagement' from being an extraordinary achievement. Yet, there are many positive aspects of the film as well. For one thing, it avoids the temptation to become a xenophobic, flag-waving pro-American/anti-Islamic diatribe. It certainly doesn't shy away from portraying the tragic toll inflicted by the shooting on the protestors present. In addition, it allows its two male leads to display honest emotions like regret, confusion and self-doubt. They are even permitted to cry from time to time. In a way, both actors have been cast a bit against type, since neither is portraying the self-assured, almost cocky brand of hero he is usually called on to play. Most important is that, despite the feeling of compromise, the film does raise some fascinating moral issues that too few major films even bother to consider. If this review comes across as more negative than it should, it is merely because the potential for greatness is always regrettable when it is not achieved. Nevertheless, `Rules of Engagement' deserves to be seen and admired for what did make it to the screen. For all its imperfections, this really is a very good film.
Rating:
Summary: The real take on "JAG"
Review: I liked this movie more than most critics. Tommy Lee Jones' performance was good and Samuel L. Jackson did a good job portraying a military officer caught up in a political mess. Its not a "great" film but it is very entertaining.
Rating:
Summary: Loved it
Review: Rules of Engagement is without a doubt, a very good movie. It brings you, John Q. Civilian, as close to combat as you want to come. Everything from the ambush in Vietnam to the popshots made at the Marines as flew in was realistic. I am not one hundred percent sure but I believe it was based on a true story. I know many fellow Marines that have been in combat and they have told me that it is extremely realistic. For those of you who do not like it, thats ok. For those who think it has no climax, its ok. For anyone who has served in the armed forces or has always aspired to or had some interest in, you will enjoy this film. For my fellow Marines, I simply yell out "Ooorah".
Rating:
Summary: Rules of Engagement DVD
Review: This DVD is an education into the directorial art. True enough, if you want just the movie, get VHS. But if you want depth and understanding, DVD is the only way to go. William Friedkin gives an amazing audio commentary track. He shows that as a director, he uses no storyboards, but relies on a documentary, improvisational style. Even his extras are real -- he used real North Vietnamese for his NVA soldiers, real arabs for his arabs, and real marines for his marines. The result is a movie whose realism is extremely heightened. The rooftop battle scene in the embassy in Yemen feels dangerous for the viewer -- Friedkin used paintball guns shooting chalk to get realistic bullet effects on the masonry surrounding the soldiers. Friedkin focuses on the main theme of this movie, how loyalty and debts of honor clash with "rules of engagement" worked out in some Washington conference room -- how the reality of combat can clash with the artificial rules imposed by bureaucrats far removed from the action. Bringing that conflict to the fore was the point of the movie. While admittedly, there are some plot stretches, like the National Security Advisor thinking he could get away with destroying a tape that was listed on a receipt at the State Department, it is the exploration of the theme, and the interplay of the strong cast, that makes this movie an absolute gem. Friedkin does an interesting thing at the beginning of his commentary: He says that the commentary is really for film students, who want to understand the world according to him, and that the authentic act of viewing the film is to view the film without the commentary. He cautions the viewer, that even his point of view is not the controlling one -- that the viewer should retain his or her own point of view in viewing and judging the film. That kind of intellectual honesty amd objectivity is unusual and refreshing, and elevates for me the stature of William Friedkin as an artist, director, and thinker. This movie is grand, with bravura performances by Jones and Jackson. Guy Pearce (Lt. Exley in LA Confidential) puts in a suprisingly good performance as a Marine lawyer with a NY accent, no mean feat for this Aussie! Loved this movie, and if you want real insight into William Friedkin and his techniques, this DVD has it all.
Rating:
Summary: Better Than A Few Good Men
Review: Great teaming of two of the finest actors today. Excellent action sequences combined with dramatic courtroom scenes. What more could anyone ask. This film also boasts good supporting cast. There is a good lesson here, also, about Marines under fire and doing what is necessary to accomplish the mission. I hope our government saw this and understands that successful missions depend on our men and women in uniform doing their job without any suit-wearing bueracrats telling them whats-what!
Rating: 
Summary: Completely Underrated
Review: I enjoyed this movie a lot and I think that it is underrated. Samuel L. Jackson is Marine Colonel Terry Childers and Tommy Lee Jones is the lawyer who must defend him. The movie begins in some nameless jungle in Vietnam where Childers and Jones are soldiers fighting Charlie. A huge gun battle ensues and Jones's group is massacred. But Childers convinces the VC leader to call off the attack by killing his radio operator. Then we are taken to the present day, to San'aa, Yemen, where Childers is forced to get the ambassador out. His marines are being shot at, he thinks by the crowd, and so he orders his marines to open fire. They do, and so begins his difficult legal battle. It is not "A Few Good Men," Rob Reiner's spactacular military courtroom drama, but it is a good, interesting look at the military's justice system, and it keeps you riveted. It is not a really surprise ending, but it works. Jackson is absolutely amazing and Jones plays his part well as Childers's lawyer and friend. Go out and rent it, it's better than at least two of the movies nominated for best picture.
Rating:
Summary: guy film
Review: I agree with the earlier reviews, except to say that if you haven t read them, you don't know until the end of the film that it is missing a climax, and enjoy it more. premise of file makes no sense. still, that is not exactly unusual in movies; what is more irritating is threads that go nowhere. we keep expecting a nifty "save" for col. childers, a last minute heroic of some kind, that never happens. at the end , you want to say "hey, that can't be IT! where's the rest of the movie? (Its in little "afterword" sentences written on the screen).
|
