Rules of Engagement

Rating:
Summary: USMC!
Review: An excellant film! Why? Because it not only shows what men do under heavy fire, it also shows what they would really do. Not just have it sugar coated for the audience. Looking at the opening part of the movie, one can tell that it is Vietnam. Without words this sets the tone. You can just tell that a battle is going to happen. When it does the images are real. Later on in the film there is another battle taking place and this seems to be one of the most realistic I've ever seen. Samuel L. Jackson plays a Marine in charge of a rescue mission to save an American ambassador. When he orders his men to fire into a crowd containing men, women and children. Jackson is sent to trial. Tommy Lee Jones must some how prove that Jackson and his men had been fired upon from the crowd. A very real story centering around Marines, and a realistic view of war and every other day stuff helps give us a good view of men who risk there lives for others! Great sound and sound effects editing! Grade:B+

Rating:
Summary: PERSPECTIVES
Review: The directorial career of William Friedkin is very peculiar. After FRENCH CONNECTION and THE EXORCIST, he was one of the kings of Hollywood; 15 years later, he was directing cheap horror movies. So one can consider his last movie RULES OF ENGAGEMENT as a kind of resurrection. I'm personally glad with this come-back, William Friedkin being a first-class action movie director.

RULES OF ENGAGEMENT is an excellent movie you can rent with the eyes wide shut and believe me, it's pretty rare nowadays. The movie will please the courtroom movie fan as well as the war movie buff. If you are looking for acting performances, Tommy Lee Jones, Samuel L. Jackson and Ben Kingsley play here multidimensional characters and even the suspense fan is going to like the way William Friedkin plays with the nerves and the sense of observation of the audience.

Images and sound are perfect and the featurettes are, for once, interesting and instructive.

A surprisingly good DVD.

Rating:
Summary: Engaging
Review: The framework in which this story is centered around is quite compelling: an American embassy in a 3rd world country is being besieged by an angry and volatile anti-American mob. A security detail from a Marine Expeditionary Force (MEF) is called in to defuse the situation. From that point onward, utter chaos breaks out.

In this day & age the scene of the mob is sure to be quite gripping to any American viewer. This is especially the case given the fact that we've had several embassies overseas bombed in the past 10-20 years. Ever since 9/11 it has been exceedingly difficult to have a whole lot of sympathy for anti-American mobs, regardless of where they are.

While the film examines nicely some of the ethical intricacies of combat, the major flaw is that there is a rather large hole in the plot that even the least clever moviegoers will be able to point out. As the rest of the movie is pretty good, the best thing to do is to try and overlook this unfortunate inconsistency.

Another facet that strikes close to home is the cover-up attempts of the State Department. Not only is this plausible, but it is downright realistic. Few people with morals work for the State Department and the history of the department is filled with cloak-and-daggar silliness.

In all, this is an entertaining movie that compels one to think. It would have been a great movie, if not for the hole in the plot. It is a story that reminds us that the rules that govern war according to the Geneva Convention were written by lawyers who sat in the comfort of debate tables and not battle-hardened soldiers on the front-lines who get shot at on a daily basis.

Rating:
Summary: Good initial idea and incredible cast, poor scripting
Review: Tommy Lee Jones and Samuel L. Jackson are excellent as usual in their roles: two old friends from Vietnam whose careers took different courses after a firefight that badly injured Jones. Jackson's Marines rescue a cowardly ambassador and his family from an embassy pelted with rocks, insults and the occasional sniper's bullet. In return for this service, the ambassador will testify that Jackson lost control and opened fire on a crowd full of unarmed civilians, because his superior at the Department of State thinks he should to save the American reputation in the Middle East.

The basic story is good and the actors have amazing presence, but there are a number of amusing inconsistencies in the script, like:

1) Dale Dye, as Samuel L. Jackson's commanding officer, asks him whether he wants private counsel or the base legal office to represent him (if you watch this in a theater full of military personnel, expect this line to be among the funniest in the film). This occurs right in the middle of him briefing the man whose court-martial he will convene, which happens absolutely never.

2) Why didn't anyone analyze the bullet holes in the embassy wall to establish trajectory?

3) How the hell do you find a Vietnamese company captain from an action that occurred thirty years ago with no sort of attention at any previous time? (This probably makes no sense to you if you haven't seen it, and it really won't in the film, except to make the point that even officers on opposing sides have the common trait of valuing their troops' lives more than anything else on the field of battle.)

The conflict between functions of state and defense isn't as implausible as the reviewers appear to think, particularly in a time when we deploy our soldiers and Marines to the world's least desirable corners as beat cops. Whether you set this story in Yemen or Kosovo or somewhere else, it can happen, it has happened and will probably continue to happen. State wants its wars to resolve neatly into ends comfortably discussed in meetings over tea, and gets annoyed when Defense reminds them that rules of engagement always make room for an exception necessary for saving lives.

Rent it before you buy it.

Rating:
Summary: Wonderful film that is both action packed and full of drama!
Review: "Rules of Engagement" reminds me of a mix between "Full Metal Jacket" and a John Grisham novel. It is a great film about two Marines (Samuel L. Jackson, Tommy Lee Jones) who take turns protecting eachother. Jackson is first by protecting Jones in Vietnam. And Jones is second by becoming Jackson's lawyer after Jackson is accused of murdering 83 Yemenese civilians. It is an emotional roller coaster of a movie with a tremendous musical score to enhance the drama. The action scenes of the movie are done with great effects. And the courtroom drama is done just as great as most courtroom movies (ie. A Time to Kill, The Rainmaker, Erin Brokovich). Tommy Lee Jones and Samuel L. Jackson both give wonderful perfomances as does Guy Pearce, as prosecuting lawyer Major Biggs.

The DVD is great. The sound is wonderful, and the special features are great. There is a behind the scenes featurette, an interview with director William Friedkin, and interviews with the cast. This DVD is an excellent addition to any DVD collection.

Rating:
Summary: Semper Fi--ne
Review: War is rife with moral ambiguities, particularly if some combatants are not in uniform. Rules of Engagement, a military drama that ends up in the courtroom, sets out to explore the uncertainties of pulling triggers and ends up pulling no punches.

Jackson and Jones portray Marine Corps colonels who served together in Vietnam. Now, nearly 30 years -- and many battles and medals -- later, Jackson faces a court-martial after ordering Marines under his command to shoot civilians demonstrating outside a U.S. embassy in Yemen. He contends that the demonstrators were armed, that he was only returning fire, and asks Jones, an attorney, to defend him. "I'm a good enough lawyer," says Jones, "to know you need a better one."

These two accomplished actors have a fine time playing off each other -- Jackson all concentrated energy and Jones taking it slow. Director William Friedkin (The Exorcist) does an especially effective job with the early bloody combat scenes.

Intriguing military procedural film with two brilliant actors.

Rating:
Summary: House of cards
Review: Friedkin really tried to make this movie feel legitimate. When you build an interesting idea up from a shaky plot and even more unlikely story, however, you're bound to end up with some sort of mishap. That's exactly what happens here.

I wanted to believe the things I saw. I watched eagerly as the characters played by Tommy Lee Jones and Samuel Jackson were established in the jungles of Vietnam. I liked it. Dare I say, it felt real.

Unfortunately, what transpires afterwards is a load of hogwash. The basic premise involves Samuel Jackson, a military colonel, being dropped into what had been a peaceful demonstration outside the US embassy in Yemen. His mission is to protect the embassy, and if necessary, to evacuate the ambassador and his family. Since the demonstration gets out of control, the ambassador evacuates and leaves Samuel there with his marines. At this point, the movie takes some care to "not" show you what really goes on, so that there will be this lingering question in your mind as to whether or not Samuel Jackson's character is guilty of the murder of a group of unarmed demonstrators.

This is the first sticky point of the movie. We are misled with everybody else into not knowing what to think about the occurrence. How are we supposed to feel compassion for a guy that we just saw murder all of these people? Regardless of any vindication that may come later, it's hard to feel good about what we see on the screen. The rest of the movie involves Tommy Lee Jones, Samuel's old Vietnam buddy trying to exonerate him from murder charges we aren't sure if he committed. Trust me, it sounds more intriguing than it really is.

This whole scenario is made even more murky by a tainted National Security Administrator that causes the surviving video (which we find out would totally clear Samuel Jackson of the charges) to be "lost."

The ending is lackluster melodrama that, for me, was totally unbelievable. Worth a rental but not enough to own. This could of been a great movie contrasting the combat-experienced men of Vietnam with modern day "Peacekeepers," but as it is, it relies on cheap sentimentality to make its impact. Weak dialogue and an unbelievable story killed this one.

Rating:
Summary: Disgraceful!
Review: This is a piece of disgraceful American jingoism, implying that all Arabs are evil, and that only the US can save the world. And the inference is that it's a true story - IT'S NOT! It's Stars and Stripes fiction of the most racist kind. And to cap it all, it's a huge waste of talented actors. It's the responsibilty of reasonable people to make sure that the young and naive never see this tripe. They could end up believing it's true.

Rating:
Summary: William Friedkin is a Man of Honor
Review: Within the sanguine moral abyss of combat, lies the grey zone. William Friedkin peels back the souls of men like a savage karmic banana, embedded with the shrapnel of moral ambiguity, the kind that fuels the war machine. And caught in the middle are the Marines, elegantly exemplified by the firebrand conviction of Samuel L. Jackson and the decency incarnate Americana personified by Tommy Lee Jones. Under the hands of maestro William Friedkin, "Rules of Engagement" proves that only honor survives amongst the ashes of men.

Rating:
Summary: Great Film for Patriots
Review: This is a film where you will either like/love it or hate it, much like Red Dawn, Hanoi Hilton, The Patriot, and other such films of the Good Americans vs. Evil Foreigners genre. If you liked the movies mentioned above, you will certainly like Rules of Engagement. If you like your Starbucks Latte with soy milk, think Jacques Chirac is the greatest proponent of peace since Ghandi, and otherwise tend to side with any country other than the USA, you will most certainly hate Rules of Engagement.