Rating: 
Summary: If you have some spare time ...
Review: In its core , this is another military courtroom drama , which deals with the subject of illegal orders , like "A Few Good Men", this time , in the heat of combat . "Rules of Engagement" does not innovate much regarding the issue it deals with , and basically , it's the same old scapegoat case we have seen in previous movies .As for the main story itself , the controversial scene is in the American embassy in Yemen , which is attacked by a raging mass of natives for unspecified reasons , in addition to shooters on the roofs that surround the embassy . An elite force , led by Samuel Jackson , is called upon to save the day and the ambassador , while at it . The fight goes terribly wrong when the fire the force meets is unbearable and requires reaction . Jackson decides to order the shooting towards the roofs and the crowd !
These actions result in the survival of his force but in the death of 83 locals , and are the main theme that is dealt with to the end of the movie . Soon enough , the world is shocked , and The U.S. president wants the head of the commander in charge . Jackson is charged with the responsibility to the massacre and hires his old buddy , Tommy Lee Jones, which is the opposite of a hotshot attorney (what a surprise!) , to get himself off the hook . Again a surprise , Jones is discovered as a serious lawyer and manages to ascend to heights of investigations and positive arguments never been seen before (at least in his regard) to save his pale . The plot seems reasonable , but the holes you will witness throughout the theatrical experience are surely to make you wonder about the value of the script and the director's expertise . For instance , when have you seen lately a 6 years old girl shooting a pistol ? What about veiled women that hide guns inside their dresses ? And the most ridiculous fistfight between the lawyer and his client ... these and other scenes can't help the thought "Is this for real ? They got to be kiddin' me !" . After seeing the movie some questions about the real rules of engagement did arise and conversed between my friends and me , and that's a good point in favor of the movie . Nevertheless , I did see it only because I had nothing better to do , and if this is your case you can see it too without the fear of falling asleep ...
Rating: 
Summary: Creampuff casper milquetoast
Review: Perhaps once upon a time there was a script that dealt seriously with the issues of morality and warfare in the ambiguous post-modern warfare of "low-intensity" conflict. That's my hope. The resulting RULES OF ENGAGEMENT, however, takes every good element it has and obscures it behind trite dramatics and sad appeals to the successful devices of past "legal" films. It's pretty obvious that a couple of bufoon film executives were given an all too free ride in the finalization of the screenplay. The two combat scenes are excellent: Vietnam in the 1960s; and Yemen in the 1990s. Reviewers who know what they're talking about have commented on all that, but I'll just say they are the high points of the film. The two battle scenes do a remarkable job of relaying the stress and confusion of the American characters under fire. The rest of the film, however, is utterly useless. Why? Because of the potential that was squandered. A FEW GOOD MEN, which is uncomfortably aped by this movie, was successful in presenting ambiguous moral questions about the use of power in the military, and its relationship to the free society the military protects. RULES OF ENGAGEMENT had the potential to provoke those kinds of questions, but the weaknesses overwhelm it. Two Marines who fought together in Vietnam are reunited in the 1990s. A public relations disaster and coverup erupts when US Marines protecting and evacuating the embassy in Yemen begin to take casualties. The one Marine (Sam Jackson) is the commander of the force evacuating the embassy. He orders his troops to fire into the crowd, killing scores of Yemenis. The other Marine (Tommy Lee J.) is a washed up ex-drunk with a knack for losing cases, and ends up defending the Sam in a shockingly anti-climactic court martial. Sam, you see, has been hung out to dry by the Goviment, and the drying out Tommy can't get over the fact he's not as cool as his Marine dad. Bravado, sanctimony, and hyperbole flow freely, but we've seen all that before. Frankly, I don't think there's an actor today who can portray an avenging lawyer as well as Michael Moriarty on old LAW & ORDER reruns. You can guess the outcome unless you've been living in a bomb shelter for a couple of decades. These children of Perry Mason can do no wrong, for God is on their side, etcetera, etcetera. What could have gone right? 1) The civilian sleazeball villain could have been scaled back. It was perfect at first: the man was acting on his political instincts of the interests of the United States and the security of Americans everywhere. He outlines all of the alternative options available to Sam instead of blowing away the protestors. The viewer starts to think, "Well geez, maybe he's kinda right." This ambiguity is so important in trying to figure out these very real issues in the real world. But then it is all layed on so thick that the viewer is not left with any choice about who the bad guy is when the character is played as grotesquely as possible. 2) The chaos and confusion of events at the embassy. This was all very interesting; the breakdown in communication, the stress, etc. What overshadowed this, however, was the utter stupidity of a US Ambassador actually having his family with him in such an obviously hostile post. 3) The vanity and near hysteria of Sam Jackson's character was often chilling. We are initially left with severely mixed feelings as we watch the court martial plot unfold. However, they decided to give you a flashback to make you feel alright about having him your hero. Again, this removes the ambiguity. 4) Tommy Lee's defense case was pretty sappy. Apart from an okay, sob-story closing argument, it is perplexing to see why the verdict was so magnaminous. In reality, with the range of choices available to the commander at the time, he should have been nailed to the wall by the jury. One Marine death came from the crowd; the rest from the more deadly sniper fire. Did the commander then not have a greater obligation to suppress the sniper fire? Doing so would probably have caused the crowd to scatter anyway, and all of the women and children would not have died. 5) A decent lawyer with even half the story could have nailed the Ambassador for perjury right there on the stand. The helicopters were taking fire as they were landing, there were dozens of American witnesses about the danger of the situation. Tommy Lee could have skewered him for blatantly lying. 6) Since when does mail to the State Department go to the National Security Adviser? The unrealistic chain of command undermines the screenplay even more. 7) Colonel Sam and the Vietnamese commander saluting each other. This was the most poignant part of the film. It was the ultimate challenge to the viewer: honor, dignity, and common understanding was based on a mutual recognition of the moral insanity and absurdity of the violence. The nature of moral responsibility is that much more confusing. This should have ended the movie, with lots of open questions left about what really happened, and about what values really mattered in judging these events. Instead, the appeal to the banal was made, with a bunch of silly text messages assuring the viewer that all the hitherto unaccountable badguys were indeed busted. Why? It was totally disatisfying; the point of such a resolution is that the audience participates in it. It's silly to think some text paragraphs overlaying marching soldiers lets us feel justice was done. Had they left it open ended, they might have been able to salvage this movie as one provoking serious questions about the nature of bad policies and bad decisions in the inconclusive world of post-modern combat.
Rating: 
Summary: A Story for our time!
Review: I find that several of the reviewers here think that this movie is Overwrought with prejudice about Arabs. I couldn't disagree more!
One has only to look at the history in the Middle East to see that there is, and probably always will be, radicals bent on destroying anything to do with Americans, Jews, and even Europeans.
The story only revolves around a small number of Yemenese citizens and or radicals, not the whole country.
Our general feelings are not how Hollywood portrays Arabs, but how they reveal themselves to us:
Bottom line, it's what one author calls the "Arab's proclivity to blame others for his own shortcomings and failures." Manhattan makes Islamabad feel inferior? Women are too eye-catching? The answer: Get over it.
To blame the U.S. for all of the shortcomings in the middle east would be like us blaming Japan becuase all the best Stereos come from thier....GET REAL!
Rating:
Summary: I'm being generous
Review: First of all, I have to say that this movie started out quite well. The Vietnam war sequences were intense and stunning, and it immediately grabbed my attention. The film, however, then starts to get shaky after the Colonel (Jackson), is charged with murder for opening fire on a seemingly unarmed crowd of innocent protesting Yemenese civilians. From this point the film turns into a half-baked courtroom drama, then leaves the viewer with a very premature ending. I think it would have been a better decision on the director's part to actually show how the head of National Security was brought down, rather than just writing about it in the end. If you're looking for a great war movie, get "Saving Private Ryan", and if you're looking for an intense courtroom drama get "A Few Good Men", or "A Civil Action"
Rating: 
Summary: Tripe
Review: I personally felt soiled by this outragous piece of jingoistic propoganda. The plot concerns an American Marine who is put on trial for allegedly shooting at civilians in an Embassy Siege. Our intrepid hero calls on the services of an old Vietnam War buddy to defend him against a conspiracy of politicians and military sell outs who want a conviction to improve Americas reputation. In the end out hero is vindicated and it is shown that the various women and children who were killed, were in fact armed adversaries who deserved death. The films images and plot reminds one of a Nazi propoganda film rather than the normal US adventure style movie. Although made prior to September 11th the images of Arabs is designed to inspire hate and fear. This is truly a revolting film
Rating:
Summary: Ambitious but unimaginative and uneven - 3 1/2 stars
Review: This is a military trial drama. When dire actions occur under tinderbox cirmcumstances, the President has a public relations nightmare and needs a scape goat. The scape goat gets his retired buddy to reluctantly come out off retirement to defend him. While I found this movie to be entertaining, I don't know that I'll watch it again except to discuss it with my 15 year old son in order to get his take on some of the issues covered in the movie. The issues of patriotism, defending those who depend on you, doing the right thing and how to get out of things that are over your head, are important issues that are addressed in this movie, they're just not addressed that well. It doesn't take an avid JAG viewer (not that I am one nor am I an attorney) to realize that if the movie shows you what happened and why, but there is no corroborating evidence and there are prosecution witnesses who are lying, then you discredit the "bad guys'" testimony. This should have been of prime benefit to the defense, but doesn't happen here. This movie reminds me of a theme I find in many other movies as well as books. The management characters only care about their careers and are willing to step on the backs of the hump characters to whom they owe unpaid gratitude for the efforts that management takes credit for. Cynical yes, accurate, probably, overdone definitely. It's an unfair world, let's get over it and produce works that shed more understanding on those characteristics in the human condition and human spirit from which we can benefit. I see no reason to constantly remind ourselves how unfair life can be. The acting was quite good given the lack of depth the actual characters are forced to portray in this movie. The actions of all the bad guys are predictable and so are those of the good guys. The burning question, on which the justification for the accused's actions hang, is whether or not there was gunfire from the crowd on the street. It seems to me analysis of the bullet holes in the soft masonry walls of the embassy would indicate trajectory and therefore prove or disprove the accused's claims. If you stick your finger in a bullet hole in the wall and your finger is pointing up at an angle not horizontally, and there are a substantial number of those holes, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to solve that mystery. A second question is why the ambassador was not required to prove he was the one to remove the American flag when he evacuated the embassy as he said he did. The ending was anticlimatic and therefore a let down and the epilogue on the screen explaining the fate of the bad guys seemed more like a lame afterthought than it was helpful. Had it been a true story, I might have been interested, as it was just pleasant fiction, I could care less. Except. . . . the story behind how the bad guys were found out in the epilogue text, might have been a better story.
Rating: 
Summary: Its sweet, but the legal [stuff is boring]
Review: I like this movie alot. Its a great movie, the combat scenes are realistic. The legal stuff is boring though. It ranks high for me because Im an MC ROTC cadet and my respect for Jackson and Jones. Of course, with out the legalness there would be no movie. I recommend buying this movie. Get it used though and save some money.
Rating:
Summary: Racism posing as 'art'
Review: Rules of Engagment is quite possibly the most racist film I've ever seen. Now that stereotyping Hispanics, Orientals, Jews, and African-Americans is considered 'racist', filmmakers have decided to bash Arabs and Muslims, the one one ethnicity and religion it is still perfectly fine to smear with stereotypes and bigotry. If you enjoy seeing how racist films, then this is for you. If Paramount had put even ONE Arab in the movie that wasn't a bloodthirsty religious fanatic, then I might be a little kinder. ADC was right. This is offensive and racist.
Rating:
Summary: Unoriginal, Unrealistic
Review: Prior to seeing this movie I was expecting an entertaining, quality show based on the cast alone. Unfortunately I was greeting with a tired script, bland characters, and an unrealistic portrayal of the military. Only "The General's Daughter" makes a bigger mockery of the service than this film does. If you want to get a quality, film about the military with good acting, get "A Few Good Men" instead.
Rating:
Summary: Get real!!
Review: Our hero has trouble proving he was fired on by personnel on the ground. What happened to the holes in the aircraft ?? the pilots and the other jerks that were with him?? Being a soldier, The detail to me stank, the actors were good but sure don't need to get into real combat !!
| 
