Rating: 
Summary: Awful
Review: This movie is awful. If I could give it zero stars I would. The characters are clichés, the plot convoluted, the dialogue absurd. Samuel L. Jackson's character is set up to take the fall for a massacre of troops under his command, and his old buddy from Vietnam, Tommy Lee Jones, is his lawyer, out to exonerate him. Good idea for a movie but this movie delivers it so lamely. The bad guys are secretive "bureacrats," the trial scenes ridiculous for anyone who has seen 5 minutes of Court TV or has any familiarity with legal proceedings. I realize we are supposed to suspend belief at the movies, but this one was absolutely awful. Save your time, get something else.
Rating: 
Summary: It could have been a great movie
Review: The Rules of Engagement had the potential to be an excellent movie that is marred by a couple of bad script and direction decisions. The acting by the two leads, Samuel L. Jackson and Tommy Lee Jones is dead on, and the combat action is feverish and brutal, as well as it should be. The movie also raises very interesting questions, but fails to deliver in the end.The movie opens with a flashback to Vietnam, where we learn of the bond of brotherhood shared by these two Marines, and see them action. Mr. Jackson, who plays Col. Childers, saves Mr. Jones' character, Col. Hodges, who is severely injured in combat and reduced to a desk job, becoming an undistinguished attorney for the Corps. Childers, on the other hand, continues in a long and distinguished career, eventually rising to the rank of Colonel and assigned command of a Marine rapid deployment unit sent to the Middle East (Yemen). There, they face a rioting mob in front of the US Embassy, and the situation quickly deteriorates from rock throwing to active gunfire and Molotov cocktails. After evacuating key personnel from the embassy, Childers makes the tragic decision that results in his eventual court martial. He orders his men to fire at the crowd in front of the embassy, thereby killing 83 men, women, and children, and injuring hundreds more. All this sets the stage to a courtroom drama that is filled with tension and anguish. However, after the build-up of the first two thirds of the movie, the script and director make two key decisions that drains the movie of its emotional and moral dilemmas, thus stripping the movie of its message and purpose. The movie, as it starts out, shows Col. Childers as a determined and fiercely loyal and patriotic soldier, a man who takes decisive action and is unafraid to shed blood in order to save his soldiers' lives. It is a credit to Mr. Jackson's acting that this unflinching, uncompromising soldier comes across as sympathetic and likable. However, therein lies the problem. After the Yemen massacre, the US Government wants to quickly resolve the matter to dispel any notion within the Arab nations that the US condoned the killing. The deck is stacked against Childers from the beginning, with a sleazy National Security Advisor and a hot shot Marine attorney thrown against Childers and Hodges. But since the movie takes the stance that Childers is the protagonist of the movie, it is unwilling to demonize him. As a matter of fact, the crucial flaw of the movie is showing too much to the audience in order to exonerate him. Unfortunately, the moviemakers also wanted to maintain the dilemmas they set up in the premise of their film. This leaves for a dual-personality film that attempts to leave doubt in the minds of the character whereas the audience knows that there is none, and thus, the director, as he admits in his audio commentary, is forced to bootstrap a resolution to the film by throwing some text at the screen before the credits roll out. Although he wanted doubt and ambiguity, the director is forced to provide the typical Hollywood ending, where the good guys ride victoriously into the sunset and the bad guys lose. I focused primarily on Mr. Jackson's character because he is the focus of the maelstrom all around him, but that is not meant as a denigration of Mr. Jones' acting. In fact, he carries the heavier burden of playing a bitter, weaker man, who had all the potential to be as good a soldier as Childers, but denied it, as he puts it, by a flip of a coin. By no means is Col. Hodges, as Mr. Jones plays him, defined by bitterness, but rather, he understands his shortcomings as being the result of the events that took place in Vietnam so many years ago. Therefore, he finds redemption and vindication in trying to defend his life-long friend. Again, the acting is top notch by an excellent cast, which includes a couple of cameos by two very good actors who play the ambassador to Yemen and his wife. The quality of the DVD is top notch, with vibrant details, clear visuals, and good use of 5.1 surround, especially in the combat scenes. The DVD contains the above mentioned director's commentary as well as a brief making of featurette. I don't recall whether it contains a trailer. In conclusion, this is a great film that is indeed hobbled by compromises in the script. The acting by the leads is excellent, the questions the film raises are compelling and timely, but the answers are simply nothing more than Hollywood fluff. The current way Hollywood makes movies is truly the greatest culprit in the film: the changes that are brought to bear on a movie because it did not test well, or because the hero must be a hero, no matter what the script demands. It short-changes the audience's capacity to deal with conflicts, spoon feeding them cheap answers to formidable questions of race, politics and the role of the US in an increasing complex geo-political landscape.
Rating:
Summary: Tough call to make...
Review: I liked this movie and I didn't like this movie. It's a very interesting story, but at times you have to suspend belief. The action is great, but there could be more. The acting is very good, as you would expect from these two actors, but it could have been better...Basically this movie could have been more than it was. If you're a Sam Jackson/Tommy Lee Jones fan then you should have this in your collection..they bring out the best in each other. The courtroom scenes just didn't work in my opinion...if you're into that kind of thing pickup A few Good Men... The movie is very watchable and it is in my collection, but it's not at the top of the shelf...best way I can put it.
Rating:
Summary: Friedkin, Jackson and Jones make the Best of a Bad Situation
Review: This Film is a Mixed Blessing, It is way Better than it Could have been (because of the talent involved) but still not as good as it Should have been (the fault of the script). Without William Friedkin's Brilliant Visual Sence and Natural Direction Skills, Without Samuel's Brilliantly Angered Performance and Tommy's "Underplay and Let Samuel Shine" approach, Without Wonderful Support from Guy Pierce and Bruce Greenwood, this film would have been far less effective. The Entire Goal of the film is to make Samuel a Character that the audience will care about. I did, because I'm a Huge Samuel fan, but I can understand why Critics and Audiences alike found his Character Repellant and Unlikeable. He Orders and takes part in the Killing of about 90 Protesters, which include woman and Children, and they Critically Wound Hundreds more. I Admired the film for having the guts to be so Honest about the horrors of war without resorting to Crappy "Thin Red Line"-ish Poetry. Some have also accused the film of being downright Racist in its treatment of the Yeman people, I wouldn't go that far, but I can Understand why others do. The Action Scenes are Brilliantly done, the Courtroom scenes are Brilliantly done, (but still no match to "A Few Good Men") the only let down is the screenplay, which is Overwrought is Some places, Lacking in others. The Characters are Adequetly Developed and the Flow is good, but the only things that are spot on are the Performances and the Direction. The 3 Principles Deserve better, and so do we. I'd Recommend this film to fans of Tough War Films, (even some "Saving Private Ryan" fans will be shocked at the violence) Fans of the Stars and Director, and fans of Courtroom Dramas.
Rating: 
Summary: Not your typical P.C. war movie
Review: This is really the movie "The Siege" should have been. It tackles a complicated issue, and doesn't back away from it. The director shoves the brutality of war in your face from the get go, and doesn't let up. He makes the compelling case that combat is not easy, and innocent people might suffer. He also, in no uncertain terms, points out the appalling betrayal the men and women of our armed forces are daily subjected to by the politicians who are supposed to stand up for them. Finally, all this violence and intrigue is juxtaposed against a smart court room drama, in whcih Samuel Jackon's character is being court-martialed essentially for protecting himself and his troops. This is a smart, exciting movie that is bound to ignite controversy. But that is what good movies do, and this one carries a powerful message about duty and honor. As for the DVD, it's nothing special, extra feature wise. However, with all the battle scenes in this movie, it benefits from the high quality A/V features that come with any DVD.
Rating:
Summary: "Defense or Instigation"
Review: In the military drama "Rules of Engagement", Samuel L. Jackson is cast as Colonial Terry L. Childers and Tommy Lee Jones costars as Colonial Hayes Hodges, both of whom portraying patriots of Vietnam in 1968. The opening setting takes the viewer back to Vietnam for what may seem to have an irrelevant effect on the plot. Contrary to the popular prior opinion, the scenes of Vietnam do an outstanding job at displaying the bonds between these two Marines and they also define their grit and guts that very few officers possessed, which helped prolong the lives of these two colonials. The picture regains it's coverage 28 years after Vietnam, in a 1996 incident, that questioned whether a call made by Childers was barbaric or necessary. As the United States Marine Corps. temporarily inspected the condition of a portion of Islam, looking for no war games, unexpected violence erupted from what was apparantly the attack of the civilian residents. Alarmed, Colonial Childers decided to "tug the rope back towards him" and ordered attack. Several things were in question revolving around this: whether the gunfire was coming from the civilians, whether they(civilians) could have been evacuated if it wasn't their guns, and whether the rules of engagement were followed correctly. As a trial was scheduled, Childers selected Hodges to serve as his lawyer to stop him from going to jail for the remainder of his life after being accused of being responsible for the casualties of 83 Islamic civilians. The storyline takes a short while to develop, but turns out to be a very compelling one that would, if ever in our society, take multiple months to conclude. An excellent plot with a few little blunders helps make "Rules of Engagement" one of the more taut political dramas in the past couple of years.
Rating: 
Summary: im a sucker for a military movie
Review: This movie deals mainly with a 30 year veteran of the Marine Corps. who is put on trial for the accused ordering of 82 civilians in Yemen. Colonel Terry Childers ( Samuel L Jackson ) and Colonel Harry Hodges ( Tommy Lee Jones ) both served together in Vietnam and were highly decorated for their valor, but during a skirmish 28 years later in Yemen Chlders is sent to rescue the trapped Ambassador ( Ben Kingsley ) from the U.S. Embassy that is under deadly fire from civilans. During that time Childers orders his men to fire on the crowd who is armed, and in the process kills 82 supposed civilans along with women and children. Hodges, after Vietnam ends, becomes a lawyer, and when Childers is sent to trial for murder he asks Hodges to be his lawyer.
Rating: 
Summary: Lame Movie For Talented Stars
Review: Every time I watch a military court movie, I would be reminded of "A Few Good Men" with that classic phrase, "You can't handle the truth". Whilst "A Few Good Man" was tense, "Rules of Engagement" was like a steak with no sizzles. Even though Tommy Lee Jones & Samuel L. Jackson were always great, the story wasn't quite tight enough to sustain the whole movie. In fact, the ending of this movie was fairly standard Hollywood. In fact, the supposedly chemistry between old pals as expected of Tommy & Samuel's characters were not that obvious. If readers are regular viewers of "The Practice", you haven't missed much of this movie as I'm adamant that circumstances & predicaments of every & each series are grayer than what this movie offered. Ben Kingsley was given such a brief & forgettable part to play, & even Guy Pearce's talent was wasted here big time despite his effort in American accent. Overall, a rather forgetful movie & a movie that needn't be watched in cinema but video. A movie to be watched on a quiet nite.
Rating:
Summary: Too many Holes
Review: I am a fan of both Samuel Jackson and Tommy Lee Jones, however the plot holes seemed to outnumber the bullet holes in this feature which spoiled any enjoyment I received from the excellent background and effects. It always puzzles me when millions of dollars are spent on a movie, and nobody bothers to notice obvious problems with the storyline. How the soldiers who opened fire on the crowd didn't notice whether the Yemenese had firearms or not is beyond me. Don't you have to look at someome to shoot them?
Rating:
Summary: Great Movie
Review: Hey "DIEGO", it's a movie. That's right, as in "it didn't really happen". If directors and producers relied on the physical and mental reality that we live in, we wouldn't have the luxury of action movies, suspense movies, and generally all other movies that contain moments of discredibility. Does that mean I don't like it? NO. In fact, I love it. The picture is great, and the sound is great. It could use a couple more extra features (no trailer??), but otherwise it's a better buy than VHS.
|
