Rating: 
Summary: Rules That Rule Movies!
Review: An attorney defends an officer on trial for ordering his troops to fire civilians after they storm a U.S. embassy in a third world country.
Rating: 
Summary: Starts Good.
Review: The beginning of this movie made me think I was in for something special. The Vietnam sequence was exciting. However, I was quite let down when the trial came. Even with the talents of Tommy Lee Jones and Samuel Jackson, they couldn't pull the weakly written trial scenes out of the mire of boredom. It lacked a lot of information and left me feeling that there was much to be desired. The acting pulled this two star movie up to three stars. But this movie is proof that even with great actors, there is no substitute for good writing and directing. Kind of like a football team with great atheletes and Wade Phillips as head coach. Mildly entertaining. Wathch this movie only if you are an avid Jackson or Jones fan.
Rating: 
Summary: Could not have been worse!
Review: I am unable to clearly articulate what I feel about this trite, cliche'd, poor excuse for a court room drama. ... The story that was to be conveyed was an interesting one. However the director fails to develop any attachment from the audience to the main characters of the film(Jackson and Tommy Lee). I almost found myself hoping that they found him guilty at the end. We were told very little about their backgrounds. As for prosecutor Guy Pierce, (who was excellent in LA Confidential), this should be one he leaves off his resume for future projects. Stay away unless you like hackneyed scripts and over the top cliche'd military testorone heavy dramas.
Rating:
Summary: Great story with great acting
Review: Rules of Engagement was one of those movies where I didn't need to know what it was about to rent it. All that I knew was that Tommy Lee Jones and Samuel L. Jackson were in it. That is all I needed. I knew that the movie was going to at least be good but it turned out to be fantastic. The whole plot itself is wonderfully constructed and written. It had you thinking the whole way through. The war sequences were awesome also. I haven't seen this good of war scenes since Saving Private Ryan. These two match up very well. The court room scenes were wonderfully done and very suspenseful. I thought the whole movie was edge-of-your-seat kind of action. And the acting was superb. Of course that is what you expect out of those two. All in all Rules of Engagement is a highly above average movie for it's genre and it greatly recommended from me. 5 Stars
Rating:
Summary: It was okay
Review: This was a story that began about two war buddies that had went through a tough time in Vietnam together. This tough time together cemented their friendship, indebted Tommy Lee Jones' character to Samuel Jackson's but also brought in question, the type of soldier Samuel Jackson's character was.Years later, upon Tommy Lee Jones' character's retirement, he once again sees his old friend. You see that Samuel Jackson's character has gone on to more wartime heroism and Tommy Lee Jones' character is retiring as an service (Marines) attorney. Events develop shortly after his friends retirement, where Samuel Jackson is called in to rescue an ambassador holed up in an embassy in Yemen. The protests have gotten ugly and there is concern for the ambassador and his family's welfare. Events during this rescue unfold that result in significant casualties among the locals and Samuel Jackson is held personally responsible for this. Telling you why and any details around that would ruin the story for you. However, in his need for legal representation, Samuel Jackson's character calls on his retired friend in Tommy Lee Jones' character. Jones' character is concerned that his skill as a lawyer will not be sufficient for his old friend's problem. Lucky for his old friend Tommy Lee Jones' character overprepares himself. The investigation and the details are pretty interesting. Some commentaries on allowable force in a war or skirmish are made. Depending on your viewpoint, you may agree or dissagree. When I started watching this movie, I was not aware that it was based on a true story. I still have not seen this stated explicitly. However in the ending they stated the status of the various parties involved, so I drew this conclusion. This movie was not all splash and dash. Which lets face it, if it is based on reality, this is appropriate. Some conclusions seemed like leaps of logic. We did not see the build up that got you there. The conspiracy, seems too complete as well. I think some things were lacking in the way this was built up, however, it was a solid story.
Rating:
Summary: Excellent!
Review: This movie exceeded my expectations in every way. Solid acting, good action and drama, and an excellent sounding DVD production.
Rating: 
Summary: Good action, but drama lacking
Review: Overall, I enjoyed this movie. It presents an interesting discussion about the use of violence to protect US soldiers lives, particularly during a terrorist attack. As a member of the military I find this sort of discussion fascinating. The movie also deals with personal ethics, giving a rather pointed view of government officials. I think the movie starts out quite strong with intense scences from Vietnam and Yemen which starts the controversy. I particularly like the embassy footage, you really feel like you are there while the action unfolds before your eyes. Unfortunately, the movie doesn't maintain its momemtum after these first scenes. I think the movie tries to cover too much ground and jumps around a lot. It is hard to figure out why certain scenes are included, like the fistfight scene, while other topics are glossed over. I was most disappointed with the courtroom scenes which seem weak in comparison with A Few Good Men. Although the movie is a bit long, I do recommend it to anyone interested in the military, and the use of military force in internation events.
Rating:
Summary: What a crock of a movie
Review: This has got to be one of the worst movies I have ever seen. I too am in the military and it was embarrassing to see such a situation treated in such a shoddy manner. That Colonel should have been found guilty on all three counts and he should have been brought up on war crime charges after his dishonorable behaviour in Vietnam. So because the Germans under Peiper gunned down American GI prisoners of war it makes it okay for an American commander to mow down German prisoners of war? No, so just because the Vietnamese commander would have shot a prisoner of war does not in any way excuse an American for commiting a crime either. Now, on to the embassy. The problem I had with this part is that he had OTHER options. He could have fired into the air, he could have and should have suppressed the fire from the snipers on the other buildings. Just because you receive fire does not then entitle you to do whatever you want to do. There are rules in combat and in war and they are there for a reason. It also made total a sham of the military court. They are there to try the evidence and based on the testimony of everyone involved - the judgment would have been for guilty. Even though there were gunmen in the crowd, the Colonel STILL HAVE OTHER OPTIONS. It was fairy tale story that made me ashamed to wear the uniform.
Rating: 
Summary: At least the acting's good...
Review: The keystone to your enjoyment of this film is whether you can accept the nature of the villain. RULES OF ENGAGEMENT casts in evil light the actions of a National Security Advisor who says in one breath that he's not going to have a coverup but then immediately reverses himself and confiscates evidence. In so doing, he willfully condemns a highly decorated Marine to virtually certain imprisonment, and possibly death. Why? If the Marine (Samuel L. Jackson) takes the fall as a rogue colonel, then the American government itself won't be seen as an enemy by the region. Yet the seized evidence is a tape which clearly shows that Jackson was being fired on and that he had every right to return fire. Surely, then, the release of this tape would not only free Jackson, but remove any diplomatic quandaries as well. It's hard to imagine moderate Middle East countries like Egypt and Jordan, which this fictional NSA is worried about, getting angry with the US for defending itself. And that's where the movie fails. The premise is just wrong. More than that, details are weird, too. Chain-of-command leaps to mind. The NSA has no place in the diplomatic hierarchy. Why he's seen as having some sway over the US Ambassador to Yemen is thus kinda strange. Ambassadors obviously report to the Secretary of State. Wouldn't this Ambassador have thought to check out the NSA's threats of retribution with his boss before perjuring himself? And once he did that, wouldn't the red flags have gone up at State? I mean, the whole cover-up is portrayed throughout the movie as an NSA-only job. If the Ambassador goes to State to check it out, the Secretary would presumably have immediate problems with the NSA. Beyond that, the Ambassador would've been debriefed long before he even saw the NSA, and he would've told the debriefing officer the pro-Sam Jackson story he initially told the NSA. Because the NSA isn't in the State Department chain of command, I would personally think there was no way for this character to have exerted the kind of control over this situation depicted. As a result of these problems, the movie ends up wasting a lot of good stuff, including fine acting and competent direction. Though watchable, there are better military court movies.
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.
| 
