Rating: 
Summary: Great Possibilities, Poor Ending
Review: Tommy Lee Jones and Samuel L. Jackson make a great team, and the storyline has great possibilities, but they're all "left by the side of the road" because the ending has no 'punch', no force. For the last five or so minutes of the film, the viewer is disappointed repeatedly when the expected retribution(get 'em back) is unrealized, and a mushy, ending is served up for the viewer to mull over. "The Tape" is never "found" by the defending attorney(Tommy Lee Jones), and the hero(Samuel L. Jackson)is neither vindicated on screen nor found guilty of the main charge of murder. Go figure. What a great and thrilling movie it could have been. I had expected better from James Webb, whose previous work( eg., Fields of Fire, The Emperor's General) is well drawn and executed, making for engrossing reading.The visuals are very well done, especially the scenes from Vietnam and Yemen.
Rating: 
Summary: How was this so bad?
Review: This movie had two top stars and a pretty good plot, but somehow turned out horrible! It seems like something went wrong in the editing room because this movie is choppy and seems to jump around without and reason or planning. The ending leaves so much to be desired from a movie that promised a lot. Two stars because of good depiction of war, and the fact that I like Samuel Jackson so much. Ive seen a lot of movies recently and this is by far the worst.
Rating:
Summary: Disappointing teaming of Jones and Jackson
Review: I bought this tape based solely upon the fact that one of my favorite all-time actors (Tommy Lee Jones) was paired up with one of today's hottest stars (Samuel L. Jackson), in a military story. O.K., so far, so good. Though this movie technically was well-done, it fell far short of glory, besides the fact that these two proven Hollywood winners were in it. Jackson plays career Marine Terry Childers, who is sent to Yemen on a mission to extricate the U.S. ambassador and his family, who apparently have suffered the ire of the local Muslin populace (for what, it is not apparently known. All we really DO know is that Islamic Jihad handed out cassette tapes of the usual kill-the-American-dogs line, and the people went ape-excrement). Childers succeeds in completing his mission, but finds that he and his Marine detachment are getting pounded by enemy fire on the surrounding rooftops, as well as on the ground. Childers orders his men to fire on the crowd, killing many young people. He finds himself facing court-martial in the States, on the grounds that the people he fired upon had no weapons. Thus begins a manhunt on Childers by the State Department, undoubtedly worried about a Lebanon-like situation. Enter Jones as Hayes Hodges, a soon-to-retire career Marine. Like his Vietnam-era comrade, Childers, Hayes had seen what life was like in the trenches. However, Hodges was not as successful in combat as his beleaguered friend, so instead opted for life as a military defense attorney. Childers puts his future career in the hands of his longtime Marine friend, believing that since Hodges knew what combat conditions were like, he would be the ideal person to defend him. Hodges, though, feels that he can't compete against hot-shot prosecutor Biggs (Guy Pearce), who's been hired by the Secretary of State, Bill Sokal (Bruce Greenwood). Much of the film deals with the court-martial. Unfortunately, everything that would have made this a great film wasn't there; things like suspense, retribution, or a slam-dunk ending were just, well, missing in action. The end of the film is so anti-climactic, it makes one wonder what the fuss was all about. Even the usually solid performances by Jones and Jackson aren't enough to redeem the lack of spirit in the last 20 minutes of the film. If you like films with great military court scenes, check out "A Few Good Men", or better yet, "The Caine Mutiny"; they did them first, and certainly did them better. This film just doesn't pass muster in the end.
Rating: 
Summary: A good mix of action and courtroom activity
Review: This movie starts out with a few battle scenes which were well done and then drifts into a few courtroom scenes which are quite interesting. If you are an action buff then this movie will not satisfy you- the courtroom scenes require intellect to understand, therefore requiring a lot of patience to sit through them thought they are very well done. Myself I enjoyed those scenes. My friend who was watching it with me could not keep his eyes on the screen. I liked the movie very well as a whole, but I would only watch it again for the action scenes.
Rating:
Summary: Stellar Performances Spark Thought-Provoking Drama
Review: "Rules of Engagement" is a terse and tough drama that opens in the Vietnamese war and moves to the Yemen of today in a story that could easily have been ripped from today's news stories. Samuel L. Jackson is accused of ordering his Marine troops to open fire on a group of men, women and children who were allegedly peacefully protesting at the American Embassy, and murdering eighty-three of them. He enlists his Vietnam buddy, Tommy Lee Jones, to come out of retirement to defend him and save his career and reputation. The story moves along at a rapid pace, sparked by outstanding performances by Jones and Jackson. The many close-ups of their endlessly subtle reactions create a powerful effect and draw you into the drama. The story itself is thought-provoking and challenging in that it asks the viewer to draw his or her own conclusions regarding right and wrong in the Middle East. Blair Underwood is on deck to deliver an excellent two scene tour-de-force; he is well on his way to becoming one of our finest younger actors. Ben Kingsley and, especially, a notably de-glamorized Anne Archer, also provide high points. Director William Friedkin keeps things moving right along with his hand on the pulse of the story throughout. Well worth the time.
Rating: 
Summary: Poor Script
Review: This movie was really terrible! It follows in a long tradition of military based court-room dramas but the script is too unbelievable. Why would a government official, whom his title was never actually given, destroy evidence that showed the crowd was firing weapons? If Marines were being killed, I think that gives them every right to shoot back. Another thing, why would Tommy Lee Jones go back to a hostile country, just bee-bopping around? I have worked at a US Embassy in the middle east and I know of Embassy evacuation provedures. The Embassy in the movie was poorley thought out too. Why was it in the middle of a town where people could set up sniper positions? Also, they were firing shoots through the Ambassador's office windows which are USUALLY bullet-proof! There weren't even any windows! Gimmie a break! Then we have an ex North Vietnam General who testifies in the defense or prosecution, (who knows, it was pretty shady), of Samuel L. Jackson's character. Jackson's character saved this guy in the beginning of the movie during a Vietnam War setting. He didn't really say that he was saved by him, just that he would've done the same thing Jackson did in the Embassy situation. Okay...? And why didn't more of the Marines come in and testify? They didn't all die. But they just had the one who received the order to fire. I expected a lot more from Jones and Jackson. Did these guys read the script before accepting the role or what? In short you have two Marine Officers, one who knows nothing but the corps and one who feels he never fit in, yet he makes it all the way up to Colonial, a snooty White House Official(?) whom destroys evidence for no real reason, and an Ambassador and his family that seem to forget that they owe there lives to the Marine that is on trial, yet the Ambassador chooses to lie about the whole situation. Reminds me of something else, like the Clinton Administration! (Maybe they helped write it? But if that were the case, Jackson's character would've been put to death and that Ambassador's wife would become a Senator.) Watch something else!
Rating:
Summary: started strong, but ultimately failed
Review: Rules of Engagement posits a morally complex scenario: what if a US military commander, in defense of his troops, made a battle decision that turned out to be embarrassing to the US government that sent them into the situation in the first place? The movie does well in presenting the situation. However, as the action moves from the Yemen city to the US military courtroom, the movie falls apart. And it's a pity. The early battle sequence (if we can call it that) creates the potential for a lot of ways to examine the events that led to the ill-fated decision. Rashomon-like replay of multiple viewpoints could be fascinating (for example, why did the US commander deploy the troops on the rooftop? Did he intend to counter-attack the terrorists in the first place?) A study of military doctrine may appeal to some people as well (they made a weak attempt at this, but seemingly as a second thought.) Or they could have turned it into a gung-ho, us against them mean terrorists Hollywood war movie. Unfortunately, the moviemakers decided to turn the movie into a combination of a weak buddy movie, and a wan anti-government-bureaucrat track. After the slambang initial action, for the rest of the movie, the action came to a complete stop as the characters talked incessantly about a videotape. Tommy Lee Jones, an actor that I like, turned in an average performance, while Samuel Jackson gave the worst one-note performance that I have ever seen. The two man's relationship is full of cliche, and unconvincing. Bruce Greenwood and Ben Kingsley were wasted in their roles as the NSA and the ambassador to Yemen, respectively (I am surprised that they had the guts to use a real country's name instead of making up a fictitious country.) The movie is full of logical holes and credibility gaps. For example, the appearance of an early character as a court witness for the prosecution is simply absurd. Rules of Engagement could have been a very interesting movie, but its screenplay is just terrible.
Rating:
Summary: Everything expected and more..unless you are an action buff
Review: When getting ready to watch a movie that has both Lee Jones and Jackson, you have to expect the best. In this case, Rules of Engagement exceeded my expectations. Although slow at some parts, the first half will keep anybody in their seats. This film may be more suitable for drama and courtroom fans. Those seeking a hardcore action movie should stick with Gladiator or the Patriot.
Rating:
Summary: Typical Mindless Hollywood Movie
Review: If you are looking for an intelligent, entertaining and well-acted movie avoid Rules of Engagement. The movie is about a highly decorated 30 year marine vet (Sam Jackson) sent to the middle east to restore order during a protest at an American Embassy. When the protest turns violent, Jackson's character issues orders to shoot into the crowd. Jackson is then used as a scapegoat and charged with murder by the army in order to maintain good relations in the middle east. Rules of Engagement is just another example of the sorry state of movies these days. The story is extremely weak and sometimes just unbelievable. The actors are at the mercy of a poor script and just walk trough their performances in order to pick up a paycheque (in particular Tommy Lee Jones). The characters have absolutley no depth. Some scenes are supposed to be dramatic but turn out to be just corny. However, movie executives think they can fool the public with a couple of expensive action sequences in order to cover up the film's many flaws and justify charging money to see this junk. Judging by some of the good reviews on this board I guess the executives have succeeded.
Rating:
Summary: A Very Predictable Movie
Review: It's hard to believe that great actors like Tommy Lee Jones and Samuel L. Jackson had anything to do with this movie. It was so Hollywoodish and predictable that I had to turn it off half way through it because I already knew the ending. The writer of the film seemed to be trying to mix a little of A Few Good Men with an action movie, and failed miserably. The main story is that Jackson, a commander in the army gives an order to fire on a group of hostile protesters that had weapons. Turns out that after the incident, the guns were removed and Jackson is charged with murder. He in turn calls on his friend, Jones, who is a lawyer, to get him out of the mess. From then on it's pretty much the investiagation and a small little court room drama torwards the end. The only thing that really saved this film from being one of the worst was the two star actors and their ability to give believeable performances. But from now on Hollywood should think before just trying to cast big stars to sell a movie.
|
