User reviews

This is a military court martial movie with a few similarities to A Few Good Men. It did not have as much suspense, but overall it was still quite good. I thought the situation in Yemen made it very applicable to current day problems in Arab-American relations. The movie was released before the USS Cole attack, which reinforces the possibility of the event in question in the court-martial. I don't think the massacre that occurred would have been quite so bloody in a real world situation though.

The performances of Tommy Lee Jones, Samuel L. Jackson and Guy Pearce were very good. Probably no Oscars here, but well worth watching.

Headed by two unnerving performances, this film takes us on a journey through the gray area that is our military morality today. We live in a society insulated from realistic depictions of war. We get censored CNN and FOX news. We rarely get anything insightful, so it is a pleasure to have HOLLYWOOD offer up one of the most moving anti-military films in the past ten years. While the courtroom drama is by all means standard, the most unique attention is paid to the changing perception of TLJ's character. In his journy to defend, he comes to an all too real understanding of a culture whose leaders have no problem sending our boys to die, yet they themselves are either ignorant of the reality, or to politically motivated to be moved by it. In conclusion, this is an alienating film because it presents an alien culture that lives by its own moral code. That alien culture isn't middle eastern... it is our own military.

One more point; Watching this film post 911 gives it an all too creepy reality.

Having just watched Rules Of Engagement, I have to say that although Samuel L. Jackson and Tommy Lee Jones are a joy to watch, I have to make some negative comments about this movie.

The movie is extremely manipulative, and comes from the equally manipulative director of The French Connection, William Friedkin. The movie's bad guys, oddly enough, are a crowd of irrational arabs, together with career politicians who won't just let military men do what they have to do.

The problem with the entire scenario is that the entire massacre could have been prevented with a couple of well aimed teargass grenades. Secondly, not a lot of time is spent on the character development of the 'bad guys', namely the Yemenis (in this case), who all seem to be very eager to die killing Americans, including their (the Yemeni's) toddlers. The later images of the little girl shooting a pistol is very manipulative indeed ("oh, see, she deserved to get her leg shot off after all!").

And thirdly, the incident most like it, namely the US Army Rangers debacle in Mogadishu, caused the death of 18 Rangers but 1000 Somali Mogadishuans, most of which were non-combatants. No-one seems to have been called to task for that event, let alone be thrown to the lions to appease public opinion, like Samuel Jackson's character is over a "mere" 83 deaths. (The same thing can be said for the invasion of Panama, where there was a similar death toll among civilians - the truth of the matter is that since WWII, conventional weapons have become infinitely more efficient, with the result that if conflict breaks out in built-up areas, _lots_ of civilians are killed.)

However, the one redeeming value (other than the acting) is that it shines a light on the changed nature of the political war that is required of the modern soldier in places like Somalia, Bosnia, etc., and that started in Vietnam.

There is an anti-American uprising in Yemen. Col. Terry Childers, played by Samuel L. Jackson, is sent to evacuate the U.S. embassy. Childers gives his Marines the order to fire back at hostile, armed civilians. This action results into a framed court martial. Defending Childers is Col. Hays Hodges, played by Tommy Lee Jones. Childers saved Hodges' life in Nam and the elder Marine lawyer feels obligated to return the good deed.

The scenes of engagement are very powerful and gruesome. Childers and Hodges have a knock down, drag out of a fist fight. The films climax kind of fizzles. The movie seems so potent up until the end. Don't underestimate a Marine's ethics or this movie. This is a winner, even if the plot seems so familiar.

William Friedkin directs and there is a decent supporting cast that includes Bruce Greenwood, Ben Kingsley and Ann Archer.

RULES OF ENGAGEMENT / (2000) ***

Starring: Tommy Lee Jones, Samuel L. Jackson, Ben Kingsley, Blair Underwood, Guy Pearce, Bruce Greenwood, Anne Archer, and Philip Baker Hall.

Directed by William Friedkin. Written by James Webb. Running time: 123 minutes. Rated R (for graphic violence and language).

By Blake French:

"Rules of Engagement" is a thriller of missed opportunities and noticeable failures. The film squeezes out of explanation and conclusive execution; it is riddled with unmistakable flaws are structural miscalculations. I found myself deeply engaged within the profoundness of the somewhat familiar story, however, even after these problems. This drama, directed by William Friedkin, is intense and strongly constructed, proving what accurate conditions the filmmakers accommodate.

The movie opens fifty years ago during a battle in Vietnam. We meet two main characters, Colonel Terry Childers (Samuel L. Jackson) and Colonel Hayes Hodges (Tommy Lee Jones). The two become good friends after Childers saves the life of Hodges during a brutal siege. Later, Childers is questioned due to a questionably inhuman, although effective, circumstance he embraces to achieve his quickly constructed strategy.

We skip ahead to the retirement of Hodges as a mostly unsuccessful military lawyer. Childers has accepted command of a Marine unit that finds itself at duty in Yemen after an American embassy becomes distressed. The US sends Childers and his forces to the country to recall the Ambassador (Ben Kingsley), his wife, Mrs. Mourain (Anne Archer), and their son, as well as to take charge of the rioting Yemenis.

Once at the embassy, the rioting crowd becomes too hostile. After a sniper kills one of his men, Childers commands his crew to open fire on the civilians. The Yemeni casualties number well over seventy-five. National Security Adviser William Sokal (Bruce Greenwood) placed charges on Childers because he does not think the U.S. should take blame for what he considers the actions of a one individual. The objection is transgressing the rules of engagement.

Other key characters in the film are the highly proclaimed General H. Lawrence Hodges (Philip Baker Hall), military prosecutors Major Biggs (Guy Pearce), and Capt. Tom Chandler (Mark Feuerstein), and Ambassador Mourain.

The setup, written by James Webb, takes too long to set up. Although well-depicted and clear, the rest of the movie hinges entirely on it. It may have been more effective if the audience did not know what happened in Yemen. There is also a possibility that it could have been more revealing and tense if the film had spent more time in researching its issues.

Another conflict in the setup is the fact that we are unaware of important details. Why are the Yemenis rioting? Obviously their reasoning has something to do with the US Ambassador. Such a critical plot point, one in which the rest of the story hinges upon, is never revealed.

The riot and war scenes feature swift and realistically sketchy camera positions and movements. Similar to "Saving Private Ryan," this production attempts to make little sense of the seemingly senseless violence. This quality composes "Rules of Engagement" in a relatively believable and intense style.

William Friedkin takes "Rules of Engagement" seriously, squeezing little dramatic relief within the film's context. Although focused direction is normally a very effective quality, Friedkin suffers from being too converged. The characters are giving few incidences in which they are able to portray any life apart from their occupations. The filmmakers give the characters a lot of smart and juicy dialogue to gnaw on, generating engaging depth in them. As such, these characters are not one dimensional, just one directional.

The courtroom scenes are some of the film's most powerful and truthful. Solid performances by Guy Pearce, Tommy Lee Jones, Samuel L. Jackson, and Ben Kingsley make for a rigid-atmosphere behind legal doors. For the first time in a long while I was unsure of what the jury's final decision would be. Maybe that is because we are unsure about our stance on the situations. Some of the actions, such as elements of perjury and withholding evidence, could be more explained. Overall, however, the notions were quite clear.

Perhaps the biggest success in "Rules of Engagement" is its strong narrative theme of action. The movie follows a steady through-line. Although excessively concentrated, each scene advances the story and complicates the initial problem. Despite flaws in numerous areas and a somewhat mixed review, "Rules of Engagement" is a solid, stark movie marginally worthy of recognition.

"Rules of Engagement" is brought to you by Paramount Pictures.

I think this is a couple of choices away from being something really special, and I get the sense that the choices made were followed through on at the behest of test screening audiences. I know one of my issues was, and now that I've learned that, I suspect that at least some of the others might be as well. Still, what is there is surprisingly special. William Friedkin makes another courtroom drama, this time based on a script by Stephen Gaghan (originally developed by future Senator James Webb of all people), and the embrace of complexity and unknowingness makes obvious homage to Kurosawa's foundational Rashomon. This isn't at that level, but I think it could have gotten a bit closer had test audiences been able to accept flawed, incomplete answers.

Colonel Hayes Hodges (Tommy Lee Jones) is a desk jockey in the US Marines who is retiring after decades of loyal service which could have led to command instead of a largely unremarkable legal career in the Corps if a key event in his service during Vietnam had gone different. At the Battle of Calou, he and his fellow officer, future Colonel Terry Childers (Samuel L. Jackson), took their unit in opposite direction where Childers' half survived and Hodges' half was cut to pieces save for him, only saved by Childers taking illegal actions to get the captured North Vietnamese officer (Baoan Coleman) to call off the attack. This, of course, will come back later.

Childers is not retiring, though, and he's given command of a unit on a naval carrier in the Indian Ocean when he's called to a mission in Yemen to save the US Ambassador (Ben Kinglsey) and his family when a local protest starts to get violent. Getting the ambassador out without ordering a shot fired, three of his men fall as the chaos of combat overtakes him, and Childers orders firing directly into the crowd which stops everything.

This opening conflict in Yemen is really one of the key foundational elements of everything, and the fact that Friedkin films it so closely and almost incoherently at first feels like him just falling in with modern action filmmaking techniques alongside people like Michael Bay. However, he has a longer goal in mind: not letting the audience have a clear eye of the action because not having solid evidence of what actually happened is the point. It honestly took me a while to notice that effect, feeling like I had seen stuff that I'm pretty sure Friedkin didn't show in those moments, but it obviously helped form my impressions for what was to come.

Because what is to come is a dissection of Childers and the event with Hodges coming on as his lawyer in the court martial demanded by National Security Advisor Sokal (Bruce Greenwood) in order to try and avoid an international fallout in the Middle East from the images of dead bodies strewn across the Yemeni ground, put there by a US Marine colonel's orders. It doesn't matter if Childers was justified or not, politics demands that Childers be made an example of. The prosecution, Major Biggs (Guy Pearce), is an Ivy League educated lawyer who's never seen combat and is dedicated to taking down Childers.

Not having a really clear image of what happened in front of that embassy is key to how all of this plays out with Hodges going to Yemen to take pictures more than a week after while going over evidence an investigation picked up more than a day after the event. There are no conflicting points of view or flashbacks like in Rashomon, but it has a similar effect where we're supposed to not really know what happened exactly. Which test audiences apparently hated which necessitated the scene of Sokal watching a surveillance tape from the embassy that shows it definitively one particular way. Cut that.

The actual court martial takes up the final third of the film, and it's where Friedkin seems to be most at home. This is about actors working through meaty dialogue with heavy character implications as they jostle over the unknown of the specifics of what happened. Memory, falsified testimony, missing evidence, and documentation, much of which conflicts with each other, and it's supposed to be this unclear view of a complex situation...except that Friedkin gave into the test screening's demands and included the actual footage of the tape that one time. Really, everything else feels so heavily weighted towards one particular conclusion that it feels like the giving in for the tape footage was appealing to the lowest common denominator who wouldn't be interested in the movie to begin with.

As the movie ended, I was still on a very high note, though. I was largely ignoring the existence of the video tape footage and operating like it wasn't really a factor, but as time has gone on since the film ended, my favorability towards the ending waned. It wasn't just the final text which gives a nice bow to everything in a story that probably shouldn't have it, it's the reappearance of the NVA officer, giving testimony about Childers' war record (allowed since Hodges kept bringing it up), and how the NVA officer and Childers view each other one final time. It's going too far in a particular direction, one that seems to have the effect of absolving the military of any crime it ever commits rather than the respect gained over time that I think was the intention.

Anyway, if I had written this review immediately afterwards, I'd rate the film slightly higher. Writing it the morning after, I knock it down slightly. The ending is...off. The use of the video tape footage undermines a lot of the intention of what's going on.

However, outside of that, the rest of the movie is really, really good. The anchor of it all is the two key performances from Jones and Jackson with Jackson providing probably one of his best performances as a man who knows his life is on the line, putting himself in reserve, and needing to get pulled out to reveal the madness within. Jones tends to operate within his own small box of folksy seriousness occasionally punctuated by small guffaws of folksy charm, but he uses it well here as he gets into a situation that he feels is too much for his talents. The supporting cast is really good as well with special notice to Greenwood who is slimy as heck as the NSA and Kingsley who plays such a weak and spineless creature that it feels honestly quite different for him.

Friedkin had what could have been one of his best films of his career, but he (or his producers, I dunno) gave into the demands to make things cleaner in a story about messiness. I'd be interested in some sort of preview cut (a director's cut isn't happening now with Friedkin gone) to see if my issues with the film were there as well. But, it's mostly forgotten and ignored. There will never be any release of a preview cut (which would probably have incomplete audio mixing and a temp score at best), and all I have is the final product.

It's pretty good. I think it's earlier version would have been really good, maybe even great. But the final product is still pretty good.

Last week, as I considered ordering this DVD, I checked the IMDB rating and saw a "fair" 6.5. Since I like Tommy Lee Jones and Samuel L. Jackson, I placed the order. Like most roller coasters, I found it to be a good ride and Jones and Jackson did very credible jobs. The flaws in the movie have been correctly pointed out by numerous other reviewers. I was somewhat surprised that some of the most critical reviews were by US viewers. I fully understand how non-US citizens would be irritated by the stereotypes. I found it to be a very exciting movie from my particular perspective (US citizen, military family, male over 45). The scenes of combat when the marines are ordered to the US embassy in Yemen to safeguard our state department personnel were VERY well done, even to the point of gripping. The court scenes and conflicts of evidence or lack of evidence were interesting to me and I also understood, but did not agree with, the aims of the State Department. I don't think some of the reviewers are aware of what a person might do in such an extremely stressful situation as that of Colonel Childers (Jackson). It was fascinating to me to see what he did do and how he and others looked back on it. I would have given Rules of Engagement a 9 or 10, but for the flaws. It's a good movie though and well worth renting. It's an 8.

"Rules of Engagement" from 2000 is a fairly derivative film. Directed by William Friedkin, it's the story of two men, Colonel Terry Childers (Samuel L. Jackson), a 30-year Marine veteran and decorated officer; and Colonel Hayes Hodges (Tommy Lee Jones), now an attorney, a man with whom he fought and whose life he saved in Vietnam and has retired.

Childers is sent on a rescue mission in Yemen that goes awry when the protesting crowd outside the embassy starts shooting at the Marines. Childers, who already has men down, orders his soldiers to fire into the crowd. He is able to evacuate the embassy but finds himself in trouble due to the fact that no one believes the protesters had weapons. He is put on trial and asks Hodges to defend him. Hodges doesn't feel he's a good enough attorney, but he agrees to take the case.

There is a tape of what happened, but the head of security (Bruce Greenwood) who doesn't want the United States to take the rap for killing civilians and would rather have it fall on a soldier, burns it. And Childers gets no support from the Ambassador (Ben Kingsley) or his wife (Anne Archer), and the attorney on the other side (Guy Pearce) is out for blood.

We've seen this film in various guises before, and the good versus evil is typical Hollywood. The acting is good but I have difficulty understanding the casting of Ben Kingsley, a great Oscar-winning actor, who is completely wasted in what is not even really a supporting role. Anne Archer plays his wife. The two have a small son and have been married for ten years. May I suggest that though it's entirely feasible that Archer at 43 had a child, the casting seems a little off. Often, when directors want a certain actor, the agency representing them agrees on the condition that the director take other people on his roster. I suspect this is what happened here; the casting is not quite right for these distinguished actors.

Tommy Lee Jones in particular is good as Hodges, though he has the showier role. Samuel Jackson is always very good and gives a strong performance as well, but there's something very stereotypical about both parts. Bruce Greenwood at least is interesting casting - he seems pretty mild-mannered as the Head of Security, but there's a treachery underneath.

All in all, this is an okay film, one where you know how it's going to end and basically what's going to happen while it's going on. We see two stars who have done their roles before in other circumstances. So in the end, while it has its moments, it's somewhat routine. One of those if you've seen one, you've seen them all type films.

This story gets the viewer involved with it right away never lets up, with good performances all around, although Tommy Lee Jones stands out a bit above the rest.

There are some outstanding action scenes in the first 30 minutes and if you have a 5.1surround system, it gets quite a workout. After that, the story settles down into a court battle.

Its politics are typical Hollywood: the government is corrupt with the main villain the National Security Adviser who burns a video tape that would clear a U.S. Marine colonel from being framed for murder. That colonel also is a black man which makes the story even more politically correct. Samuel J. Jackson plays that role, a Col. "Terrry Childers." Jones plays his attorney, "Col. Hayes Hodges." The two veteran actors play off each other very well.

It gets even more dramatic when two other witnesses lie and make justice look almost impossible to attain in the case. But, dramatics aside, it's a good story and certainly an entertaining one. Once again, William Friedkin has directed a good movie.

There's some seriously biased on here from people that are obviously either anti-military or anti-American. This movie is a decent military law story. It is fiction, no part of this movie is factual, nor is it entirely realistic. It's worth a watch but it's nothing special, it's not A Few Good Men quality.

Years have past since Col Hodges and Col Childers were comrades in combat. Hodges is now retired while Childers is still on active service in the Middle East. When he is called in to help protect and evacuate the US Embassy in the middle of a riot, Childers orders his men to return fire despite not having any definite targets. With a crowd of 80 dead, many women and children, the authorities are forced to go after Childers to have someone to blame. Childers turns to his old friend to help defend him.

With a pair of real heavyweights in lead roles I was quite looking forward to this film. It is quite easy to get into the film as the opening 40 minutes are pretty exciting and shocking in equal measure – it forces you to think where you stand on the action taken by Childers in both past and present. However as the film goes on the moral debate becomes simplified and it is clear where we are being steered, as opposed to being allowed to think things out for ourselves. The `debate' or thoughtful side is lost and we are left with the courtroom drama side of things.

I'm not a big fan of courtroom thrillers as they often rely on unlikely twists at the end and lots of shouting in place of substance. However I do enjoy the odd one if it hangs together and has energy. However, the courtroom scenes here never really get off the ground and surprisingly (given the emotive subject) really lack energy and twists. Even the conclusion of the film is a real damp squid, the verdict is simply delivered, so if you're expecting twists and turns and big revelations forget it. Inexplicably, the film puts up two or three captions over the final shot to tell us more information – for some of these the film would have been much more exciting if it had worked these into the final 20 minutes of the film. To have them as flat words on a screen is pointless (especially since this isn't a true story!).

Jones and Jackson both do good work, as you'd expect for a pair of tough nuts such as they. Jackson has the better character (until the script weakens itself). Pearce is OK in support but the script doesn't give him too much to work with, his side of the case is easy of course, so the film stops him overpowering the court case at the same time as it simplifies it's stance. Support from faces such as Kingsley, Archer, Greenwood and Underwood is OK but in some cases are so brief to be cameos.

Overall this starts well, but it fairs to really involve once the moral debate side of the film is simplified and phased out. The question `what would you do' is rendered null and void with each flashback Jackson has. The courtroom scenes barely fizzle let alone ignite the screen and the film putters to a poor ending that is badly done. Worth seeing with good performances from the leads but still a pretty big disappointment.

"The Rules of Engagement" got some pretty crummy external reviews, but it's not that bad.

The performances are all quite good. Guy Pearce was nailed for his American accent but I don't know why. He comes across as somebody whose regional dialect was subject to some New York City gestation. Let's give him some credit. The Brits used to stick to Southern accents (viz., Scarlett O'Hara, Blanche DuBois) but have lately become more discriminating (viz., Daniel Day-Lewis in "Gangs of New York"). It's a big improvement over the generic American dialect that Russel Crowe and Charlize Theron come up with.

Where was I? Oh, yes. The combat scenes are well done. They owe a great deal to "Saving Private Ryan" of course. Every combat scene in every movie for the next decade or so will owe a lot to Private Ryan, in particular the abundance of bloody wounds and the sound of bullets clanking off metal surfaces.

The locations are well chosen and the photography is up to professional par.

If there is a weakness it's in the script. The Tommy Lee Jones character is presented to us as a drunk or a former drunk, but nothing comes of it. By the end he seems to have found the kind of redemption that all drunks find at the end of uplifting movies, except for Paul Newman in "The Verdict," who loses faith in friendship even as he finds redemption in good deeds. And he sensibly keeps on drinking.

There's a fight between the two macho Marines -- Jones and Jackson -- the point of which eludes me. We really don't need a brawl between two middle-aged men to pump up the middle section of the film.

The courtroom scene reeks of drama largely because the director has decided it should. People stand up in the witness box and shout angrily at the pesky prosecutor and admit things they shouldn't just because they're enraged. And there is a touching scene at the end, in which Jackson and a former enemy exchange salutes, but it's corny and there is triumphant music swelling in the background, all by the numbers.

I should mention something else that became more clear on second viewing. At the beginning of "The Green Berets" -- an atrocious John Wayne movie about Vietnam -- a civilian reporter seems to accuse Col. Wayne of militarism. "You been in Vietnam?", asks Wayne. No. "Ah-HUH," comments Wayne dismissively. A sharp contrast is thereby drawn between the characters we are to meet -- those who have been there and those who have not. A similar distinction is made in this movie, and in the most simple-minded way. There are three strata. From the top downward: (1) the heroic men who have been in combat; (2) the well-meaning Marines who haven't; and (3) the lying, perjuring, evidence-destroying suits who have no principles and are out only to further their own careers.

Yet, it's a thought-provoking mature movie in a way that, say, "A Few Good Men" was simply not. I would give "Saving Private Ryan" a higher rank because of its originality. Nothing in "The Rules of Engagement" is particularly clear cut. Jackson's character does order his men to fire on civilians, including women and kids, who are firing at him, and the firing from the crowd is covered up by the politicians who want to bury the guy so that the good old USA doesn't have to take the blame for all those deaths. But Jackson is given a good line. "That's not murder. It's COMBAT." Sometimes these days it gets a little difficult to distinguish combat from murder, and one of the reasons this movie may irritate some viewers is that the military comes off as both brave and honorable, if not exactly flawless. These Marines are gung ho, reasonably intelligent, and capable of remorse. I would guess there are many people who prefer the kind of idiot played by Jack Nicholson in "A Few Good Men," a sadistic, perjuring, stupid, male chauvinist pig. "A Few Good Men" is a more satisfying movie if you're into self righteousness and anti-militarism.

Marines and military people in general tend towards a certain set of common attitudes but there is as much diversity among them as in any other subculture, except maybe devotees of panjandrums of the more extreme stripe. The Marines whom I taught at Camp Lejeune were as bright, curious, and industrious as any students at the nearby University of North Carolina.

We all know what we would have done if we'd been Jack Nicholson. We wouldn't have done what he did. We'd have been legal and moral. But this movie asks a different question. What would we have done if we'd been in Jackson's boots? No easy answers there, though the ending kind of betrays the message that the movie itself carries.

I should add that it seems to be rare to "hang anybody out to dry" for making mistakes in combat. A week before this note was entered, Doctors Without Borders accused US forces of deliberately attacking its hospital in Afghanistan, as a top US commander said the deadly air strikes were a mistake. The hospital, also known as Médecins Sans Frontières, claims its medical facility in Kunduz was "deliberately bombed" three days ago, killing at least 22 people. General John Campbell said he could not provide more details about what happened, including who may have failed to follow procedures for avoiding attacks on hospitals. He said he must await the outcome of multiple investigations. "Await the outcome of multiple investigations."

Plotwise this is nothing--the U.S. government covering up terrorism and trying to set up an innocent man to take the fall. The plot has been done before many times. Basically it's a "guy movie"--you know, just for men. There are no female main characters at all and Jones and Jackson have a long fistfight in the middle of the movie---for no reason--just to show how masculine they are! Still this movie is well-directed by William Friedken (especially the battle scenes) and has some good acting. However, Tommy Lee Jones is terrible--he seems to be on remote. The best acting comes from Jackson (even though he has very little to work with) and Guy Pearce. The only thing wrong with Pearce is he tries hard to cover his Australian accent, but he ends up sounding like someone from Brooklyn! So, this is an OK movie but nothing special. The direction and acting held my interest.

"Rules of Engagement" is A-Few-Good-Men-wannabee with some excellent acting and production talent which fails because of a weak and flawed story. The film is one third combat, one third trial, and one third wandering around trying to figure out what kind of movie it wants to be. Okay to zone by.

Big missed opportunity: This could have been an intelligent movie about the fine line between self-defense and murder, the ambiguity in perception and judgement faced by people in dangerous situations(real life example: A Chicago police officer killed a woman who made a false move with a metallic object in her hand--it turned out to be a lock, not a weapon. Was the policewoman guilty of murder? Would we have done the same in her situation?) Instead the director turned this into jingoistic drivel. The portrayal of Arabs/Muslims is a really offensive stereotype: Gun-totin, rock-throwin, jihad-lovin, towel-head fanatics, every last one of them, man, woman, and child. Most disturbing thing about it:

Soldiers have been fighting since time immemorial. Equally long has been their history of military conduct in the field. Among the stories of men in combat is, at some point the established proper rules of behavior. As a result, a nation's flag becomes a symbol of the soldier's code of conduct. Too many men have paid the price to disgrace it in our modern era. Among the various branches of service, the U.S. Marine Corps, has created a plethora of heroic memories which exemplify their valiant attributes. Their courage have bequeathed to their country a magnificence unparalleled among the nations. That is the stage for this movie called " Rules of Engagement. " A decorated Marine Col. Hayes Hodges (Tommy Lee Jones) has retired after an illustrious career and now seeks peace and quiet for his retiring years. Unfortunately, a fellow Marine, one Col. Terry Childers (Samuel L. Jackson) has been ordered to rescue an American Ambassador (Ben Kingsley) from a besieged embassy in Yemen which is under hostile and armed mob attack. When his men come under direct fire from snipers and an armed crowd, some his men are killed. Without hesitation Childres orders return fire and eighty civilians are killed. When he returns to the U.S. Childers is arrested on charges of murder. Now Maj. Mark Biggs (Guy Pearce) is ordered by the National Security Adviser (Bruce Greenwood) to make an example of what he called a maniacal murdering marine with a hair trigger. If convicted, Childers faces a harsh 15 years in prison or execution. The courtroom drama is superior as is the gathered cast. An excellent film which gives due credit to our Servicemen and establishes the foundation of a military Classic. ****

Apart from The Exorcist, this is the only thing by Friedkin I've seen. Is it just me, or are these two the only particularly recognizable titles he's helmed? Why? His direction isn't half bad. The battle sequences manage to be intense and gripping, without disorienting the viewer; seldom is such a balance reached, and this does pretty well at it. Editing and cinematography are also great. The roles are well-cast, if Baker Hall is somewhat wasted with so little screen-time, and Kingsley, well, he does rather well for what he's given to work with. Teaming up Jackson and Lee Jones is a cool idea, and it really pays off. The two have nice chemistry, and they're both completely convincing. Acting is almost all impeccable. After a promising start, however, this turns out to take a simplistic approach to the conflict, abandoning all opportunity for exploration of the moral dilemma. Furthermore, the audience has a hard time accepting the problem presented to our leads. I won't detail it, you'll know what I mean when you see it, if you do. It is a gaping hole in the script, and credibility falls out of it. I guess the fault lies with the writers, or at least one of them. The courtroom scenes are average, never completely captivating the viewer, and the ending is downright poor. There is gruesome, bloody violence in this, as well as strong language. I recommend this solely to the biggest fans of those who made it. 6/10

Should be viewed by anyone considering a career in the service. Great performances by a coupl of our best actors. Sadly the topic is an all too familiar one of the government selling out the men and women who serve it.