Rules Of Engagement Movie
Storyline
TAGLINES
A hero should never have to stand alone.
Colonel Terry Childers is a 30 year career Marine. When he is ordered to go the American Embassy in Yemen, when it's learned that things there are starting to unravel. After evacuating the Ambassador and his family, Childers orders his men to fire at the crowd cause he believes that they are armed. Back in the U.S., certain officials fear that there'll be a backlash against other embassies and Americans, if Childers claim is proven to be true. So they have decided to make Childers a scapegoat. Childers asks Colonel Hayes Hodges, a man whom he knew and saved in Vietnam to defend him. And while there is no evidence or witness that can back Childers' claim, Hodges feels that he owes it to Childers to do what he can.
| Tommy Lee Jones | Col. Hayes 'Hodge' Hodges |
| Samuel L. Jackson | Col. Terry L. Childers |
| Guy Pearce | Maj. Mark Biggs |
| Ben Kingsley | Ambassador Mourain |
| Bruce Greenwood | National Security Advisor Bill Sokal |
| Anne Archer | Mrs. Mourain |
| Blair Underwood | Capt. Lee |
| Philip Baker Hall | Gen. H. Lawrence Hodges |
| Dale Dye | Gen. Perry |
| Amidou | Dr. Ahmar |
| Mark Feuerstein | Tom Chandler |
| Richard McGonagle | Judge Col. E. Warner |
| Baoan Coleman | Col. Binh Le Cao |
| Nicky Katt | Hayes Hodges III |
| Ryan Hurst | Capt. Hustings |
| William Friedkin |
6.20 out of 10 (15046 votes)
Visitor Reviews
not quite
posted on 20 Aug 2009After a Middle Eastern raid inadvertently turns into the slaughter of numerous civilians, textbook Marine Officer Jackson recruits longtime friend and disillusioned military lawyer Jones to defend him in a court-martial. Despite two more than capable leads and a solid supporting cast this courtroom drama is only marginally entertaining; there are some good moments as the film raises some interesting questions about the morality of duty and lawful orders in past as well as present warfare, but the film lacks a definitive spark, suffers from dramatic gaps, and has an unsatisfying finale. Too bad, because the cast alone gave the film potential. **½
Can't believe they did it.
posted on 14 Aug 2009Film opens with US marines in an embassy surrounded by aggressive protesters, trying to rescue diplomatic staff in a random Arabian country (Yemen). Marines are entrenched on the roof while crowd is raging beyond, targeted by some sporadic fire. Till now, nothing wrong. Certainly a quite realistic situation: getting out diplomatic staff in dangerous areas is not always a peaceful job, particularly when surrounded by hostile population often manipulated by propaganda. Period. So marines are caught under fire, in uncomfortable position. Colonel played by S.L.Jackson is doing his best to have situation run smoothly. He asks soldiers to wave down the US flag. In the process about 3 marines get shot (some wounded, some dead, can't remember exactly) by some snipers we can't locate in the whole turmoil. That's some kind of war, and not exactly a clean one. Period.Then the madness thing begin: Jackson's character orders soldiers to... WIPE OUT THE CROWD!!!! WOMEN AND CHILDS!!! Not firing warning shots, not push them back: firing rifles and machine-guns on full auto mode ON THE CROWD!!!Could hardly believe it. From that point, I was thinking of the film being about a good soldier, with morals, being doomed for having made wrong choice in a situation he simply lost control. Explaining that soldiers often are in situation they have to take crucial decisions in critical situation, while being, in the end, only human beings and so committing mistakes. A kind of tragedy in Greek sense.No way. The rest of the film will be about the colonel being a true hero, and will even try to convince us that he was right when giving the orders for that slaughter. So the trial begins. Can't say it's objective. First Jackson's character is a former Vietnam hero, and he's a good guy as he saved TL Jones' character there, another Vietnam veteran who will be his lawyer. On the other hand, opposing military attorney is a young aggressive, ambitious white collar without any battle experience. Too smart to be trusted. All the people prosecuting Jackson are depicted as cowards, and dishonest persons whose only objective is making Jackson a scapegoat (while gov has actually nothing to do with col's decision as he never got any order from above). Government agents even hide evidences that may give credit to Jackson. There I need some explanation: why would government make disappear some evidences that their soldiers acted in the right way, yeah why?Anyway after some dull trial movie bits, incredible story holes and laughable pieces of speech, Jackson will receive absolution from a retired Vietnamese general (which in the same run solves all those pesky problems of guilt about Vietnam, thanks). Jury will buy it immediately and Jackson will be immediately freed without any serious charges and remorse.Actually director will even let us think that col was right, implying that some people in the crowd were certainly armed. Looks like he managed to refrain adding something like: "and anyway, if they had had weapons, they surely would have used them against our soldiers so that's the same".Lesson from this movie: an American hero's honor worths more than 83 anonymous arabian lives. Thanks but we already knew that, just watch news.
Standard dull court room drama
posted on 04 Aug 2009The movie makes out this court case so the good guy is unambiguously good and right and the bad guys are the typical out-for-their-own-greedy-interest type. It is amazing and how uninteresting, unexciting, and completely predictable the whole thing was. There weren't any attempts at any new, interesting, or provocative ideas at all.On the good side, however, the beginning had some cool fighting scenes, and this movie did serve as another vehicle for Samuel L Jackson to say "motherfucker" which was cool but that's it.
Not a new plot- seen it before.
posted on 17 Jun 2009This is not a new plot which involves another federal cover-up. The movie is not boring and it has good action scenes. Watching Sam and Tommy Lee do their Marine mancho thing is fun too. The problem is too many illogical holes in the plot. Things just do not add up. Lets grade it "C". Another thing- I can't remember a Major Cynthia Grant played by Kim Delaney. I hope I didn't fall asleep. The only major with a speaking part was the prosecutor who was male.
the trial was over too quickly...pity the film wasn't
posted on 03 Jun 2009this film had a lot of potential but never fully got off the ground. (spoiler) the trial was over quickly which meant the conspiracy was never discovered, so the innocence of samuel l jackson was never really proven.the trial lasted a week which meant that is never created enough tension.it was a shame that the film was a bit of a flop as it did have some potential for being a good court room drama.don't waste your money on it, but if someone is paying it is definitely worth a look.
A Few Good Men Go to My Lai
posted on 18 May 2009For extreme-right-wing, little-brown-person-denigrating, jingoistic, racist, xenophobic major-studio pap, you'd have to go back to the liberal journalist David Janssen following John Wayne around and finally seeing the light in the 1969 GREEN BERETS. The proposition here is that Samuel L. Jackson is sent into the U.S. Embassy in Yemen to save the ambassador (Ben Kingsley, quivering with perfidy) and his family. He does--and even risks his life to run back and save the shot-up American flag. (Shtik like this was considered too corny not just in RAMBO, but in the RAMBO sequels.) As Sam and his Marines are about to make it out, shots--both from nearby snipers, and from a crowd of demonstrators gathered outside the embassy--are taking down Sam's guys. So he issues a command, which can be rendered on the IMDB as "Waste those mudder fruggers!" And Samuel L.'s jarheads waste not one, not two, not a handful of bad apples, but every last man, woman and child in that pile of mudder fruggers. The next day, the cover of the Washington Post looks like My Lai, or the Guyana suicides.Through the course of the movie, Jackson's character never shows the slightest remorse--he isn't troubled in the least by the fact that at least a few of the people he shot (the six-year-old girls, say) might have been completely innocent. He's convinced he did what he had to do and what he was told to do--and anybody who disagrees is a conspiring, back-stabbing desk jockey keeping the godly warriors of our culture from winning the damn wars.The movie is a Vietnam-compensation fantasy, like RAMBO or UNCOMMON VALOR...but we're in the year 2000, and it plays a little creepy. "This is a different world," Jackson tells the Marine lawyer whose life he once saved (Tommy Lee Jones). "No enemies, no friends, no lines, no Mom, no Pop." RULES OF ENGAGEMENT tests out an evil new template: the Islamic fundamentalist as the stand-in for the Viet Cong (or Soviet) savage. Behind the heroism, the flag worship, the supplicating honor-guard musical score, lies the presumption that American lives are just worth a hell of a lot more than Yemeni lives--or, to use the prologue as an example, Vietnamese lives, either. And though the director, William Friedkin, fastens ghoulishly onto images of charred, limbless or blood-spattered children, the implication is made, as in THE GREEN BERETS, that that cute little crippled girl just might pull out a pistol and blast your American manhood clean off.Is Friedkin just a super-competent dude looking for a comeback, or is he subverting this material? I'd like to buy into the latter. His focus on the injuries done by Jackson to children are not just EXORCIST-style morbidity--Friedkin seems to be making the point that the script refuses to make: that Jackson's actions are evil and insane, and arguably deserving of a roomful of gas pellets.Samuel Jackson, Tommy Lee Jones, and the producer, Scott Rudin, one of the most intelligent guys in studio movies, all deserve to hang down their heads in shame for this one. This is the case of smart people--I include Friedkin in this--testing the waters of the post-Clinton era to see if Reaganite jingoism might make a comeback as a story template for pop movies. But none of the Sly or Arnold movies of the eighties was as morally ugly as this one. And using a black actor to sell this patently racist bill of goods is the ultimate insult. The movie leaves you feeling unclean.
Lazy, lazy filmmaking.
posted on 30 Apr 2009Friedkin has made some great movies ("Exorcist," "French Connection"). This is not one of them. His earlier works were novel, marked by a fresh creative spark; this, on the other hand, is a very tired, predictable, formulaic rehashing of familiar elements. It's not even a familiar tale well told; it's just lazy filmmaking at its worst.Jones and Jackson, two of the most engaging and charismatic actors today, are given the impossible task of bringing depth to characters that are two-dimensional cutouts we've seen a thousand times before. The writers have not created living and breathing humans, but rather a hodgepodge of walking stereotypes devoid of any elements that would make them interesting, much less worthy of our emotional investment. Their behaviors are completely predictable, yet often strained, awkward, and unbelievable. Their relationship leads one to conclude that the writers attended Syd Field's screenwriting workshop and learned What To Include without learning How to Include It. There's the standard "You gotta help me, nobody else believes me," the painfully contrived Fight Between Best Buddies That Threatens To Undermine Their Just Cause, and the inevitable Why-didn't-you-tell-me-this-sooner-and-what-else-are-you-keeping-from-me.Secondary characters, such as the National Security Advisor, are also drawn with breathtaking shallowness. This is not a unique individual with strengths and weaknesses, with good and bad, with virtues and vices. Here instead is a stereotypical bureaucrat-villain-really-really-Evil-guy whose great challenge to the very capable Bruce Greenwood is the hiding of the glue holding his cardboard pieces together. The character of the Ambassador similarly wastes the formidable talents of Ben Kingsley. "Two-dimensional" is too generous a term to be applied to the character as it is written.Sadly, the same clumsiness and laziness that mark the development of the characters also mark the development of the story. The courtroom scenes are breathtaking not only in their lack of originality, but in their arbitrariness. Our mind is kept wondering not what twist or turn the story will next bring, but rather what contrived element the storyteller will next try to foist upon us. The fight scene between Jones' and Jackson's characters is painfully unmotivated, arising not from the characters, but apparently from the screenwriters' sense of the obligatory. Worst of all, the plot twist thrown at the end is offensive not because it could not have happened in real life, but because of the way it was handled by the filmmakers. Like everything else about the film, it does not flow naturally from within; instead, it is imposed from without by the writers. Properly conceived twists--think "The Sixth Sense" or "The Usual Suspects"--add richness, complexity, and an entirely new level of fulfillment to already good stories. Then there are twists that leave the viewer feeling cheated. This is one of those, reducing most of the preceding 120-odd minutes to much ado about nothing."Rules of Engagement" could have been a fine film about important issues. Instead, it is lazy, lazy storytelling that wastes the talents of the filmmakers and the time of the viewers.
Solid Film, even despite the rather mundane ending
posted on 13 Mar 2009(some spoilers) Tommy Lee Jones and Samuel L. Jackson
were quite good together in this film,
producing a rather interesting dynamic
between their two personalities. However,
the one person that really took over the
show was Guy Pearce. Not only was he
ruthlessly unlikeable, the last scene with
Jones was perfect. The only thing I didn't
like was the rather predictable twists that
involved the hands of a few smarmy characters
and the eventual exoneration. A good popcorn
thriller to watch and keep you interested, but
don't expect something deep and powerful.
Rebuttal to Rovin
posted on 19 Feb 2009I love what user Rovin put in his review. By the way,Rovin,anti-semitism is being anti Jewish,not anti Arab. And those aren't turbins they are wearing in the movie...those are head scarves,which are still widely worn by Muslims,particularly Arabs...which surprisingly is where the film takes place! Who knew?! And I would only assume that Rovin has never been to the Middle East, so I'll just fill in him and everyone else by letting you all know that,I don't know about Yemen,but Iraq is very similar to how they portray it in the movie. But I guess a Canadian would know better than me,or they like to think so. Other than that,the movie is great!
The only way to enjoy is to turn your mind off.
posted on 13 Feb 2009You could fill a book about the plot holes in the movie. What I found obvious was that it was cheaply made. Take a look at the sets. Only about 5 different sets were used. The closing music by Mark Isham is old release (but still good). So they couldn't even arrange for an original score. Also notice that within a second of the massacre occurring the bodies are covered with buzzing flies. Must have a bad bug problem in Yemen. But get a bag of popcorn and enjoy Jackson and Tommy Lee. One last plot hole not mentioned by anyone yet. When Tommy goes to the embassy looking for evidence he passes by at least 2 vhs tapes that he ignores. Why? Also with a week to prepare for the case how did the Marines find an old vietnam soldier? Incredulous.
Good drama...best one in a while.
posted on 11 Feb 2009RULES OF ENGAGEMENT starts off in one of the many battles of Vietnam. The film is slow-moving and takes time to develop itself. The plot is somewhat similar to the earlier A FEW GOOD MEN. Tommy Lee Jones and Samuel L. Jackson are the main stars that play defendant and military lawyer.The supporting cast includes Guy Pearce, Philip Baker Hall, Bruce Greenwood, Blair Underwood, Anne Archer, and Ben Kingsley. The film is very powerful and intense. The war sequences are outstanding. This film is indeed one of the best of its kind. The acting is great and the cinematography is outstanding. This film was, in my opinion, worthy of a few Academy Awards. It may have even gotten some, I'm not sure, I haven't checked yet. But, even after I do, RULES OF ENGAGEMENT will still have gotten 5/5.
A powerful movie with great acting
posted on 03 Feb 2009Readers please note: This review may give away some minor details in the movie. If you DO NOT want to know anything about this movie, please stop reading now.The first 20 minutes of the movie really starts it off with a bang. The horrifying sounds, thoughts and actions of the Vietnam War come alive as two Marine groups are engaged in heavy combat. A realistic and truthful scene that probably occurred all over in Vietnam. A definite 5/5 star opening scene.The rest of the movie was a basic government plot to cover up an innocent "hero" in this case. In the end the Marine on trial is not convicted and is innocent. The Secretary of State (person who is mainly the cause of covering up an innocent Marine) is guilty of throwing away evidence and he retires. An overall good movie with a well written plot, great acting, but yes this type of movie has been seen before. I rate it an overall B+
Not bad at all
posted on 12 Jan 2009CAUTION: CONTAINS LOTS OF SPOILERS! Rules of Engagement is not a great film, and it does contain some bits which should have been thought through better, but overall it's very competent and very... well, engaging. I can't understand why so many people are so passionately and irrationally opposed to it.Ignoring the many reviewers who have completely misinterpreted the film and quite honestly don't know what they're talking about, let's look at the more serious criticisms. For instance, why do so many people call it predictable? The predictable thing would have been for the Ambassador (or, more likely, his wife) to have qualms of conscience and come in and save the day at the last minute, or else to prove in court that he was lying and the National Security Advisor was blackmailing him. The predictable thing would have been for the captain being interviewed to admit that he was under such heavy fire that he couldn't tell where the bullets were coming from. The predictable thing would have been to have the video tape magically appear, or for Tommy Lee Jones to come in with such a convincing defense that all charges would be squashed, or to make a dozen other obvious changes. As it is, yes it's obvious that Jackson's character won't fry, but apart from that the movie keeps us guessing the whole way. Predictable? Come on.And then, why do they say that the trial scenes were boring? I know boredom is only a matter of opinion, but the trial had me on the edge of my seat a lot of the time.And then, there are the people who find it all ridiculous and unbelievable. Unbelievable that a trouble-maker might try to stir up feeling against Americans? That a hate-filled protest could get completely out of hand? That somewhere in the Middle East, women and children could possibly be armed? Unbelievable that a Government official could possibly destroy evidence? At least the film didn't depict anything completely ridiculous, like terrorists hijacking American planes and using them to kill thousands of American civilians. Then it really would have been unbelievable.
One of the best films of the year!
posted on 27 Dec 2008This movie is one of the better films I have seen in a while. Sam Jackson was a believable Marine Colonel. I am in the military myself and I can honestly say that this movie was realistic. I highly recommend this film to anyone who enjoys military movies and fantastic acting.
Please: No more courtroom scenes
posted on 17 Dec 2008I beg some casting director to put Samuel L. Jackson into a role where he doesn't have to be a bad-ass. It seems like every movie he makes has some speech where he takes his "Pulp Fiction" character with him. It's not because he's a bad actor. On the contrary, he plays bad-ass better than anyone else in Hollywood. It's just getting old. Jackson's performance in "Rules of Engagement" is not the only thing that's old, however. Government cover-ups and high drama court scenes also lace this film, and they do so in the most predictable manner. Jackson plays a marine officer who is charged with murder after ordering his troops to fire into a crowd of civilians outside the U.S. embassy in Yemen. He asks his longtime marine buddy (Tommy Lee Jones) to represent him. This movie could have made an extremely intelligent war film. The pictures of the crowd after being massacred are terribly frightening, and audience members actually start to question their loyalty to Jackson's character. Such mixed feelings are refreshingly similar to those envoked from "Three Kings." In fact, the entire first half of the movie has extremely well shot war scenes, plus surround sound used as effectively as it has ever been used. Then predictibility sets in. The audience becomes convinced that Jackson's character should be a hero, not a criminal. Jones' character delivers an emotional closing argument. The final scene of the movie shows captions of what happened to all of the characters in the movie. What was so appealing about "Erin Brockovich" was that, despite being a movie about a court case, there was not one scene from inside the court. There's no such luck in "Rules of Engagement." Plus, why do fictional movies insist on making epilogues? If a movie is based on a true story, it makes sense because the viewer is curious about where the characters are now. However, in "Rules of Engagement," some of the most compelling plot developments occur in the epilogue. It becomes a cop-out piece of cinema and is unfair to the viewer. Despite all of its negatives, "Rules of Engagement" certainly has its moments. Jackson and Jones have a surprising amount of chemistry - much more than one would think considering their careers. Plus, those who enjoy fake courtroom drama would probably enjoy the cliches carried through in this film. For the most part, however, "Rules of Engagement" is what most people find annoying about big-production Hollywood dramas - big name actors, but overwhelming predictibility.
The rules of Jones and Jackson!
posted on 19 Nov 2008"Rules of engagement" is a military film about courage, duty and honor. Sadly enough this film doesn't live up to the expectations. Personally, I think there are only two great scenes in it: the Vietnam-scene at the very beginning of the film and the evacuation-scene in which many demonstrators are killed by the American troops. Everything else is either predictable (because it's been done before) or monotonous (because certain scenes last too long). Overall, this is not a bad film though (despite its brainless ending). It's just a pity that only the first 15 to 20 minutes are so good and that the rest of the film is less original and interesting. Also, it reminded me a lot of "A few good men" sometimes.But director William Friedkin wanted to ensure the success of his film and therefore he got himself two of today's greatest actors: JFK-Fugitive Tommy Lee Jones and Pulp Fiction-Negotiator Samuel L. Jackson. Both do a great job (as usual) and for that reason only this film is worth watching. Because without Jones & Jackson there wouldn't be any ... "Rules of engagement."
OK movie--nothing new
posted on 13 Nov 2008Plotwise 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.
Immoral
posted on 09 Nov 2008I don't believe any movie could ever be this immoral. The entire film plays out like some propaganda piece for the United States. This film is in such bad taste. When Jackson orders his troops to fire on civilians, not a single member of the crowd can be seen with fire arms. Despite this, by films end we are forced to believe that every single member of that crowd (including all the women and children) are in possession of weapons. Now despite what this film (and a certain nations propaganda machine) would lead some to believe, this is a completely unrealistic scenario. This is what I believe to be the message the film makers were hoping to put forward.1. Arabs don't have morals. Only Americans have morals.2. It is perfectly fine to kill non-combatants. As long as they aren't American non-combatants.3. American military should be allowed to kill whoever they like.and, to me the worst of all4. Killing of POWs is a recommended means of getting your way. As long as it is performed by an American.What this film fails to recognise is that these rules were put in place for a very good reason. To protect the innocent regardless of race, religion, nationality etc. The concluding release of Jackson's character is akin to treating Hitler with a "forgive and forget" mentality. I'm sure the majority of the world would have trouble doing that now.
Two good action sequences, but overall a very poor film
posted on 02 Oct 2008The Vietnam scene was enjoyable, and the embassy rescue was enjoyable. But as a whole, this movie was a piece of junk.The biggest problem with this movie is the twisted message of morality it conveys. The tagline is, "A Hero Should Never Have to Stand Alone." A hero? SLJackson may be one to the ambassador, but the ambassador may have been an enemy of the Yemenese. Of course, the grievances of the Yemeni protesters are never established in this movie, because whatever they were, they aren't worth jack**** and the opinions of Americans are always the correct ones. The movie says: "The lives of 3 people are worth more than the lives of 80 people." Remember, the grievances of the Yemenese are never established, so the viewer never knows whether or not they had a right to use force to attempt to expel the American ambassador from their country.There were other problems in this movie, including Tommy Lee Jones, the fact that there are never any ballistics tests and what not, and the ridiculous ending, not to mention that flashback by SLJ in which the little girl raises a weapon. At that point in the movie I basically began to worry about Hollywood's future. Will they continue to make movies that present twisted and immoral ideals to the viewer, or will they attempt to convey positive messages that also entertain us?
Entertaining run of the mill action/military/courtroom drama.
posted on 28 Aug 2009I liked this movie and enjoyed it, but i wasn't very impressed, in that it offered nothing fresh or original to an already tired genre. But the two leads(jackson and jones) did a good job and the story was interesting as well. With that i'd say that this is a recommendable film that will keep you intrigued throughout, but not leave an impression. **1/2 stars