Rules of Engagement

source: Rules of Engagement

The critics who viewed this film viewed it from the lens of their liberal bias. Films that savage the US and elevate terrorists to hero status get glowing reviews. That in my view includes the idiot who threw up the disgusting review to which I am responding. The portrayal of Col. Childers by Samuel L. Jackson had depth and dimension. Tommy Lee Jones, Bruce Greenwood, Ben Kingsley, and Dale Dye gave realistic performances but not outstanding. The formulaic buddy scenes between Jones and Jackson, like the fight, were standard Hollywood fare. But the twist which showed a terror attack could have been taken from multiple news reports about the war in Iraq. "Civilians" killed hundreds of Iraqi soldiers AND their fellow citizens. It was NOT shameful or wrong to depict this type of incident. And the real life soldiers whom the other " reviewer" says would hate this movie would not. And the ones who died died to give that twit the right to spit out his drivel.

William Friedkin's Rules of Engagement is good, if your a war veteran fan. I am not, so in this film I looked for some other things, like acting. I found that and it was good. Tommy Lee Jones and Samuel L. Jackson work very well together as Vietnam veteran Colonels who are caught in a cross-fire when Col. Terry Childers (Jackson) is accused of ordering the murder of 83 Yemenese during a confrontation. He asks Col. Hodges (Jones) to act as his attorney. During the trial there is some really great courtroom drama. This and the acting (and Friedkin's directing) are what make this film OK. But that's it. The backplots aren't though out and the supporting characters (i.e. Ben Kingsley) aren't in the movie as much as I wanted. Still, It's OK. B

Warcrimes are warcrimes no matter how you try to put it. It does not matter if you are american, arab, or vietnamese. It does not matter if you wanted to protect someone by committing them. It does not matter if someone else would have done the same. It does not matter if you were a bit confused about your target. This movie is disgusting and a shame on everyone who participated in it.

A thoroughly gripping and engaging legal war drama, and also kind of a thriller, Rules of Engagement is an immensely enjoyable and very memorable film. I think it's definitely one of the best films of both Jackson and Jones' career. Screen legends Samuel L. Jackson and Tommy Lee Jones appearing together was a treat. I love Jones, and Jackson is one of my all-time favorites. They light up the screen, and make the already interesting plot that much better. The action scenes, when they happen, are really good. The opening battle scene is bloody and visceral, and the embassy scene is very lengthy and taut, with some brutal violence also. The fight scene between Jackson and Jones was awesome and super fun. The court scenes were very engaging to me, and very well-done. This is definitely one of the better legal movies out there. Definitely one of the best movies of 2000, and one of both Jackson's and Jones' best performances, Rules of Engagement is not a movie to miss.

RULES 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.

This is a great movie except for three things. 1)The Vietnam battle effects are poorly done. You can't get by with 1960 effects in 2000. 2)Obviously I can't reveal the ending because there is a great deal of very effective suspense leading up to it. Let me just say it was disappointingly predictable. 3)This is a work of fiction and a good one. Yet the closing credits use the unethical gimmick of scrolling documentary style titles outlining the (supposedly) subsequent destinies of the main characters as though it were history rather than a Hollywood nail biter. I would have given it a nine (rather than a 7) were it not for these three factors.

As I watched this movie, my emotions were stirred so much I found myself clinching my fist and jutting my jaw. I wore the uniform of an American Serviceman for many years and saw many of the same injustices brought down on my comrades. It made me remember why I separated from military service. Some lines from a Sean Connery film comes to mind - "It's like the rich fellow who has a big dog to guard his house. But, when he has guest, he locks up the dog because it's an embarrassment. Then, after the guest are gone he lets the dog loose again. When a movie brings out this much emotion, I have to recommend it to others. 8/10.

Absolutely, one of the worst movies EVER made. The Vietnam scenes looked like they were filmed in my backyard. These are supposedly war heroes, you'd think they would have confidence overflowing, but when Jackson asks Tommy Lee to defend him he says "I'm not a good lawyer"??? The writing sounded like it was done by a 12 year old, the plot was stupid & the acting was junk. People who liked this movie probably loved Ishtar. Complete & utter crap.