# Rules of Engagement (2000)

### reviewed by
Mac VerStandig

    Rules of Engagement
    2 and 1/2 Stars (Out of 4)
    Reviewed by Mac VerStandig
    critic@moviereviews.org
    http://www.moviereviews.org
    April 7, 2000
    Film Opens Nation Wide Today

---This review can be found at http://www.moviereviews.org/rules_of_engagement1.htm --

Fast paced, decidedly lowbrow and gory enough to ensure an `R' rating, Rules of Engagement is the most recent installment in Hollywood's oldest and most classic genre: The Popcorn Flick. The acting is good, plot holes many and concession stand just down the hall.

Colonel Terry Childers (Samuel Jackson) and Colonel Hayes Hodges (Tommy Lee Jones) served together in Vietnam where Childers saved Hodges' life. 28 years later, Childers has been through Beirut and Desert Storm while Hodges has been through Georgetown Law. Before they both retire from the United States Marine Corps, there is one last war to be fought.

While on a mission in Yemen to save the US Ambassador and his family from hostile Islamic Fundamentalists protesting outside the embassy, Childers witnesses the death of three of his marines as the armed crowd fires at his squad. Following the rules of engagement and recognizing that an armed civilian is no longer a civilian, Childers orders his men to open fire on the rowdy protesters. Soon 89 Yemenis are dead and over a hundred others injured. But for Childers, his mission has been accomplished: he rescued the ambassador, saved as many of his men as possible and defused a unruly situation through the necessary means (needless to say, the movie has some issues establishing him as the genuine good-guy that he is supposed to be). Imagine his surprise when he returns to the United States to learn that the National Security Advisor is leading a political cover up and has decided that a) the massacred crowd was unarmed (not many people have to be hushed for such an allusion to be created) and b) Childers should stand murder charges for shooting unarmed civilians.

Hodges owes his life to Childers and he will now have an opportunity to repay that enormous debt in front of a court marshal. But first he will have to convince himself that he is a worthy attorney, resolve a long-standing yet unspoken conflict with his decorated father (there's a new one!) and stop drinking (Tommy Lee Jones as a struggling alcoholic - who would have thought?).

The movie's opening scene, set in the unruly jungles of Vietnam, is among the more graphic that can be found in a primarily non-war film. But this is necessary as the Childers character is established via the Asian war. And although the gore might be more than what one wishes to see in a Hollywood film, give credit for such reality to Platoon and Saving Private Ryan's Dale Dye, the film's military technical adviser, who served 20 years in the Marines (some of which were spent in that Vietnamese setting) before taking to the more glamorous life that Hollywood provides.

Islamic supporters will likely be just as outraged at this film as they were at 1998's The Siege, a movie they elected to picket nationwide. A critical scene has Islamic propaganda spewing anti-Western sentiments, just an example of the general stereotyping that paints the faith as being based on terrorism. Even Islamic women and children are made to look bad at times.

Tommy Lee Jones and Samuel L. Jackson certainly don't wander into any new territory with their roles here. Jones just had a similar part in last year' s Double Jeopardy and Jackson gives an encore of his performance from The Negotiator. Together, they make yet another excellent semi-action/semi-drama duo that will likely go largely unnoticed come awards season (past examples include John Travolta and Nicholas Cage for Face/Off, Samuel L. Jackson and Kevin Spacey for The Negotiator and numerous James Bond good-guy/bad-guy duos).

Unfortunately, some plot holes are far greater than those normally pardoned in action films. A key witness is never called even though he is never hushed, some simple trajectory tests that could end the trial are never bothered with and a man standing trial for murder is never put behind bars for reasons not clearly explained. Also, the film uses a cheap out-technique when displaying white cards at the end to tie up some loose ends that would have well been worth another 30 minutes. With the exception of documentaries and films that have a smoother ending than this one, such cards should never be needed.

Well, Hollywood's oldest institution has grown over time. Concession stands no longer offer a genuine butter topping and you are naturally on the edge-of-your seat during a film because the seats are too small in which to sit back. Still, Rules of Engagement fits the modern requirements rather well -– plenty of action, court room suspense, good acting, a few errors and a predictable ending –- and you will be hard pressed to find better kernels popping elsewhere.

The review above was posted to the rec.arts.movies.reviews newsgroup (de.rec.film.kritiken for German reviews).
The Internet Movie Database accepts no responsibility for the contents of the review and has no editorial control. Unless stated otherwise, the copyright belongs to the author.
Please direct comments/criticisms of the review to relevant newsgroups.
Broken URLs inthe reviews are the responsibility of the author.
The formatting of the review is likely to differ from the original due to ASCII to HTML conversion.

Related links: index of all rec.arts.movies.reviews reviews