Review: Rules of Engagement (2000)
Shay Casey
Year: 2000.
Starring Tommy Lee Jones, Samuel L. Jackson, Bruce Greenwood, Guy
Pearce, Ben Kingsley, Anne Archer, Blair Underwood, Philip Baker Hall,
Nicky Katt.
Written by James Webb (story) and Stephen Gaghan (screenplay).
Directed by William Friedkin.
Rated R.
Have you ever seen a movie that, no matter how much you tried to wrap
your head around it after leaving the theater, you just couldn't
figure out what in the world it was trying to say? That you weren't
sure if you liked or hated, merely because you had no idea what it was
really about? Such was my reaction to "Rules of Engagement." As with
most films, it has its good points and its bad points, but in this
one, there isn't a clear dominance of one over the other. The bad
points perfectly negate the good points, and it' s not just a question
of dramatic effectiveness. The themes are contradictory too. Every
time you think you have a handle on the movie's main "point," you
think of something else that contradicts it. The result is a film that
is tough to label as "bad," but is also far from being good.
Col. Hayes Hodges (Tommy Lee Jones) and Col. Terry Childers (Samuel L.
Jackson) are old Marine buddies with a strong connection: Childers
saved Hodges' life in Vietnam. Now old friends, Hodges is retiring
from his career as a military lawyer and Childers is leading a mission
to Yemen, where a crowd of protesters have begun a demonstration
outside the American embassy. Upon arriving, Childers finds the crowd
much more hostile than intelligence reports had indicated. After
evacuating the ambassador (Ben Kingsley) and his family, Childers
returns to find his troops under heavy fire. He gives them the order
to fire into the crowd. Reports of the shooting reach American
newspapers, and the military subsequently receives harsh criticism for
what the public believes to be a breach of the Geneva convention, an
illegal slaughter of innocent civilians. Looking for a scapegoat, the
scheming National Security Advisor William Sokal (Bruce Greenwood)
places the blame on Childers and plans to bring him up on charges of
murder. Childers, eschewing an assigned defender, asks Hodges to be
his counsel, despite the latter's assertion that he is a "poor
lawyer."
"Rules of Engagement" is such a contradictory film that a review of it
might be well served by merely listing the good and the bad. So that's
exactly what I'm going to do.
The good: The cast has been very well assembled. Jones and Jackson are
acting powerhouses, interesting by their mere presence. Guy Pearce
does a decent (though strangely chosen) American accent, Bruce
Greenwood is appropriately smarmy (apparently carrying over much of
his smarm from "Double Jeopardy"), and there are good supporting jobs
turned in by Ben Kingsley, Philip Baker Hall, and Nicky Katt. The bad:
These characters are fairly clumsily sketched. The camaraderie between
Jones and Jackson is indicated by a few contrived lines of dialogue
("Your only real problem, Hayes, is that you never lived up to your
father.") and an unbelievably stupid fist fight scene. The supporting
characters get even shorter shrift, with good actors like Kingsley and
Blair Underwood wasted in superfluous subplots that only look like
they're going somewhere. They're not. Anne Archer's part as the
ambassador's wife is so useless, and her few token scenes so riddled
with clumsy dialogue, that she comes off as a bad actress. Her
attempt to breathe life into the character by hamming it up does not
work.
The good: There are plenty of crackling scenes, most notably the early
battle sequences, one in Vietnam and one in Yemen, that are filmed
with a nice amount of whirlwind action. Director William Friedkin is
clearly taking pages from both Spielberg's "Saving Private Ryan" here;
his bob-and-weave camera technique and in-the-action sound recording
create the feel of being in combat nicely. Likewise, some of the
courtroom scenes, however cheesy they may be, are well-acted and
filled with clever dialogue. It's not "A Few Good Men," but for a
bunch of testosterone-fueled speechifying-lawyer stuff, it's pretty
good. The bad: For every powerful scene, there's an equally dead one
to accompany it. There is the aforementioned Jones-Jackson fist fight,
and also any scene involving the ambassador's wife. Then there's
virtually anything in between the opening battles and the courtroom
business. Every time you think the film might start getting good, it
pulls itself down again quickly, either by drawing scenes out longer
than necessary (Jones spends far too much time in Yemen, considering
how little it all ends up signifying) or by drawing attention to the
stupidity of the characters (I still don't know why the N.S.A. didn't
just release the hidden tape to the public, especially since it seems
to exonerate the U.S. on all counts) or the multiple plot holes. (Why
didn't Childers just fire at the snipers in the first place, anyway?
The Marines had a tactical advantage over the demonstrators.)
But thin characters and plot holes can be forgiven if a film is
genuinely entertaining, as "Rules of Engagement" often is, or if the
film delivers some pointed social commentary. Unfortunately, this film
also runs into problems with clarifying just what its message is
supposed to be. Some reviewers have criticized it for having a
right-wing bent. I can understand how one might see it that way -- the
resolution seems to advance the rather suspect argument that "If you
weren't there in combat, you're in no place to judge." If that's the
case, why have military trials at all? Even so, if we' re supposed to
consider "Rules of Engagement" a conservative film, what are we to
make of the brief, but notable, scenes of Jackson's character losing
his cool? We see that his firing into the crowd may have been
understandable, but that he might have made a better decision by
firing at the snipers. The film seems to reinforce the conservative
argument by painting the Arab characters as liars or needlessly
violent savages, but then what are we to think about the sequence in
which Jones' character visits wounded children in a Yemeni hospital?
Too bad the film ultimately manages to render any debate about the
ambiguity of war useless by painting its characters as obvious heroes
and villains, giving us a thoroughly sappy ending (whose worst part is
the ridiculous "final salute"), and leaving many pressing aspects of
the issue unaccounted for. Perhaps one of the defense's strongest
arguments, that Childers shouldn 't have been sent into such a hostile
area without correct information, isn' t touched upon at all. And what
may be the most pressing question of all seems to have been the most
overlooked: Why was there a protest in the first place? "Rules of
Engagement" isn't a bad film, but it's one that is often too
dramatically and intellectually inert to warrant a full
recommendation. I suppose "Rules" is entertaining in its own small
way, but it's a very small way.
-reviewed by Shay Casey
For more reviews, go to http://www.geocities.com/sycasey/movies.html
Eugene Novikov
Reviewed by Eugene Novikov
http://www.ultimate-movie.com/
Member: Online Film Critics Society
Starring Samuel L. Jackson, Tommy Lee Jones, Guy Pearce, Bruce
Greenwood, Ben Kingsley. Directed by William Friedkin. Rated R.
I'm not the first to say this, but Rules of Engagement is a real
testament to the skills of three great actors. The movie itself is
utterly hollow, a confused diatribe unable or unwilling to determine
what exactly its convictions are. I've heard that the reason for this
is the film's commercialization for easy access by a wide audience and
for once, it may have been for the best. As it stands, I would have
probably enjoyed the film far less had it been a moral lesson rather
than just an entertaining popcorn flick.
The movie begins in the jungles of Vietnam, where Colonels Terry
Childers (Samuel L. Jackson) and Hayes Hodges (Tommy Lee Jones) are
under a surprise guerrilla attack by North Vietnamese soldiers. Hodges
is shot. A desperate Childers executes a Vietnamese soldier in an
effort to make the general tell his troops to back off. He then drages
Hodges to safety. This scene is there to set up the fact that Hodges is
indebted to Childers -- something that will become important later on.
Years pass. Hayes Hodges is now a small-time military lawyer about to
retire; Childers is still an active Colonel. One day, he is sent to the
American embassy in Yemen, where native protesters have surrounded the
building with the ambassador (Ben Kingsley) inside and are getting
rowdy. In essense, this is a babysitting mission: go in, get the
ambassador out, leave. But things get more complicated than that. It
seems there are snipers set up in strategic locations around the
building and the crowd also seems to have weapons. Childers' marines
start to get shot. Panicking, Childers orders his men to fire into the
crowd, yelling "Waste the motherfuckers." 73 Yemenese civilians die;
over a hundred are injured.
Back at home, the head honchos of the military are scared to death of a
scandal. The National Security Adviser (Bruce Greenwood) decides to
avoid fingers pointed at the American military by blaming the whole
thing on Col. Childers. He destroys the tape that proves that the crowd
in front of the embassy did indeed have weapons. Childers is court
marshaled and charged with murder. He asks his old friend Hayes to
defend him. At first, Hayes is reluctant ("I'm a good enough lawyer to
know that you need a better lawyer than me.") but finally gives in
because of his debt to his friend. Meanwhile, Major Mark Biggs (Guy
Pearce), a big-shot, Stanford-educated lawyer, volunteers to prosecute.
Rules of Engagement is one of the more engrossing military dramas that
I've seen. It was directed by William Friedkin (The Exorcist), who has
a flair for undistinctive, unpretentious but always effective
camerawork. He uses camera tricks but he doesn't over use them (ahem,
Oliver Stone) and the result is a movie that flows smoothly, grabbing
your attention from point one and never letting go.
Friedkin really has his stars to thank for that. Jackson is excellent,
despite having the most bombastic and least versatile of the roles in
the movie. Even in his character's most defeated state, he still exudes
authority. Jones has opportunities for poignancy, action and even
laughs. Despite being typecast nowadays, he's still a consistently
entertaining actor -- and as a lawyer, he's unbeatable. I also liked
what Guy Pearce did with the thankless role of the prosecuting
attorney. He's a villain in the story, yes, but Pearce makes him a
little more than that: a ruthless man with a little sympathy running
underneath.
It should be said that Rules of Engagement has absolutely no message.
It doesn't know what it wants to say, or even if it wants to say
anything. It takes a point of view: Col. Childers should not be
punished because the crowd had weapons and he was defending his men.
And then it begins to thematically eat itself by starting to make
arguments for the other side. It goes back and forth that way until we
abandon all hope of the film actually being significant and focus on
the glorious performances and the smart, concise, enjoyable dialogue.
The courtroom scenes, at least, have the force of conviction.
When push comes to shove, Rules of Engagement comes through as a
mindless courtroom melodrama and inevitably fails on the rare occasions
when it tries to pass itself off as something more than that. It's not
brain food, but no one will be bored.
Grade: B
©2000 Eugene Novikov
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
David N. Butterworth
RULES OF ENGAGEMENT
A film review by David N. Butterworth
Copyright 2000 David N. Butterworth
*** (out of ****)
The Sonny and Cher vehicle "Good Times" notwithstanding, William
Friedkin's directorial career started strong, with such distinguished
movies as "The French Connection," "The Exorcist," and "Sorcerer" (although
many critics hated that one) highlighting his résumé. Then began the big
decline: "Cruising" and "Deal of the Century," followed by a brief return
to form with "To Live and Die in L.A.," and then a spate of films no-one
ever heard of--"Stalking Danger," "Rampage," and "Python Wolf." The '90s
weren't good to him either: "The Guardian" (a "'Hand That Rocks the Cradle"
rip-off), "Blue Chips" (A "Hoosiers" rip-off), and "Jade" (a "'Last
Seduction" rip-off).
Genre-wise, Friedkin has been all over the map, but for his latest
effort he's settled on the post-Vietnam military courtroom drama "Rules of
Engagement," and one can only hope this fine accomplishment is the
beginning of an upward trend.
The film is a cross between "Platoon," "Three Kings," and "A Few
Good Men" (call it "A King, His Platoon, and a Few Really Bad Men"). It
follows the checkered career of Colonel Terry Childers (Samuel L. Jackson),
a decorated military officer who, after his successful part in the Vietnam
war, is given command of a special operations force off the coast of Yemen.
Dispatched to provide evacuation assistance to the U.S. Embassy
under siege by hostile anti-American demonstrators, Childers finds himself
in the middle of a volatile situation in which three of his men are killed.
With pressure mounting, Childers orders his marines to open fire into the
crowd and after the dust has settled, 83 Yemeni men, women, and children
lie dead. Charged with murder and facing a military court martial for his
role in the botched withdrawal, Childers calls upon his old friend retired
Colonel Hays Hodges (Tommy Lee Jones) to defend him.
Childers saved Hodges' life during a Vietnam ambush so Hodges, a
self-confessed "weak lawyer," owes him. "I'm a good enough lawyer to know
you need a better lawyer than me" Hodges tells Childers. Nevertheless he
takes the case.
There's a nice, easy-going chemistry between Jackson and Jones that
keeps this film engaging. In addition, Childers' moral dilemma of shooting
into an unarmed crowd when his men are dying all around him is given an
interesting treatment by screenwriter Steven Gaghan. For the first half of
its running time, "Rules of Engagement" paints this situation jet black,
and then turns full circle and paints it entirely white, leaving the
pivotal "guilty or not guilty" outcome a true nailbiter.
As loud and violent in the courtroom as in its combat sequences
(the latter try to out-muscle "'Private Ryan" but don't quite make the
grade), "Rules of Engagement" is a tense and gripping thriller buoyed along
by uniformly fine performances. Complementing the splendid Jackson and
equally impressive Jones are Guy Pearce ("L.A. Confidential") as
prosecuting attorney Major Mark Biggs (he's tough as nails), Ben Kingsley
as the impotent U.S. Ambassador to Yemen, Bruce Greenwood as National
Security Advisor Bill Sokol (Greenwood plays Sokol with an oiliness of
Exxon Valdez proportions), and Blair Underwood as one of Childers' captains
who's called as a witness. The only disappointment is Anne Archer, who's
once again subjected to playing The Wife (this time Ben Kingsley's) without
much more than that job description to work with.
This fine cast and credible story is pulled together by the sure
hand of director Friedkin who, with this film, has given his sagging career
a much-needed shot in the arm. For all of its familiar military scenarios,
"Rules of Engagement" is a much better film than anybody might have
expected.
--
David N. Butterworth
d...@dca.net
Got beef? Visit "La Movie Boeuf"
online at http://members.dca.net/dnb
Lars Lindahl
"Rules of Engagement" (2000)
** (out of four)
Starring Samuel L. Jackson,Tommy Lee Jones, Bruce
Greenwood, Guy Pearce, Ben Kingsley, Anne Archer,
Blair Underwood, and Philip Baker Hall.
Directed by William Friedkin
Written by Stephen Gaghan
The military courtroom drama called Rules of
Engagement is missing something crucial from its
story: an ending. The film just stops out of nowhere,
crushing the little excitement it had built up in its
previous hour and a half. It felt like the filmmakers
ran out of film and were forced to release whatever
they had taped. The script just contained an
expedient, lazy finish. The poor ending was upsetting
because I sat through the monotonous first three
quarters of the movie hoping for a thrilling,
unpredictable conclusion. All that was given were some
words on the screen explaining what eventually
happened to each of the main characters' lives.
Warning: don't expect a grand finale.
Featuring an all star cast, the movie has an
interesting premise. When anarchy erupts in the Middle
Eastern country of Yemen, a group of marines led by
Colonel Terry Childers (Samuel L. Jackson) rush to the
scene in order to evacuate the embassy containing the
ambassador (Ben Kingsley) and his family. At the heat
of the moment, things get out of hand when three
marines are shot down. The question is who shot them?
Childers thinking it was citizens with guns protesting
below, orders his men to fire at the civilians. The
marines kill eighty three civilians and when no guns
are found on the civilians, America is forced to
explain what happened. In order to make it seem like
America was not to blame, top officials (including
Bruce Greenwood, doing his usual role) frame and
prosecute Childers saying he made an incorrect order.
When evidence is destroyed and witnesses hushed, it is
an innocent Childers against the government. Only
Colonel Hays Hodges (well acted by Tommy Lee Jones), a
Vietnam pal of Childers and retired lawyer doing one
more case, can defend Childers and prove to the jury
that he is innocent.
Rules of Engagement is an ok movie. I didn't feel sick
once it was over but I didn't feel like celebrating
either. For a film that brags about its intensity,
there was not much present besides the chaotic, loud,
and ultimately exciting scene which the trial revolves
around. The courtroom scenes in which the characters
cursed and screamed at each other were nothing new or
edge-of-your-seat. Every member of the cast had done
something like this before; Samuel L. Jackson does
this type of movie every year (think A Time to Kill
meets The Negotiator), and Tommy Lee Jones and Bruce
Greenwood played rivals in Double Jeopardy just last
year. The organization of the film may have hurt the
excitement level expected from moviegoers. With the
incident in Yemen occurring during the first half hour
of the film, the rest of the movie seemed very dull
and bland in comparison.
The little things in Rules of Engagement distracted me
more than the plot holes and boring speeches. Guy
Pearce's ridiculous overacting as the prosecuting
lawyer is a prime example of the little things hurting
the overall picture. Another distraction is a
pointless scene in which Childers and Hodges bond
together by beating each other up until blood shows,
Fight Club style. Worse than that, Childers now has an
annoying black eye for the rest of the movie which
caught my attention more than his speeches declaring
innocence. Another mistake is the disappearance of
some of the actors halfway through the movie. The
ambassador and his wife (Anne Archer) as well as a
marine who was skeptical of Childers decision (Blair
Underwood), although they are very important
characters, appear very briefly in the film just
adding the feeling like the movie wasn't really
finished when the producers released it.
Rules of Engagement is something you've seen before
except without an ending. That is the best way to
describe it.
Grade: ** (out of four)
Lars Attacks!
A teenager attacks past and present cinema
http://www.angelfire.com/ny3/larsattacks
(c) 2000 Lars Lindahl
larsa...@mail.com
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Send online invitations with Yahoo! Invites.
http://invites.yahoo.com
Jamey Hughton
** (out of four stars)
A review by Jamey Hughton
Starring-Tommy Lee Jones, Samuel L. Jackson, Guy Pearce,
Bruce Greenwood, Ben Kingsley and Philip Baker Hall
Director-William Friedkin
Canadian Rating-14A
Released by Paramount Pictures - 04/00
MOVIE VIEWS by Jamey Hughton
http://Welcome.to/MovieViews
“Rules of Engagement” is not the standard Hollywood treatment for
glorification of patriotism in battle. When covering this ground, the
film achieves adequate success, and poses some interesting questions
surrounding the line that separates heroic bravery from cowardly murder.
However, the film is the standard Hollywood treatment of the aftermath
of this patriotism. A textbook courtroom drama plagued with irksome,
ho-hum plotting straight out of “A Few Good Men”, it’s quickly apparent
that “Rules of Engagement” is a shameless indulgence in the worst of
Hollywood dramatization. Hence, it’s nothing new.
Momentum is achieved promptly by seasoned director William Friedkin
(“The French Connection”), who, despite some vapid implausibility’s,
manages to stage some brutally realistic and effective battle sequences.
We open in 1968 during the Vietnam War, where marines Terry Childers
(Samuel L. Jackson) and Hayes Hodges (Tommy Lee Jones) are engaged in
battle. When their platoon is separated, Childers winds up saving
Hodges’ life in extreme and courageous circumstances. Cut to 28 years in
the future, where both men are now highly decorated colonels. Hodges is
retiring to fly-fishing in relaxing backwood trout streams, but Childers
continues his service, and is called into action for an operation in
Yemen that requires the rescue and retrieval of the American Ambassador
(Ben Kingsley) and his family. Due to extremely hostile rioting by
Yemeni civilians and high-perched snipers surrounding the embassy,
Childers loses three marines, while another lay critically wounded. He
orders an open-fire into the crowd, mowing down over 80 rioters
including women and children, in a disturbing sequence of images that
Friedkin once again directs with nimble expertise. When Childers is
court-martialed under the charges of murder and defiance of the standard
rules of engagement for battle, his position in the marine core and
future is at stake. He heads to Hodges and requests that he represent
him in court. “I’m a good enough lawyer to know you need a better lawyer
than me,” is the stern reply.
“Rules of Engagement” is a superbly structured military drama so far, a
top-drawer model with stellar performances filling any cracks in the
inconsistent foundation. And then Hollywood sneaks under the radar and
takes hold of a potentially gripping story-line. The villain, played by
Canadian Bruce Greenwood, is U.S. National Secuirity Advisor William
Sokal. A cowardly weasel determined to find a scapegoat at any cost,
Sokal destroys evidence of the rioters opening fire that would clear
Childers’ name. Like virtually everything in the film, the role seems
cluttered and unfinished, although Greenwood plays Sokal with enough
panache for forgiveness. Similar exoneration cannot be granted for the
remainder of the choppy, uninvolving second half, which nose-dives into
courtroom formula and the standard offering of gaping plot holes.
Accepting Childers’ position is initially difficult, because he have
reluctance to scrounge up much sympathy for a man who slaughtered 83
people... and many of them innocent civilians. Future plot movements
make this easier, but the actions of Jackson’s character are too often
inconclusive. Jones is also subject to unconvincing characteristics.
While Hodges openly admits he is an inexperienced attorney, he still
acts in feeble-minded ways, snapping pictures with a camera that looks
like those waterproof Kodak models you purchase at the grocery store.
The star performances are one of the strong suits of “Rules of
Engagement”. Jones and Jackson whole-heartedly convince us of their
friendship and military background. Both have done far better work, but
their high-powered verbal exchanges ignite the screen - particularly in
a few tantalizing moments of courtroom confrontation that rise above the
rest of the mundane triviality. Another key factor in these scenes is
Australian Guy Pearce (“L.A. Confidential”), who fiddles around quite
successfully with a New York accent to play prosecuting attorney Biggs,
and adds more fuel to the fire. Mostly everything else in “Rules of
Engagement” fizzles quietly, like a bad batch of pop rocks. Philip Baker
Hall (as Hodges’ father) and Blair Underwood (as a fellow testifying
marine) are both solid but perpetually under-used. All promise of a
stirring, pensive drama is plowed over by the transparent clichés of
Stephen Gaghan’s screenplay. Large portions of the script appear to be
in shambles, perhaps the indication of material tampering that goes
right to the core.
Any messages about war violence and its posterior consequences are lost
in a haze of Hollywood formula. In “Rules of Engagement”, you can’t
overlook the stellar acting and direction, but the remainder of this
sloppy military drama will leave you in awkward state of ho-hum
indifference. Sacrificing moral issues and fascinating war themes for
tedious plotting and an inconclusive finale? Only in Hollywood, my
friends.
(C) 2000, Jamey Hughton
Your Comments Appreciated! movie...@hotmail.com
NEW at MOVIE VIEWS by Jamey Hughton --> The MOVIE STORE
http://Welcome.to/MovieViews
James Sanford
and director William Friedkin seems intent on creating another "A Few
Good Men" in "Rules of Engagement," another drama about the terrible
consequences that can result when military officers make the wrong
choices in the heat of the moment. In "Rules," that officer is Col.
Terry Childers (Samuel L. Jackson), a 30-year veteran of the Marine
Corps who oversees the evacuation of the U.S. Embassy in Yemen. By the
time it's all over, 83 Yemenis are dead and more than 100 are wounded.
Everyone agrees there was a demonstration outside the building,
that the protesters got a little rowdy and that snipers took a few
potshots at the Marines. But there's controversy over whether or not
Childers was justified in ordering his troops to fire on the crowd. Some
observers insist the Marines were gunning down unarmed civilians;
Childers thinks he saw weapons in the hands of some of the women and
children.
With an international scandal brewing, the stage is set for a
court-martial, and Childers turns to his old friend Col. Hayes Hodges
(Tommy Lee Jones) to defend him. Since National Security Advisor William
Sokal (Bruce Greenwood) has secretly destroyed the videotape that would
back up Childers' charges -- "Why should the United States be held
responsible for the actions of one man?" Sokal argues -- Hodges and
Childers face an uphill battle.
"Rules of Engagement" has some points of interest, not the
least of which are the performances of Jones and Jackson. Jackson pours
so much barely contained intensity into Childers the audience can't
always be sure he was thinking clearly during the incident, and that
keeps the interest percolating. After sleepwalking through so many of
his recent films ("U.S. Marshals" and "Double Jeopardy" immediately come
to mind), Jones again reminds us here what a resourceful, exciting actor
he can be. There's entertaining work from the prosecution as well, with
Guy Pearce ("L.A. Confidential") contributing an attention-grabbing turn
as a showboating lawyer anxious to send Childers to prison.
The acting can only go so far, however, in camouflaging the
movie's dullish screenplay. Writer Stephen Gaghan, who trained in
television, tends to sacrifice depth and characterization in the name of
narrative, meaning we're served copious flashbacks to Childers'
experiences in Vietnam but few meaningful details about his personal
life. As for Sokal and the weak-willed ambassador (Ben Kingsley)
Childers saved, they're pure cardboard, just another pair of easily
vilified bureaucrats.
As expected, "Rules" climaxes with the trial, and although
Friedkin inserts many extreme close-ups of Childers' angry eyes and
Hodges' furrowed brow, the finale still seems awfully cut-and-dried.
Unlike the much better "Courage Under Fire," in which viewers had at
least four different sides of a story to choose from, "Rules" offers
only two, and only one of them is genuinely credible. In a courtroom
that's sometimes the case, but in a movie we need a more substantial
pay-off after two hours of build-up. James Sanford
Zachary McGhee
RULES OF ENGAGEMENT [Friedkin] -- Boy, did they screw up reel one!
Really a mess from minute one to forty-five, an introduction as thought
provoking as colored toilet paper, the movie takes a sudden turn
for interesting once the courtroom battle begins, Tommy Lee Jones and
Samuel L. Jackson kick into high gear, and those pathetic Saving Private
Ryan-wannabe battle scenes cease fire. It certainly feels like something
downloaded from the creative mind of one Tom Clancy, with A Few Good Men
tossed in for good measure. C+