Thank you for voting. If your vote meets our 
from 1 review
Portions of this page Copyright 1981 - 2008 Muze Inc. 
All rights reserved.
All rights reserved.Rules of Engagement (2000, DVD)
Rules of Engagement: "What is it about this order you don t understand?!"Review created: 05/26/02
by: mkp51 -- a member of Epinions
Pros:
Well acted
Well acted
Cons:
Predictable story line; ludicrous situations; very little entertainment value.
Predictable story line; ludicrous situations; very little entertainment value.
Throughout military history, one of the burning questions that has confronted soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines is: when is an order not an order? Is it ever right for a person to refuse an order from a higher ranking officer or non-commissioned officer?
For members of the United States armed forces, the answer, of course, is that an order must be lawfully given and must not require the recipient(s) of that order to do something illegal. This tenet of American military law dates at least as far back as the Civil War, when Captain Henry Wirz, the Confederate commandant of the Andersonville prisoner of war camp, was tried, convicted, and hanged for permitting the inhuman treatment of Union soldiers under his jurisdiction, despite his claim that he was "only following orders." During the Nuremberg war crimes trials in the years immediately following World War II, military tribunals reinforced this legal principle when they turned a deaf ear to the pleas of Nazi defendants who likewise claimed that they were "only following orders."
This issue is less than competently, although graphically, handled in Rules of Engagement, a film directed by William Friedkin and starring, among others, Tommy Lee Jones (The Fugitive, Lonesome Dove), Samuel L. Jackson (Pulp Fiction, The Negotiator), Bruce Greenwood (Thirteen Days), Ben Kingsley (Gandhi, Schindler's List), and Guy Pearce (L.A. Confidential). Among the recently released movies I ve seen in recent months, this one is the least satisfactory strictly mediocre fare, although it gets off to a reasonably promising start.
RULES OF ENGAGEMENT: A BRIEF SYNOPSIS
The film s two protagonists are Colonel Hayes Hodges (Tommy Lee Jones) and Colonel Terry Childers (Samuel L. Jackson.) Both are highly decorated Marine Corps officers whose lifelong friendship was forged 28 years earlier in the jungles of Vietnam. Since then, their careers have taken divergent paths. Hodges, seriously wounded in a firefight, his life saved by Childers, becomes a Marine lawyer ("and not a very good one at that"), and is now only a matter of days away from retirement. Childers continues his steady rise through the ranks, becoming most recently the commanding officer of the 24th Marine Expeditionary Unit
The story revolves around the actions taken by Colonel Childers when he s called upon to lead a task force into San , Yemen, to "provide extra security" for the U.S. Embassy there. The embassy has been surrounded by hostile but (according to intelligence reports) non-violent crowds; however, the State Department, fearing the situation could get out of hand, requests additional security forces to handle any escalation in violence.
By the time Childers and his task force arrive via helicopter, the situation at the embassy has indeed changed for the worse. Chaos reigns supreme. The building is now surrounded by hundreds of rock- and Molotov cocktail-throwing fanatics, instead of the few unruly, chanting protesters indicated in intelligence reports. Snipers are pouring a steady stream of fire into the embassy s windows. The Ambassador cowers under his desk; his wife and son sit nearby, paralyzed with fear.
Childers quickly leads the Ambassador and his family to the awaiting helicopters, then returns to secure the building. The steady stream of fire coming from the hostile crowd on the ground and from the windows and balconies of surrounding buildings intensifies. Several men under Childers's command have already been killed or seriously wounded. Without hesitation, Childers orders his second-in-command to open fire on the crowd. Even after receiving advice that there are women, children, and elderly people in the crowd, Childers repeats his order, demanding of his executive officer: "What is it about this order you don t understand?!"
Moments later, scores of people unarmed men, women, children, and old people, as well as gun- and Molotov cocktail-toting terrorists lie dead in the streets, shot by Marines firing their M-16s from the roof of the embassy...
In the aftermath of the incident at San , Colonel Childers returns to the United States, expecting to quietly resume leading his Marine Corps unit in peacetime. But he soon learns there s a price to pay for his ill-fated order. Prodded by an obsessive and corrupt government official, the Marine Corps charges him with violating his orders and murdering innocent civilians!
Of all the lawyers in the country that he could choose to defend him, who does Childers pick? Yep you guessed it!! His ol buddy Hayes Hodges, now "continuing to serve his country by depleting streams in the south of trout "
RULES OF ENGAGEMENT: AN EVALUATION
Talk about your classic "coulda, shoulda, woulda" film! If ever there was a movie that starts off with loads of promise, but fails to deliver on its potential, this one is it! Released in 2000 to much fanfare and hype, Rules of Engagement coulda been a profound commentary on the role of our military as an international police force at the dawn of the 21st century yet it fails miserably; shoulda tackled tough issues (like "when is an order not an order?") in a manner that provokes thoughtful debate among moviegoers... yet it only takes a cursory stab at it; and woulda been one of the finest films made in recent years, had the director, screen writers, and producers eschewed making the film so darn predictable, and chosen instead to emphasize artistic quality over commercial success... yet it remains mired in a bog of cinematic ordinariness.
The film certainly begins with a "BANG," both figuratively and literally. Viewers are initially treated to graphically violent and realistic sequences in Vietnam, circa 1972, and at San , Yemen, in current times. In these scenes, Rules of Engagement depicts the horrors faced by men in combat with a gritty realism that almost instantly captures the viewer's attention. The acting is good, although not spectacular; the dialog terse and believable; and the actions taken by Marines almost exactly what one would expect from men who are facing the enemy
Then things quickly begin their inexorable downward spiral into mediocrity. The second half of the movie is... not good. The acting is still good (most of the time), but situations faced by our protagonists are so pat, so blatantly predictable that they actually provoked me to laughter. When Colonel Childers is charged with the murder of 80-plus civilians (a ludicrous and unrealistic situation in itself), to whom does he turn for legal assistance? His best buddy, Colonel Hayes Hodges, of course!! Hodges, like many other fictional defense lawyers seen in countless other legal dramas, has no confidence in his own abilities. He believes he possesses none of the requisite skills to defend his friend. Believing that, what does he do? He takes the case, naturally!!
Off Hodges goes to Yemen all by his little lonesome, of course to investigate the case. Does he have any luck? Didja honestly think he would?!? All the evidence that would tend to exonerate his friend has predictably... vanished!! Not a shred of evidence indicating the crowds were firing into the embassy. Why, you may ask? Ya think it might be that conspiracy fomented by the aforementioned corrupt government "big shot" and that cowardly, sniveling, ungrateful Ambassador (very well played by Ben Kingsley) who had his bacon saved by Colonel Childers?
The courtroom scenes in the second half of the film are about what you d expect from bad episodes of JAG and Law and Order. There's the ubiquitous, stereotypical, hard-assed judge who seems bent upon ruling against the defense at every turn. The prosecuting attorney comes perilously close to being a stereotype, although Guy Pearce does a decent job of infusing his character with enough personality to make him appear at least a bit distinctive. (Pearce s "Brooklynese" accent is first-rate no small feat for an Aussie.)
There s the obligatory "surprise twist" near the end of the trial that isn t really a surprise I ll let you guess which of the movie s early scenes rears its ugly head at the film s totally predictable climactic moment. In keeping with common movie and TV show practice, opening and closing arguments by both the prosecutor and defense attorneys are about two minutes long, overly simplistic in scope (I guess we moviegoers are incapable of understanding deeper legal concepts), and contain just about every shopworn clich you can imagine.
The main strength of Rules of Engagement is the acting... but there are problems even in that area. Jones, Jackson, Kingsley, Greenwood and Pearce all demonstrate their fine acting skills throughout the film, but there's a distinct lack of chemistry between all the players, especially Jones and Jackson. It's too bad too, because had the screen writers provided this actor's "dream team" with a better script, that chemistry would have been there. The likely result: the film would have risen above mediocrity, and would have delivered on its promise of being superb entertainment for its viewers.
RULES OF ENGAGEMENT: MY VERDICT
By now, my verdict on Rules of Engagement must be as predictable as the film was: Guilty as charged, for being a ho-hum, ordinary, colorless, thoroughly predictable legal drama. I always like to give a less-than-satisfactory movie the benefit of the doubt, though, so I waited a couple of weeks and watched it again. My verdict "on appeal:" My original decision stands. Despite its billing as "WOW! What a great film!" and "A magnificent movie you must see!", Rules of Engagement is, in reality, a very mediocre film (albeit fairly well acted) with only modicum of entertainment value.
RULES OF ENGAGEMENT: THE DVD
Video and audio transfers are very good. Excellent color balance; images are sharp and bright. No apparent evidence of fading, pixellization or other "transients." Audio is crisp and very well balanced in all frequencies.
DVD Bonus Features:
* Widescreen format (2.35:1 aspect ratio)
* Dolby Digital sound (English: 5.1 Surround; English and French Dolby Surround
* "A Look Inside" exclusive cast and crew interviews
* Behind-the-scenes featurette
* Commentary by director William Friedkin
* English subtitles (for the hearing impaired)
* Interactive motion menus
* Scene selection
For members of the United States armed forces, the answer, of course, is that an order must be lawfully given and must not require the recipient(s) of that order to do something illegal. This tenet of American military law dates at least as far back as the Civil War, when Captain Henry Wirz, the Confederate commandant of the Andersonville prisoner of war camp, was tried, convicted, and hanged for permitting the inhuman treatment of Union soldiers under his jurisdiction, despite his claim that he was "only following orders." During the Nuremberg war crimes trials in the years immediately following World War II, military tribunals reinforced this legal principle when they turned a deaf ear to the pleas of Nazi defendants who likewise claimed that they were "only following orders."
This issue is less than competently, although graphically, handled in Rules of Engagement, a film directed by William Friedkin and starring, among others, Tommy Lee Jones (The Fugitive, Lonesome Dove), Samuel L. Jackson (Pulp Fiction, The Negotiator), Bruce Greenwood (Thirteen Days), Ben Kingsley (Gandhi, Schindler's List), and Guy Pearce (L.A. Confidential). Among the recently released movies I ve seen in recent months, this one is the least satisfactory strictly mediocre fare, although it gets off to a reasonably promising start.
RULES OF ENGAGEMENT: A BRIEF SYNOPSIS
The film s two protagonists are Colonel Hayes Hodges (Tommy Lee Jones) and Colonel Terry Childers (Samuel L. Jackson.) Both are highly decorated Marine Corps officers whose lifelong friendship was forged 28 years earlier in the jungles of Vietnam. Since then, their careers have taken divergent paths. Hodges, seriously wounded in a firefight, his life saved by Childers, becomes a Marine lawyer ("and not a very good one at that"), and is now only a matter of days away from retirement. Childers continues his steady rise through the ranks, becoming most recently the commanding officer of the 24th Marine Expeditionary Unit
The story revolves around the actions taken by Colonel Childers when he s called upon to lead a task force into San , Yemen, to "provide extra security" for the U.S. Embassy there. The embassy has been surrounded by hostile but (according to intelligence reports) non-violent crowds; however, the State Department, fearing the situation could get out of hand, requests additional security forces to handle any escalation in violence.
By the time Childers and his task force arrive via helicopter, the situation at the embassy has indeed changed for the worse. Chaos reigns supreme. The building is now surrounded by hundreds of rock- and Molotov cocktail-throwing fanatics, instead of the few unruly, chanting protesters indicated in intelligence reports. Snipers are pouring a steady stream of fire into the embassy s windows. The Ambassador cowers under his desk; his wife and son sit nearby, paralyzed with fear.
Childers quickly leads the Ambassador and his family to the awaiting helicopters, then returns to secure the building. The steady stream of fire coming from the hostile crowd on the ground and from the windows and balconies of surrounding buildings intensifies. Several men under Childers's command have already been killed or seriously wounded. Without hesitation, Childers orders his second-in-command to open fire on the crowd. Even after receiving advice that there are women, children, and elderly people in the crowd, Childers repeats his order, demanding of his executive officer: "What is it about this order you don t understand?!"
Moments later, scores of people unarmed men, women, children, and old people, as well as gun- and Molotov cocktail-toting terrorists lie dead in the streets, shot by Marines firing their M-16s from the roof of the embassy...
In the aftermath of the incident at San , Colonel Childers returns to the United States, expecting to quietly resume leading his Marine Corps unit in peacetime. But he soon learns there s a price to pay for his ill-fated order. Prodded by an obsessive and corrupt government official, the Marine Corps charges him with violating his orders and murdering innocent civilians!
Of all the lawyers in the country that he could choose to defend him, who does Childers pick? Yep you guessed it!! His ol buddy Hayes Hodges, now "continuing to serve his country by depleting streams in the south of trout "
RULES OF ENGAGEMENT: AN EVALUATION
Talk about your classic "coulda, shoulda, woulda" film! If ever there was a movie that starts off with loads of promise, but fails to deliver on its potential, this one is it! Released in 2000 to much fanfare and hype, Rules of Engagement coulda been a profound commentary on the role of our military as an international police force at the dawn of the 21st century yet it fails miserably; shoulda tackled tough issues (like "when is an order not an order?") in a manner that provokes thoughtful debate among moviegoers... yet it only takes a cursory stab at it; and woulda been one of the finest films made in recent years, had the director, screen writers, and producers eschewed making the film so darn predictable, and chosen instead to emphasize artistic quality over commercial success... yet it remains mired in a bog of cinematic ordinariness.
The film certainly begins with a "BANG," both figuratively and literally. Viewers are initially treated to graphically violent and realistic sequences in Vietnam, circa 1972, and at San , Yemen, in current times. In these scenes, Rules of Engagement depicts the horrors faced by men in combat with a gritty realism that almost instantly captures the viewer's attention. The acting is good, although not spectacular; the dialog terse and believable; and the actions taken by Marines almost exactly what one would expect from men who are facing the enemy
Then things quickly begin their inexorable downward spiral into mediocrity. The second half of the movie is... not good. The acting is still good (most of the time), but situations faced by our protagonists are so pat, so blatantly predictable that they actually provoked me to laughter. When Colonel Childers is charged with the murder of 80-plus civilians (a ludicrous and unrealistic situation in itself), to whom does he turn for legal assistance? His best buddy, Colonel Hayes Hodges, of course!! Hodges, like many other fictional defense lawyers seen in countless other legal dramas, has no confidence in his own abilities. He believes he possesses none of the requisite skills to defend his friend. Believing that, what does he do? He takes the case, naturally!!
Off Hodges goes to Yemen all by his little lonesome, of course to investigate the case. Does he have any luck? Didja honestly think he would?!? All the evidence that would tend to exonerate his friend has predictably... vanished!! Not a shred of evidence indicating the crowds were firing into the embassy. Why, you may ask? Ya think it might be that conspiracy fomented by the aforementioned corrupt government "big shot" and that cowardly, sniveling, ungrateful Ambassador (very well played by Ben Kingsley) who had his bacon saved by Colonel Childers?
The courtroom scenes in the second half of the film are about what you d expect from bad episodes of JAG and Law and Order. There's the ubiquitous, stereotypical, hard-assed judge who seems bent upon ruling against the defense at every turn. The prosecuting attorney comes perilously close to being a stereotype, although Guy Pearce does a decent job of infusing his character with enough personality to make him appear at least a bit distinctive. (Pearce s "Brooklynese" accent is first-rate no small feat for an Aussie.)
There s the obligatory "surprise twist" near the end of the trial that isn t really a surprise I ll let you guess which of the movie s early scenes rears its ugly head at the film s totally predictable climactic moment. In keeping with common movie and TV show practice, opening and closing arguments by both the prosecutor and defense attorneys are about two minutes long, overly simplistic in scope (I guess we moviegoers are incapable of understanding deeper legal concepts), and contain just about every shopworn clich you can imagine.
The main strength of Rules of Engagement is the acting... but there are problems even in that area. Jones, Jackson, Kingsley, Greenwood and Pearce all demonstrate their fine acting skills throughout the film, but there's a distinct lack of chemistry between all the players, especially Jones and Jackson. It's too bad too, because had the screen writers provided this actor's "dream team" with a better script, that chemistry would have been there. The likely result: the film would have risen above mediocrity, and would have delivered on its promise of being superb entertainment for its viewers.
RULES OF ENGAGEMENT: MY VERDICT
By now, my verdict on Rules of Engagement must be as predictable as the film was: Guilty as charged, for being a ho-hum, ordinary, colorless, thoroughly predictable legal drama. I always like to give a less-than-satisfactory movie the benefit of the doubt, though, so I waited a couple of weeks and watched it again. My verdict "on appeal:" My original decision stands. Despite its billing as "WOW! What a great film!" and "A magnificent movie you must see!", Rules of Engagement is, in reality, a very mediocre film (albeit fairly well acted) with only modicum of entertainment value.
RULES OF ENGAGEMENT: THE DVD
Video and audio transfers are very good. Excellent color balance; images are sharp and bright. No apparent evidence of fading, pixellization or other "transients." Audio is crisp and very well balanced in all frequencies.
DVD Bonus Features:
* Widescreen format (2.35:1 aspect ratio)
* Dolby Digital sound (English: 5.1 Surround; English and French Dolby Surround
* "A Look Inside" exclusive cast and crew interviews
* Behind-the-scenes featurette
* Commentary by director William Friedkin
* English subtitles (for the hearing impaired)
* Interactive motion menus
* Scene selection
Review ID: 10000000000482087
Epinions.com ratings are not included in the item's average rating. Links in this review may have been removed.
 |
Buy this item
Related items
About eBay | Announcements | Security Center | eBay Toolbar | Policies | Government Relations | Site Map | Help | |
Copyright © 1995-2008 eBay Inc. All Rights Reserved. Designated trademarks and brands are the property of their respective owners. Use of this Web site constitutes acceptance of the eBay User Agreement and Privacy Policy.
| |
