| Rules of Engagement | | Cast : | Tommy Lee Jones, Samuel L. Jackson | | Director : | William Friedkin | | Studio : | Warner Home Video | | Format : | Color, Closed-captioned, Widescreen, Dolby | | Released Date : | March 31, 2000 | | DVD Released Date : | October 10, 2000 | | Language : | English (Dubbed), French (Dubbed), English (Original Language), French (Original Language), English (Subtitled) | | Audience Rating : | R (Restricted) | | | BUY THIS DVD FROM AMAZON |
Customer Reviews
| Rating |  | | Date | July 06, 2005 | | Summary | pretty realistic | Content
 | gotta buy it if you like to se good acting and good action. o.k. dvd. |
| Rating | | | Date | June 17, 2005 | | Summary | Rules of sado-masohism | Content
| The moral from this movie ? The dead Arab is a good Arab!!!
|
| Rating | | | Date | June 01, 2005 | | Summary | To be a soldier is to be a slave of politicians | Content
| The personal responsibility of a soldier of any rank from any country in any military action is a real problem. This film tackles this problem under the light of a potential miscarriage of military justice in the US. It all revolves around one piece of evidence, a video tape, that was destroyed but had been duly listed on some invoice slip. The court does not require this piece of evidence but the jury seems to have taken it into account to refuse to convict the accused of the crime the politicians of the State Department and the leadership of the Marines would like him to be convicted of. Unluckily the film is cryptic about this element that seems to be supported by some written messages at the end of the film showing the national security advisor who destroyed the tape was gotten rid of. But the film does not make this piece of information the center of the plot, though it deserves to be. But yet the film is quite clear about how a miscarriage of military justice is built and planned to cover the failings and shortcomings and drawbacks of other personnel like diplomatic staff or ambassadors or counselors or advisors of any type. You have to destroy a piece of evidence, then you have to pressurize the officers who have authority in the case, and then you make some people lie, bluntly lie, and there you are. It's ugly, frightening and disgusting and yet it happens all the time. In this film to cover up the political mess the soldier has to be convicted of a crime he did not commit, in some other cases it can be the reverse, to be absolved of a crime he did commit on orders but those orders have to be covered up for political reasons. Politics is the worst human invention ever and it is too often the cause of the worst crimes imaginable. And war is generally the result of the impotence of politicians, their incapability to solve problems without violence. And soldiers have always been pawns on the political chessboard. They better be willing to die on the altar of politics if they enter this career. But at times there might be salvation and success for one victim of such events, though it will be the exception that will prove the rule unescapable : soldiers are the natural scapegoats and fuses of politicians.
Dr Jacques COULARDEAU
|
| Rating | | | Date | May 20, 2005 | | Summary | Inspiring legal drama | Content
| I watched this film when it was released in VHS years ago, but it is still a great film. I've read a few bad reviews about this movie, where people claim it to be propaganda in order to better the U.S' position in the world, but it isn't.
Dealing with the issue of Childers murdering those Yemenis, to tell the truth, I understand protests, but they were blazingly violent. They were grabbing guards and beating the crap out of them. A mother had her child in her arms while standing next to a sniper on a rooftop, and shielded his ears while he was firing (which reminds me of the protestors at the Terri Schiavo 2-week death period, where they brought their kids, only to have them arrested). The fact that the crowd had guns was just the "cherry on top" for a good excuse for Childers to solve the problem permanently. That embassy was U.S soil, and snipers (and the crowd) were firing at it, killing Marines, throwing firebombs, rocks, pretty much they signed their death warrants when they got violent.
It was U.S soil, though, and Childers had every right to kill anyone attacking it. Right now in Uzbekistan, for example, they are going through a type of civil war. It started with VIOLENT protests against the government for wrongfully imprisoning their comrades. If they had protested peacefully, their murders would incite a cry of mass slaughter. However, they were attacking government soldiers, so the soldiers have a right to defend themselves.
To have your hands tied behind your back, carrying a loaded rifle, while the possibility of instant death or torture is looming in your face, and you cannot fire because you fear the legal and sociopolitical consequences of your actions - is just plain nuts...and I am not supporting Florida's "Wild-West" gun law by saying that.
That being said, the film is an inspiration for doing the right thing. It defends truth, justice, and fairness. Whether you are a "bleeding heart Liberal" or a staunch anti-American from another country, you will love this film because, even though it is fiction, it does represent today's justice system and how difficult it can be to reach truth. Plus, the government loses the case - OH NO, SPOILER! Sorry :( |
| Rating | | | Date | April 26, 2005 | | Summary | JONES AND JACKSON DELIVER | Content
| Putting political issues out of the picture, I found RULES OF ENGAGEMENT a fascinating film experience. Oscar winning director William Friedkin gives us an opening scene in Vietnam which is disturbing in its violence and intensity. And then he takes us to Yemen, where a supposedly peaceful demonstration gets out of hand and over 80 "innocent" women and children are slaughtered, the order given by decorated Colonel Terry Childers. As the viewers can attest, the demonstration is far from peaceful and Childers' decision utilizing the rules of engagement is a logical, if tragic, one. What makes the movie such a powerful entity is the magnificent performances of Samuel L. Jackson (probably one of his best performances) as Childers and gruff Tommy Lee Jones as the lawyer who defends him against the murder charges. Both actors seize their roles with a marked intensity and are fascinating to watch as they embody their characters with the valor, doubt, and fierce belief in themselves. Guy Pearce (Memento, Count of Monte Cristo) is excellent as Biggs, the soldier who serves as the prosecutor. The rest of the supporting cast is good too: Bruce Greenwood, Philip Baker Hall, Ben Kingsley, Anne Archer and Nicky Katt. I would think it would be hard to decide what to do in a case like this, and seeing how duplicitous and deceitful the government is once again portrayed, it would be hard call. But Childers saw the crowd below him shooting at and killing four of his men. What else could he do?
Above average, intensely felt movie. |
|
|
|
|
