Rules of Engagement

Director: William Friedkin
Screenplay: Stephen Gaghan (story by James Webb)
Stars: Tommy Lee Jones (Colonel Hayes Hodges), Samuel L. Jackson (Colonel Terry L. Childers), Bruce Greenwood (William Sokal), Guy Pearce (Major Mark Biggs), Ben Kingsley (Ambassador Mourain), Blair Underwood (Captain Lee), Anne Archer (Mrs. Mourain), Philip Baker Hall (General Lawrence H. Hodges), Amidou (Dr. Ahmar), Conrad Bachmann (Secretary of Defense Mr. Wyatt), Dale Dye (General Perry)
MPAA Rating: R
Year of Release: 2000
Country: USA

William Friedkin's "Rules of Engagement" is a deeply troubling film that is also (for better of for worse) very entertaining. Friedkin's other troubling films, such as the homosexual serial killer film "Cruising" (1980) and the pro-capital punishment courtroom drama "Rampage" (1992) were also lousy entertainment; they offended both the moral sensibilities and the drive to be entertained. "Rules of Engagement," on the other hand, is quite effective as a military mystery-suspense thriller, which gives it the (possibly erroneous, but still palpable) air of insidious propaganda.

The film opens in Vietnam in 1968, where it establishes the close relationship between Marines Hayes Hodges (Tommy Lee Jones) and Terry Childers (Samuel L. Jackson) when Childers saves Hodges' life in combat. Fast-forward 28 years, and Hodges is on the verge of retirement after an undistunguished career of working as a military lawyer (his wounds in Vietnam eliminated any chance of continued active duty) while Childers has gone on to be a decorated Marine colonel who life literally revolves around his involvement in the Corps--he is a pure warrior.

Childers' future is put in jeopardy when he is scapegoated after a rescue mission in Yemen goes bad. He is sent in with a platoon of Marines to rescue the U.S. Ambassador (Ben Kingsley), who is trapped in the embassy and under attack from an increasingly violent group of Arab protestors. Childers loses three Marines to sniper fire, and when he looks down and believes that the group of protestors below are also firing weapons, he orders his men to open fire on the crowd, killing 83 men, women, and children and wounding over 100 more.

The key to the case is whether or not the protestors were indeed firing weapons, but William Sokal, the U.S. national security advisor (played with slick, polished venom by Bruce Greenwood) doesn't care. He sees the incident as potentially blowing up in the face of the U.S., and he wants to pin the whole thing on Childers, even though he has in his possession a videotape that clearly shows members of the group of protestors firing on the Marines.

Childers asks his old friend Hodges to defend him, even though Hodges asserts, "I'm a good enough lawyer to know that you need a better one." But, no character played by Tommy Lee Jones could lie down in a situation like this, so he takes the case, even though it is being prosecuted by a Stanford-trained military lawyer who has the firm conviction, bordering on ideological zealotry, that Childers is absolutely guilty. The prosecutor, appropriately named Major Mark Biggs, is played by Guy Pearce ("L.A. Confidential), whose square, angular features and small eyes make him physically perfect for the role, although his bizarre accent and heavy-handed tone take him over the top.

The second half of the film is a courtroom drama in the vein of "A Few Good Men" (1992), where it is accepted that the accused did something horrible; therefore, the questions revolve around whether or not it was justified. "Rules of Engagement" sets up a stark dichotomy between those who have been in battle and those who have not, which marks both civilians and inexperienced military people as incapable of understanding how "the rules of engagement" play out in actual warfare. Childers makes it clear that he wants Hodges to defend him because he needs someone who knows what it's like to be under fire and how decisions that seem murderous in hindsight are actually perfectly justifiable in the boundaries of battle, where the idea of applying civilized "rules" is simply ludicrous.

This is a theme ripe for deep speculation, but "Rules of Engagement" doesn't give it its due. In fact, the film seems to gloss right over the deeper implications so that it can remain on the surface level, where entertainment and suspense are the first priority. The problem with the film is that its graphic portrayal of events does not settle well with its glib treatment of the storyline. This is, after all, a film that depicts in pounding, bloody detail the machine-gun massacre of 83 men, women, and children. Yet, it is also a film that depicts a ridiculous, unnecessary fistfight between Hodges and Childers that plays like an inept, outmoded paean to dunderheaded machismo. Scenes like that give the film a jarring, uneven effect, where you're never sure just how seriously it should be taken. Much like last summer's "The General's Daughter," the material is almost too sordid for the film's own good; it demands a stronger treatment.

Which brings us back to the question of what exactly is the agenda for "Rules of Engagement." The film is infused with ideology, most of which is put in the service of defending the military and its justified use of force. The film is so intent on vindicating the extreme use of military violence, that it feels the need to justify the slaughter of children by first toying with audience emotions by focusing on a little Arab girl who has lost her leg, only to later show the same girl in a flashback firing a machine gun at the Marines.

A scene that shows Hodges visiting a fly-infested, make-shift hospital in Yemen where men, women, and children are dying painfully of infected gunshot wounds seems at first designed to elicit sympathy and confuse the notion of Childers' innocence. Yet, if we take the film's message at face value, we can come to no other conclusion than these people deserve their suffering because, after all, they were firing weapons. As Hodges points out in court, once they brandished firearms, they ceased to be civilians and became soldiers in the game of war.

The screenplay, written by Stephen Gaghan from a story initially conceived by James Webb, takes incendiary subject matter and tries to clean it up with slick Hollywood production values, simplistic characterizations of good and evil, and intense but ultimately unconvincing rhetoric about the unfortunate necessity of innocent people dying for the greater good. Samuel L. Jackson delivers his forced lines like the professional he is, but his character never comes together because we know nothing about him outside of his Marine service. Tommy Lee Jones suffers a similar fate, although we do see his family and are given the context of his needing to live up to the bar set by his father, a Marine general (Philip Baker Hall).

So, what to make of "Rules of Engagement"? Is it offensive right-wing propaganda or simply good Hollywood entertainment built around an unsettling storyline? In the end, it is both and neither. If you're looking for the former, you will find it. If you are looking for the latter, you will find that, too. My only wish is that, when filmmakers attempt films that tackle such difficult subject matter, they give more thought than was given here.

©2000 James Kendrick



Overall Rating: (2)




James Kendrick

James Kendrick offers, exclusively on Qnetwork, over 2,500 reviews on a wide range of films. All films have a star rating and you can search in a variety of ways for the type of movie you want. If you're just looking for a good movie, then feel free to browse our library of Movie Reviews.


© 1998 - 2024 Qnetwork.com - All logos and trademarks in this site are the property of their respective owner.