Diagonaldi Very well executed

SnoReptilePlenty Memorable, crazy movie

Gutsycurene Fanciful, disturbing, and wildly original, it announces the arrival of a fresh, bold voice in American cinema.

Haven Kaycee It is encouraging that the film ends so strongly.Otherwise, it wouldn't have been a particularly memorable film

mharah "Rules of Engagement" is NOT "A Few Good Men." But it is also not the travesty that many reviews have made it out to be. The film was released in 2000, prior to the events of 9/11/2001 in New York City. Much has transpired since then, and Americans are slowly coming to the realization that, while not all Muslims hate us, the haters are all Muslims. And that is becoming increasingly significant, especially given the results of the 2016 election. "Rules of Engagement" takes a crack at explaining how difficult it is to fight Muslim extremists, whose tactics violate all the "rules" of warfare. Muslim extremist gunmen constantly use "innocent" civilians as shields, knowing full well that American troops will find it difficult to shoot back. "Rules of Engagement" revolves around this dilemma. Considering when it was produced and exhibited, this was not destined to be well received. Screenwriter Stephen Gagnan and story writer Jim Webb (yes, that Jim Webb) are not fanatics; their resumes show them both to be thoughtful and respected. It is unlikely they would be telling a story they did not believe in, just as director William Friedkin would not be bringing it to the screen if he did not believe it had a valid point to make. Before 9/11, the pacifist persuasion in the United States was imposing a heavy hand of deterrence on the American military. "Rules of Engagement" basically advocates that the enemy has to be taken out, even if it means collateral damage. Of course this elicited hoots of derision in 2000. A year or more later, with a lot of collateral damage in downtown New York, the reaction would undoubtedly have been much different. Many reviews have pointed out inconsistencies, factual errors, glib script devices, even casting anomalies. True, but inconsequential. "Rules of Engagement" is intended to point out the folly of the United States' approach to its enemies in a war unlike any other - a war we are still fighting 16 years later. It made its point, just a year too soon.

scotdailey This movie is very entertaining and becomes more relevant as the years pass. A Marine is sent to retrieve an ambassador and his family from an embassy after a supposedly peaceful protest is supposedly hijacked by snipers. The marines evacuate the ambassador and then fire on the "peaceful" protesters after several marines are killed. Government officials then lie and destroy evidence to blame the Colonel in charge. This movie was made over a decade before Benghazi. Much of the drama takes place in the courtroom where the Colonel hires an old friend who he served with to defend him. The government attempts to throw the full weight of their corruption to throw the Colonel in prison. The Hollywood ending unfortunately does not correspond to what normally happens in real life.

Trevor Mcinsley I cannot say I fully comprehend precisely what the writers were thinking... well, in fact it is just plain puzzling. They wanted to write a courtroom drama but when it came time to actually think of a point for the court case they apparently just drew a blank and decided to massacre a load of civilians for no conceivable reason.The scene is just... ridiculous. So ridiculous I simply gave up watching. Samuel L Jackson (why is it every character he plays is called 'Samuel L Jackson'?) clearly sees the gunmen are on the roof when they fly in. The marines decide the best way of dealing with this situation is to run about on top of the ramparts and give the enemy a nice little game of duck hunt... rather than say, returning fire. Even if they had some standing order not to fire I think this rather gets superseded when half your men have just been shot...Then when it comes time to engage Sam decides the best thing to do is to fire into a crowd of people throwing rocks as opposed to actually shooting the people shooting him... just... why? It seems there are genuinely a hundred other ways they could have had their civilian massacre plot short of just having the guy order his troops to pointless massacre them. He could have called in some inaccurate fire on a position, a building could have collapsed into the crowd from taking suppressive fire... even if he had just slipped whilst trying to throw a grenade it would have been more plausible. Ultimately I would have carried on watching it if this scene made the slightest bit of sense. If he had ordered his marines to fire on the snipers on the rooftops and had some of the women and children that were visibly clustered amongst them take some hits they still could have racked up the inordinate body count they so craved. Perhaps we could even see one or two rookie marines shoot into the crowd after mistaking a rock for incoming fire only for Sam to order them to stop. The prosecution would then be that of a looking for a scapegoat to avoid an international incident and the audience would be on the side of the war veteran defendant.I gave up before the court case even started because frankly it would have been more plausible if they were trying to sue a unicorn from space for causing World War Three...I am annoyed that I watched the first half hour of preamble in what looked to be a good film with a good cast only to find that the writer is a goddamn retard.

IClaudius7 Although this has been called "contrived" the factual basis, is not only possible, it is probable given all the deployments of our military personnel for the time frame depicted. Moreover, this piece of trivia would go against that assessment:"James Webb provided the story for the film, based partly on his own military experience in Vietnam and his tenure as the Secretary of the Navy under President Ronald Reagan; in 2006, Webb was elected as Virginia's newest U.S. Senator."I am not sure why it was given a "bad rap", but the courtroom scenes, especially with the prosecutor Guy Pearce, are some of the best I have seen depicted of a general court martial (I am an ex-JAG from the Navy). Moreover, the GCM result is also probable.The NSA who hides evidence is VERY believable. Loved the flick - it's now a guilty pleasure. I recommend it as capturing a scenario which could happen in at embassy in a Muslim country. As for production and direction, William Friedkin is a more than able director having won an Oscar for "The French Connection" and being nominated for another in "The Exorcist". The cast includes notables Oscar winner Ben Kingsley, Oscar nominated Anne Archer, and the ubiquitous warrior Dale Dye to go along with Oscar winner Tommy Lee Jones and Oscar nominated Samuel L. Jackson. All in all, it was given "short shrift" perhaps because of politics. The story was more than exciting for the purpose.