RULES OF ENGAGEMENT ** (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! movieviews@hotmail.com
NEW at MOVIE VIEWS by Jamey Hughton --> The MOVIE STORE http://Welcome.to/MovieViews
The review above was posted to the
rec.arts.movies.reviews newsgroup (de.rec.film.kritiken for German reviews).
The Internet Movie Database accepts no responsibility for the contents of the
review and has no editorial control. Unless stated otherwise, the copyright
belongs to the author.
Please direct comments/criticisms of the review to relevant newsgroups.
Broken URLs inthe reviews are the responsibility of the author.
The formatting of the review is likely to differ from the original due
to ASCII to HTML conversion.
Related links: index of all rec.arts.movies.reviews reviews