|
Rules of EngagementRating:
Release Date: 10 October, 2000 Retail Price: $9.98 OUR Price: $9.98 You SAVE: $0.00! Cast: Complete Cast (16 total) |
Rules of Engagement Reviews
Important questions, disappointing answers
The charisma of Tommy Lee Jones & Samuel L. Jackson & the gripping theme of this film make it quite watchable. Hard not to be taken in. I rented it; I'm not sorry. Would I buy it? No.
In the last analysis, it's a cynical and manipulative film, not least because the final captions suggest it is a true story -- and I see from some basic internet research that it is not.
Also, it mericilessly milks a number of stereotypes: some of them concern the Yemeni characters; others Vietnam; the relationship between the black and white characters; the main characters' relationships with their families (the lawyer with his overshadowing father, estranged wife, and pacifist son; the colonel Childers with the Marine Corps, the flag, and his non-existent family). Finally, this is a gripping film that does not do justice to its underlying themes, which include a racial aspect that goes entirely unexplored.
Today -- July 22, 2006 -- there are desperate issues in the world that could have been illuminated by a film like this one. They are not, which may explain why Secretary of the Navy James Webb, who reportedly originally worked on the concept, ultimately withdrew. These are questions -- when does war become murder? what counts as torture? what as innocence? how complicit must civilian populations be before they become targets themselves? -- that are too important to be left to films as un-self-conscious as this one.
Subtexts
On the surface this film is a pretty good courtroom drama.
Underneath, however, the director seems to have a couple of other themes going. One thing that stood out to me is that the film is full of people who are "caught between a rock and a hard place". Right from the start, where Childers has to choose between following the rules of war or saving his best friend. He has a similar choice on the wall in Yemin - fire into the crowd or let the attack on his people continue. I think he knew at that moment that his career was in the crapper. Jones' character said as much during the trial: "Whatever happens here, this man will never command marines again". The "bad guy" national security advisor was in a bind: do what is best for America's interests or back up the colonel? The ambassador had to make a hard choice: lie on the stand or lose his job, his status, his reputation? Even his wife had to decide whether to tell the truth or stand behind her husband's story. Biggs, the prosecutor, got caught up in it - he started out with the intent to prosecute what he was convinced was a legitimate case, then got tossed a 'hot potato' by the NSA right in open court. Childers' second-in-command, Captain Lee, had to decide whether to tell the truth or back his colonel. And so on.
The court-martial itself seems to pit logic against emotion (shades of Star Trek!). The differences are clearest in the closing arguements - Biggs is the Joe Friday "just the facts" type; he presents the panel with A. this happened, then B this happened, and so on. Hayes' whole arguement is based on emotion - and then, finally, the jury is left with yet another hard decision.
I found the movie very interesting in terms of what is going on with the characters - a lot of films are like this, if you look a little deeper, there's more there than the surface story.
More Customer Reviews (41 total)
You like Rules of Engagement?
|
© 2004, 2005, 2006 DVD Booty | Don't Plunder Our Cache of Booty, Matey!
Hosting made possible by donations from debt management programs, Payday Loans Explained, and credit card debt
