Cast (in credits order) complete, awaiting verification
Rules of Engagement Full Movie Trailer
Rules of Engagement Film (2000) Official Trailer #1 - Samuel L. Jackson Movie HD
Rules of Engagement Movie Description
In Rules of Engagement Movie After seeing Rules of Engagement Full Movie, I must say that although Samuel L. Jackson and Tommy Lee Jones are a delight to watch, I do have a few negative comments about this Rules of Engagement film.
The Rules of Engagement film is extremely manipulative, and comes from the equally manipulative director of The French Connection, William Friedkin.
The Rules of Engagement film's bad guys are, oddly enough, a mob of irrational Arabs, along with career politicians who won't let the military men do what they have to do.
The problem with the whole scenario is that the entire carnage could have been stopped with a few well-aimed teargas grenades.
Secondly, not much time is spent on the character development of the 'bad guys', namely the Yemenis (in this case), who all seem very eager to kill Americans, including their (Yemeni's) children.
The later images of the little girl shooting the pistol are very clever indeed ("Oh, look, she was worth shooting off her leg!").
And thirdly, an incident most similar to the debacle of the US Army Rangers in Mogadishu resulted in the deaths of not 18 Rangers, but 1000 Somali Mogadishuans, most of whom were non-combatants.
It seems no one has been called to task for that incident, let alone thrown to the lions to appease public opinion, as Samuel Jackson's character is at "a mere" 83 deaths.
(The same can be said for the invasion of Panama, where there was a similar death rate among civilians - the truth of the matter is that since WWII, conventional weapons have become infinitely more efficient, which could result if conflict Built-up area collapses, _many_ civilians are killed.)
However, one redeeming value (besides the acting) is that it highlights the changed nature of the political warfare required of the modern soldier in places like Somalia, Bosnia, etc., and which began in Vietnam.
Many years have passed since Colonel Hodges and Colonel Childers were comrades in battle. Hodges is now retired while Childers is still on active service in the Middle East.
When he is called upon to help with the security and evacuation of the American embassy in the midst of a riot, Childers orders his men to retaliate despite having no definite targets.
With a crowd of 80 dead, many women and children, the authorities are forced to go after the Children to find someone to blame. The kids turn to their old friend for help defending him.
I was really looking forward to this Rules of Engagement film with a pair of real heavyweights in the lead roles.
It's easy enough to get into the Rules of Engagement film because the first 40 minutes are thrilling and shocking in equal measure, making you wonder where you stand on the action taken by Childers, both past and present.
However as the Rules of Engagement film progresses, the moral debate becomes simpler and it is clear where we are being taken, as opposed to being allowed to think things for ourselves. The 'argument' or the deliberative side is lost and we are left with the courtroom drama side of things.
I'm not a huge fan of courtroom thrillers as they often end up relying on unexpected twists and a lot of shouts in place of substance.
However, if it hangs together and has energy, I enjoy it. However, the court scenes here never really get off the ground and surprisingly (given the emotional subject matter) really lack energy and twists.
Even the Rules of Engagement film's conclusion is an actual moist squid, the verdict is simply given, so if you're expecting twists and turns and big reveals, forget it.
Inexplicably, the Rules of Engagement film inserts two or three captions on the final shot to give us more information, some of which would have been more exciting if it had worked these into the last 20 minutes of the Rules of Engagement film. Putting them as flat words on a screen is pointless (especially since it's not a true story!).
Jones and Jackson both do a good job, as you would expect for a pair of tough nuts like them. Jackson's character is better (unless the script itself is weak). Pierce is fine in support but the script doesn't give him much to work with, his side of the case is decidedly simplistic, so the Rules of Engagement film prevents him from dominating the court case at the same time as it simplifies his stance.
Support from faces like Kingsley, Archer, Greenwood and Underwood is fine, but in some cases so brief as to comeos.
Overall it starts off well, but it really gets involved once the moral debating side of the Rules of Engagement film is simplified and staged.
The question 'what would you do' with each flashback Jackson becomes null and void. The courtroom scenes barely fade, let alone ignite the screen, and the Rules of Engagement film leads to a bad ending, which is badly executed.
Worth watching with a good performance from Leeds but a huge disappointment nonetheless.
For the ultra-right-wing, little-brown-person-condemning, nationalist, racist, xenophobic head-of-studio pap, you have to go all the way back to David Jansen, the liberal journalist behind John Wayne finally seeing the light in 1969. Green cap.
The proposition here is that Samuel L. Jackson is sent to the US embassy in Yemen to rescue the ambassador (Ben Kingsley trembling with Benafy) and his family.
He does - and even risks his life to run back and save the shot-up American flag. (Thus Shtik was considered pretty rubbish, not just in RAMBO, but in the RAMBO sequels as well.)
As Sam and his Marines are about to battle it out, shots—both from nearby snipers, and from the crowd of protestors at the embassy have gathered outside the -- taking down Sam's friends.
So he issues an order, known on IMDb as "Wreck those grudges!" and Samuel L. The K Jarheads waste not one, not two, handfuls of bad apples, but every last man, woman, and child in that pile of Pea Froggers.
The next day, the cover of The Washington Post appeared to be My Lai, or the Guyanese Suicide.
Throughout the Rules of Engagement film, Jackson's character never shows the slightest remorse—he's not bothered in the least by the fact that at least some of the people he shot (six-year-old girls, say) may have been perfect. : Be innocent.
He is convinced that he did what he had to do and what he was told to do - and anyone who disagrees is a scheming, backstabbing desk jockey trying to prevent our culture's godly warriors from winning the war. Used to be.
The movie is a Vietnam-compensation fantasy, like RAMBO or UNCOMMON VALOR...but we're in the year 2000, and it's a little scary.
"It's a different world," Jackson tells the marine lawyer whose life he once saved (Tommy Lee Jones). "No foe, no friend, no line, no mom, no pop."
The rules of engagement Movie test an evil new template: Islamic fundamentalists as stand-ins for the Viet Cong (or the Soviets).
Behind the gallantry, the flag worship, the honor-guarding musical score, lies the notion that American lives are worth a hell of a lot more than Yemeni lives—or, to use the prologue as an example, Vietnamese lives, or So.
And though the director, William Friedkin, hobbles horrifyingly at images of burnt, limbless or bloodied children, the implication is made, as in The Green Berets, that that cute little crippled girl might just pull out a pistol and Could explode your American manhood. Clean it up
Is Friedkin just a super-competent dude looking for a comeback, or is he busting this stuff? I want to buy later.
His focus on the injuries Jackson inflicts on the children isn't just Exorcist-style morbidness—Freedkin makes a point that the script refuses to make: that Jackson's actions are evil and insane, and arguably the equivalent of a room of gas pellets. are eligible .
Samuel Jackson, Tommy Lee Jones, and the producer, Scott Rudin, one of the smartest guys in studio movies, all deserve to hang their heads down in shame for this one.
It's a case of smart people — I include Friedkin — testing the waters of the post-Clinton era to see if Reaganite jingoism can make a comeback as a story template for pop movies.
But none of the Sly or Arnold movies of the eighties were as morally ugly as this. And to use a black actor to sell this clearly racist bill of goods is the ultimate disgrace. The Rules of Engagement film makes you feel unclean.