the other argument

Rating: 5/10 (9 May 2000)

"Rules of Engagement" is the anti-"A Few Good Men." The idea that drives William Friedkin's new film is that a soldier will do what he has to do, depending on the combat situation he is in. Often, the Rules of Engagement' need to be thrown aside in the interests of saving lives. Colonel Terry Childers (Samuel L. Jackson) is sent to Yemen to evacuate the U.S. embassy where anti-American protesters have turned violent. He and the men under his command take fire from snipers as they evacuate the ambassador (Ben Kingsley) and his family. The evacuation is a success, but three marines die in the process. Childers now has a terrible choice to make in order to prevent more of his men from dying and he makes it.
This is basically a courtroom drama, so it will naturally draw comparisons with the Rob Reiner/Aaron Sorkin classic. One contrast between the two is that the devoted soldier' mentality condemned in "A Few Good Men" is honored in "Rules of Engagement." We want the people commanding our armed forces to have not only skill, but also the ability to sacrifice lives and carry out orders, regardless of the moral dilemma. This is who Childers is. He's Colonel Jessep, only with his head on straight. So perhaps "Rules" isn't quite the anti-"Few Good Men," but sort of the Other Argument. These men place themselves willingly into situations most of us would never wish for. `You want me on that wall! You NEED me on that wall!' are Jessep's words to Caffey during the home stretch of "AFGM." The message in both films is that we expect these men to follow the same moral imperative that civilians do, even as we sit safe at home under their nice "blanket of protection."
One of many things "Rules" gets right is the way it lays bare the violence of armed combat to show it for what it is: killing without mercy. The best decision that Friedkin (The French Connection, The Exorcist) made here was to limit our perception of the Yemen events by giving us the same view that anyone who wasn't there would have. All we are shown initially is the act, and then the photos of the carnage Childers created with his decision. The director feeds the information to us through a series of flashbacks and other clues. It isn't until the film's third act that we have a full understanding of why Childers acted as he did. This waiting for the other shoe to drop keeps the film perpetually engaging. In Jackson's performance we see a man wrestling with what he has done, desperately needing his duty as a soldier to justify his actions, the only way he can go on breathing like a normal human being.
Both Jackson and Tommy Lee Jones perform ably here. Jones was a great choice to play Colonel Hays Hodges, Childers' lawyer and longtime friend. He brings weakness and vulnerability to his character, plus a number of things that were crucial to the role, things we haven't seen in a Tommy Lee Jones character before. Hodges has carried shame around with him for decades and now has something to prove both to himself and his family. Jones' performance captures this inner turmoil.
"Rules of Engagement" isn't a great film, but it is a compelling piece of work with some good performances and characters. Chalk it up as a quality military courtroom drama, but nowhere near as good as "A Few Good Men." In fact, there are many other films out there, all available on home video, that illustrate the inner moral struggle of a soldier better than this one does; "Saving Private Ryan," "Three Kings" (the best film of 99), and "Courage Under Fire" to name just a few.
Grade: C