A rare, but rather clichéd, pro-military drama

Rating: 7/10 (13 March 2014)

Often, in Hollywood films, the military and its interventions overseas are slandered or shown in a negative light: it is common, today, for almost every war film to carry anti-military messages, for its soldiers to start questioning their actions and ideals and whether they are doing something good (heck, even WWII films seem to do it). That is not taking into consideration the many films involving government/military cover-ups, or flat-out abuses of power.
Only action films tend to show pro-military stances today, and even then accompanied by some of the aforementioned contradictory messages.
'A Few Good Men', a very good military court drama, is an example of my point. A military lawyer investigating a try at military cover-up, involving a severe (but implicitly 'common') military abuse of power? It pretty personifies what I mean about anti-military stances in today's films.
'Rules of Engagement' is surprising in that it is the exact opposite of 'A Few Good Men'. A military officer is being charged for ordering fire on a group of 'civilians' during the evacuation of a Middle-Eastern US Embassy, and it is a military officer who must defend him as the government wishes to 'crucify' him to appease the world media.
This is far from the kind of film you usually see today. A film that does not try to convey the idea that 'terrorism comes from the US's past actions!', like most 'liberal' directors/actors prefer to do, or that the military is just a bloodlusted organization that only wants an excuse to drop bombs everywhere. It is still the typical 'good vs evil' of Hollywood, but in a way it rarely employs.
When you are a soldier, or police officer, or in any law enforcement position; when you are in the line of action, with your life in danger (of course, there is always a way to try and make such a situation subjective, which a character in the film tries to do by the way), THEN you will understand and comprehend one's actions, THEN you might criticize such actions.
Criticizing what you don't know about is easy, not to say cowardly (another character says something similar to a critic at one point).
Anyway, few people would agree to make a film like this. William Friedkin, a very competent and not usually biased director, is to be praised for his courage; as are, surprisingly, Samuel L. Jackson and Tommy Lee Jones, who tackle their roles with conviction and a good deal of quality. Both usually support the other side of the issue, so the fact they both agreed to work here and did it well is impressive. Other highlights are Bruce Greenwood and Guy Pearce.
The action scenes in the beginning, when Samuel L. Jackson's character leads the Middle-Eastern operation, are good but a bit clumsy. Tommy Lee Jones steals the show for most of the film, and the courtroom confrontations with Guy Pearce are very good. However, the film more than indulges in the usual underdog, 'justice looks impossible but wins in the last second!' Hollywood cliché.
This is not racist or anti-Arab at all; people are so used to the watered-down anti-terrorism Hollywood usually offers, when they see a movie being more incisive in its anti-terrorism stance they immediately cry foul (or, in this case, propaganda). It is commendable that they had the courage to make a film like this, and that they managed to make it entertaining as well.