Worth your consideration, and not "jingoistic."

Rating: Null/10 (20 November 2001)

(This review contains SPOILERS throughout!)
RULES OF ENGAGEMENT is by no means a fantastic film. Nor is it particularly memorable when compared to military thrillers over the past 20 years. However, the film is well directed, well acted, and presents some interesting issues regarding military practice.
The film concerns a colonel (Samuel Jackson) who orders his troops to fire on a hostile crowd of demonstrators during the evacuation of an American embassy in Yemen. ***** MAJOR SPOILERS***** At the time, the crowd is shown to be unarmed. However, by the end of the film, we are shown the truth: these "innocent" civilians were indeed armed to the teeth--even the women and children.
Friedkin does an amazing job generating a feeling of confusion and danger in the initial embassy scenes. At times, one feels as though they are under attack along with the characters. Combat is not something I've seen Friedkin attempt, and I'm glad he's pulled it off here with great skill. He also continues to be an expert at presenting memorable imagery--maybe not on the level of "the Exorcist," but well placed imagery, nonetheless.

The "meat" of the film involves a courtroom drama that will inevitably draw comparisons to A FEW GOOD MEN and COURAGE UNDER FIRE (which is a great film). Unfortunatey, it never really rises to level that we expect. ****SPOILERS**** In fact, the closing scene (when Jackson's character is found not guilty) we feel rushed --it's almost treated as an aside. In fact, I felt that the speed at which we reached the trial in general, and then the END of the trial, was too fast. It doesn't give us quite enough time become engaged (no pun intended)
Friedkin also has a bad habit of "teasing" the viewer with dramatic elements, and then never delivering. Examples: ****SPOILERS**** Even though it is destroyed, one always feels that a copy of that video tape will turn up... We also feel that MAYBE Anne Archer's character will help the case... but she doesn't.
What saves this movie from becoming completely forgettable are the courtroom twists, and the cast. It's rare and refreshing to see Jackson and Tommy Lee Jones so subdued. Many people think that good acting = yelling. The best roles these actors (and ANY actors) have ever had have been the ones when they are NOT yelling, but emoting everyday, tangible feelings. While not worthy of academy awards, the actors here make their characters somewhat believable and engaging.
The film also presents us with some interesting things to think about regarding military practice and how a combat situation is perceived. For instance: ****SPOILERS**** Even though Jackson's character was correct to fire on the crowd--should he have instantly? Should a soldier question his commanding officer when his commanding officer is the only one who sees the reality of the situation? Another interesting question: Snipers are shown to be intentionally shooting out 2 of the three cameras focused on the crowd. By the end of the film, we realize the demonstrators were working WITH the snipers, but this little detail reveals that maybe the people in the crowd were willing to be killed as long as there was no proof to show that fact...

Two last notes about this film you should know: Many people have said this film makes "no sense" and Jackson's character is exonerated for doing something "horrific." I have to assume these people missed the last third of the movie. ****SPOILERS**** the plot makes perfect sense: Jackson did NOT fire on unarmed people! The people WERE ARMED! There's nothing horrific except the fate these people brought upon themselves. When a civilian brandishes an armed weapon on a soldier, he/she becomes an enemy. That's a fact, pure and simple.
In addition, many have dismissed this film as "jingoistic."I do not agree. Friedkin depicts a very believable occurrence--the attack on the embassy is something that could have actually happened WHERE it happened. The film does not paint the attackers/protesters in any worse light than they have painted themselves in today's real political climate. What's more, the U.S. doesn't come off as being infallible, perfect or wonderful, either. It's sad that "jingoism" seems to be a popular, trendy crutch for many reviewers lately.
Should you see this film? I think it's worth seeing on cable if you have a chance. Anyone who is a fan of military/courtroom dramas will find something to like about it. The acting is good, and Friedkin shows his skill as a director. However, don't expect COURAGE UNDER FIRE or A FEW GOOD MEN. The film never reaches the dramatic heights it could have, and it feels rather truncated at the end... but it is watchable if nothing else.