Rules of Engagement Was The Pinnacle of Mediocrity In Film, Not Even Samuel L. Jackson Could Save It

Rating: 4/10 (23 April 2000)

I have just witnessed the William Friedkin (The Exorcist, The French Connection) film Rules of Engagement. I went in expecting a generic "studio-film" that would seem so "blah" and have nothing memorable or of great value in it. I was hoping I would be proven wrong. Unfortunately I wasn't.
Rules of Engagement starts off relatively strong, although I was confused because I came into the theatre about 3 minutes late. The opening action scene, as well as the action scenes in Yemen, are all wonderfully done by Friedkin, which should be expected from the director of The French Connection. At the conclusion of the opening action scene, we begin the actual story of the film. I don't want to give to much away but let's just say that the film has to do with Samuel L. Jackson being indicted for slaughtering many innocents who are protesting against the American Embassy in Yemen. This sets into action the courtroom drama that basically is the remainder of the film. It's unfortunate the film turned out the way it did, but it should be expected. There really isn't too much promise behind the idea. It had already been done many, many times before, and much better (A Few Good Men by Reiner comes to mind).
I think that while there were alot of things that took away from my enjoyment of Rules of Engagement, there were a couple of plusses. First of all, as I mentioned earlier, the action scenes in the film were excellently constructed. They captured the intensity and insanity of the situations as well as any other war movie has, the only exception Saving Private Ryan. Unfortunately there aren't too many of those scenes in this film, which may have upped the entertainment factor in my mind. The other thing is that the screenplay by Stephen Gaghan isn't that bad at all, although it definitely lacks in character development. I mean there is nothing that is great about it, but it isn't offensively bad like many of the other commercialized, mass-audience films like these are (i.e. Double Jeopardy is the most recent example. That brings me to the final reason I didn't give this film a complete zero. The film at least tries to be entertaining and be a crowd-pleaser. Now that didn't work with me, but it works with the general audience, which makes sense. There isn't anything offensively bad, so therefore I can't give it that low of a grade.
Now onto the bad things about Rules of Engagement. First of all I have to say how disappointing every one of the performances in this film are! I don't think there is one memorable performance out of all of them. Tommy Lee Jones (Colonel Hayes Hodges) plays the same role he has played in the last 4 films he has been in, but he also shows the only intensity in the whole film. Samuel L. Jackson (Colonel Terry Childers) lacks every amount of intensity that he brings with him in every other film, plus he is barely in the film itself. Guy Pearce (Major Mark Biggs), so good in LA Confidential, gave my favorite performance, which isn't saying much, as the ferocious prosecution. Bruce Greenwood (William Sokal) gives the exact same performance he did in Double Jeopardy, which isn't a good performance to begin with. Philip Baker Hall, Blair Underwood and Anne Archer, all capable actors/actresses, barely register because of the 5 minutes allotted to each of them in varying roles. Ben Kingsley is also disappointing in the small amount of screen time given to him, he basically appears to be a back-stabbing enigma, very hard to figure out. While it isn't all the actors fault that their performances turn out the way they do, they aren't horrible performances. It has a little more to do with the screenplays worst flaw, which is the lack of any character development. All the characters seem to have one note and keep on that note the whole film. The other problem I had with this movie was the direction by William Friedkin. He still seems to be stuck in the 1970's school of directing on this film, with very old school camera zooms and over indulgent scenes, like the scene in which Jones walks through Yemen and the over-long opening of the Yemen riot scene. The editing by Augie Hess, is just downright awful in scenes, most evident in a scene where Jones is being chased by the Yemenians and then ends up in a bathroom somewhere. Just very sub-par effort on the most-part for many who are involved.
I guess while I was watching this movie I didn't know how to view it. At first I trying looking at it as a serious drama/thriller held in the ranks of many of the other courtroom classic dramas. As the film progressesed, I just sat back and tried to soak it all in, but I wasn't really entertained. I would say that this film would be best seen on VHS or DVD or even on a Premium Channel such as HBO, but it isn't bad enough to skip it entirely.
My Rating : 4/10