Hollywood Standard Operational Procedures

Rating: Null/10 (16 April 2000)

The writer and the director just follow Hollywood Standard Operational Procedures in a hurry. Early in the film there is hope that it will tackle icky issues (the choices that have to be made when confronted with a hostile crowd with women and children, etc.) either as an intricate legal drama, or through substantive character development.
The reason I think this, is the film's premise to show the real deal from a marine commander's perspective. Compare this, for example, to the perspective in the movie Gandhi, when a British officer faces civilian authority for his decision to fire on an unarmed crowd: "I fired to teach a lesson," he says, "and if I had a machine gun, I probably would have used it, too." Rules of Engagement promises that it will not simply have the general say "I fired to teach them a lesson."
But the film simply avoids a tough job. The viewer never gets a chance to see the real difficulty in taking decisions under armed hostility. One simple line ("to teach them") is replaced by another ("nobody else saw, or can prove, but I knew ..."). The only conclusion left for the viewer is that these are not difficult decisions at all; an implication unfair to the soldier and the civilian alike.