flawed but fascinating film

Rating: Null/10 (8 April 2001)

Had William Friedken's `Rules of Engagement' had the courage to travel down a different route, it might have emerged as a great film rather than merely the good one it turns out to be. Credit this big budget action film with at least attempting to address a morally complex issue in a morally complex way. That the film doesn't succeed completely is probably due to the restraints imposed on it by both studio and box office considerations.
The film poses a number of long-debated military questions: when used in the context of an endeavor like war - whose primary aim is to take away the lives of one's enemy - is the term "rules of engagement" itself an untenable paradox? Does it even makes sense to have "rules" when it comes to war? And can there be such a thing as an `innocent victim' killed in the heat of battle? And can a commander who orders the deaths of such people in a wartime situation be convicted of `murder'?
Samuel L. Jackson stars as Colonel Terry Childers, a decorated Vietnam War hero who suddenly finds himself on trial for court martial for ordering his men to open fire on an allegedly unarmed group of Islamic protesters demonstrating outside the United States embassy in Yemen. Tommy Lee Jones co-stars as Hays Hodges, the man whom Childers saved in a battle in Vietnam who now, as a self-described mediocre lawyer, has the chance to pay back his buddy by clearing his name in court. `Rules of Engagement' raises a number of fascinating issues, but I contend that the film would have been even more interesting than it is (and it IS interesting) if it had left the audience in doubt as to Childers' innocence or guilt. Instead, we know from the beginning that Childers' version of the events in question is the accurate one, which robs the film of the kind of gripping human drama that can be achieved only through an examination of the ambiguities that make up human motives and actions. This means that we know who the heroes and villains are right away. There is even a tell-all video of the event to be secreted and ultimately destroyed by an unctuous government official. Thus, we end up with yet another David vs. Goliath story, yet another soldier-at-the-mercy-of-the-U.S.-military-industrial-complex scenario, when what we really crave is something more challenging, more ambiguous, more morally complex.
These elements are what keep `Rules of Engagement' from being an extraordinary achievement. Yet, there are many positive aspects of the film as well. For one thing, it avoids the temptation to become a xenophobic, flag-waving pro-American/anti-Islamic diatribe. It certainly doesn't shy away from portraying the tragic toll inflicted by the shooting on the protestors present. In addition, it allows its two male leads to display honest emotions like regret, confusion and self-doubt. They are even permitted to cry from time to time. In a way, both actors have been cast a bit against type, since neither is portraying the self-assured, almost cocky brand of hero he is usually called on to play.
Most important is that, despite the feeling of compromise, the film does raise some fascinating moral issues that too few major films even bother to consider. If this review comes across as more negative than it should, it is merely because the potential for greatness is always regrettable when it is not achieved. Nevertheless, `Rules of Engagement' deserves to be seen and admired for what did make it to the screen. For all its imperfections, this really is a very good film.