Rules of Engagement [DVD] [2000]

I can only assume the 'official' Amazon reviewer has a political take on this. The film is powerful high drama but like all drama, takes themes from real life and extrapolates & enhances them to make a point. You may not like the point, but it doesnt make it unbelievable or invalid. In this case, the point is that it is possible for diplomats and politicians to behave venally and dishonestly when they believe 'the greater good' can come from sacrificing a good man, or their own careers are put at stake. Likewise men whose profession is to kill in our defence, can develop a code of ethics and bravery in the face of danger and death that perhaps surpasses any other. Not in all cases maybe, but it happens and it should not be illegitimate for film to explore such themes.

And rarely has it been done in as timely a manner as it was here. The film was made in 2000 and, watching it just today I was put in mind not only of the (then) coming storm of 911, but also of the lies and obfuscation over the Tripoli embassy attack. If anything justifies the presumptions of the film, that does.

The combat scenes both in Vietnam and Yemen have an intensity that effectively underlines the legal misjudgements and diplomatic mendacity after the event, and add to the sense of a massive rolling injustice perpetrated by a corrupt system that cannot bring istelf to address the issues faced by the men we ask to do our dirty work, and the scope of the conflicts they face

The real satisfaction with this movie is the ambiguity of the situation; whether you think Samuel L Jackson's Marine Colonel should be convicted of the killings of potentially innocent civilians. No need to cover the plot-it's all there on the cover.

Some of this is brilliantly, if a tad heavy-handedly done as evidence is released not only to the Court but also to the audience throughout the film, making the final sentence, one hopes, inevitable.

Jackson is as solid as ever, Tommy Lees Jones is Tommy Lee Jones, which is more than enough. I agree with another reviewer that Guy Pearce was less good as the Prosecutor.

From here on, there are mild spoilers, so be warned.

The second, equally important element of the film is how the Government who put the man in an impossible position in the first place were ready to lie and swindle to ensure he took the blame, not only for their Country, but for their own personal ends- very resonant in the light of relatively recent examples. Once again, we see the risk of a man being judged by those not qualified to judge him, as happens too often today.

My own feelings for Jackson's character- early on, I thought he would burn, and probably on the evidence at the time, with some justification; later, it became clear that he was in a no-win situation, more evidence came in and if he was not truly innocent, he was assuredly not wholly guilty either.

One of the more thoughtful films to come out of recent military issues, and if not perfect, still very well executed, and it feels a good deal shorter than it is.

All in all, a damned good film.

Added note: I have seen in other reviews and elsewhere, the accusation of elements of this being anti-arab propaganda. Personally, I was so taken up in a brilliantly played out story that I missed that. Re-watching it, it is clear that it could be taken that way, whether or not it's the intended message. For me, I very much hope it wasn't the intention, but I'm grateful for its being pointed out, and maybe I am that naive.

Still think it's a damned good film; the certain enemy are the politicians.

A good court room drama revolving around a soldier accused of firing into a crowd. It delves into the dishonesty of diplomats etc who are willing to sacrifice a good man to save their own careers.