|
"Americans
Apparently Get Immunity
on War Crimes..." |
 |
Directed by William
Friedkin- Written by
Stephen Gaghan
Starring Samuel L.
Jackson, Ben Kingsley,
Anne Archer, Gordon
Clapp
Distributed by Paramount -
2000 - 128mins - Rated R |

|
TC Candler's Review
|
No Stars |
F |
|
Misplaced patriotism...
This
is an awful film for one reason. The man we are
supposed to root for, the man who is the
screenplay's hero, the man who is set up as the
wrongly accused innocent on trial... that guy...
he is guilty of murdering 83 men, women and
children in cold blood, in a vicious act of
revenge! And we are supposed to be rooting for
him because he is an American? Fuck that! He
should go to the gas chamber and take the master
print of this film with him straight to hell.
This film asks only one question worth answering
-- The prosecuting attorney says...'What do you
think would happen to a Yemenese soldier who
mowed down 83 American men, women and children?'
He answers the question correctly.
If you'd enjoy a story where an evil murderer is
found innocent of all charges, and he is praised
and heralded as a hero because he is an American
in an American film... then this movie is for
you.
Do you remember when Tommy Lee Jones was
considered cool for while? It was back in the
mid-1990's when he was seemingly making 5 films
a year. People tended to enjoy his 'old timer,
wise cracking, cocky, bitter, tongue-in-cheek
schtick.' The mid 1990's seems like a long time
ago and now Tommy Lee Jones's character (the
only one he ever does) is tired and lame. He
should have learned to act somewhere along the
way so he could have extended his time in the
sun.
This is one of the worst films of the year!
I almost gagged on my own vomit when the
Vietnamese man salutes at the end!
©
Written by TC Candler
|
How We Rated This Film
|
TC Candler -
|
No Stars |
F |
| Richard Propes
- |
  |
C |
|
Jacob Hall
- |
|
|
|
Richard
Propes' Comment
I
understand TC's point about the film and the
obvious propaganda nature of "The Rules of
Engagement." Yet, this obvious bias aside, the
film has some solid performances, decent
production design, and raises valid questions
(even if the answers provided are complete
crap). Of course, I also feel this film is
nothing worth defending. TC wants to call it an
"F?" I couldn't care less. It's an average flick
at best, not worth defending, and it sends a
message that is, as TC notes, misplaced
patriotism.
Jacob
Hall's Comment
n/a


|