LINKS

 
 
 

 

 

THE RULES OF ENGAGEMENT

"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


TRJ Enterprises © 2005
Privacy Policy - Terms of Use - Contact Us - Legalities


 


ADVERTISING