Rules of Engagement (Widescreen)

Tommy Lee Jones and Samuel L. Jackson are both excellent as veteran Marine soldiers fighting the battle of their reputations. Incidents occur in Yemen that unfortunately result in civilian deaths. So who takes the blame? Soldiers. This film brings to light the willingness of civilian judgement against someone volunteering to fight for his country. I don't think a bunch of desk jockies should have that right considering they have never faced a loaded gun and a moment to make the decision of their lives. This film will make you think about your own judgement and about the information you receive.

William Friedkin directs this film with an easy hand, allowing the actors to carry the movie rather than a bunch of guts and glory. Although it was released in 2000 the events are very much related to today. Consider the court marshalls currently taking place against our soldiers in Iraq. Who is to say what rules exist for a young man or woman prepared to die. We know scapegoats exist if only politicians would take their share of the blame. Is it even possible to have rules when some people are immune to following them? Soldiers aren't playing a game that can be replayed for fairness, if they were none of them would ever die would they?

In this day & age the scene of the mob is sure to be quite gripping to any American viewer. This is especially the case given the fact that we've had several embassies overseas bombed in the past 10-20 years. Ever since 9/11 it has been exceedingly difficult to have a whole lot of sympathy for anti-American mobs, regardless of where they are.

While the film examines nicely some of the ethical intricacies of combat, the major flaw is that there is a rather large hole in the plot that even the least clever moviegoers will be able to point out. As the rest of the movie is pretty good, the best thing to do is to try and overlook this unfortunate inconsistency.

Another facet that strikes close to home is the cover-up attempts of the State Department. Not only is this plausible, but it is downright realistic. Few people with morals work for the State Department and the history of the department is filled with cloak-and-daggar silliness.

In all, this is an entertaining movie that compels one to think. It would have been a great movie, if not for the hole in the plot. It is a story that reminds us that the rules that govern war according to the Geneva Convention were written by lawyers who sat in the comfort of debate tables and not battle-hardened soldiers on the front-lines who get shot at on a daily basis.