Rules of Engagement (2000)

There are two big reasons that Hollywood always tries to use big name stars when ever possible. One reason is that big stars attract attention and thus help draw people to the theater. The other reason is that big name stars can usually cover a lot of bad ideas with a combination of talent and charisma. This is just such a movie.

Samuel L. Jackson plays Marine Colonel Childers. He is a career soldier assigned to lead a rescue mission to the US embassy in Yemen. The embassy has come under assault from an angry crowd of demonstrators. Childers rescues the flag and has the ambassador and his family airlifted out while under fire that kills several of his marines. He eventually orders his men to open fire on the crowd, resulting in the death of 83 and over 100 injured. This causes an international furor and Childers faces a court-martial hearing and murder charges.

He asks his old friend Colonel Hodges (Tommy Lee Jones) to represent him in court. Hodges is about to retire from a long career as a lawyer in the corp. The two served together in Vietnam, where Childers saved his life. He doesn't believe he's a good enough lawyer to defend Childers but can't refuse his friend. Meanwhile, the National Security Advisor (Bruce Greenwood) is busy burying a videotape that would vindicate Childers. Why? He wants to make a scapegoat of Childers to make defending the nation's honor easier. So the government sends their finest attack dog lawyer (Guy Pearce) to bury Childers.

Jackson and Jones are both highly charismatic actors that can make just about any role believable. Jackson plays Childers as a man who has dedicated himself to defending his country and knows little else. He is a soldier to the core and doesn't blend smoothly with non-military aspects of life. Jones seems to carry an immense weight on his shoulders as Hodges. His life is something of a disappointment as injuries forced him behind a desk, a role he wasn't necessarily suited for. He feels he owes an immense debt to Childers despite not necessarily believing his friend is in the right. The performances by these two men make this movie engaging and entertaining, even when the script seems determined to make as little sense as possible.

The script is clearly the immense weakness of this movie. It constantly trips over itself in an attempt to manufacture difficulties for the main characters to overcome. Unfortunately the motivation behind almost all of these obstacles is very hard to accept. The NSA chief has a tape that will not only vindicate a decorated officer but the US as well and he not only destroys it but blabs about it to an aide. It seems to be the height of stupidity. The ambassador gushes at Childers when being rescued but quickly abandons him later. The movie sets up the morality of that with the ambassador and his wife and then never goes anywhere with it. There seems to be a real lack of logic at work here.

The script has a nice theme of the thin line that separates killing in combat and murder. Childers' actions over his career are scrutinized to determine just where that line exists. All the cheap obstacles mentioned earlier are thrown into the plot to try and help define this theme. Unfortunately since the motivations behind these obstacles are so unrealistic this theme never develops the weight that it deserves.

What it comes down to is that when the movie works it is due to the solid work by the director and the stars. They help make up for a lot of the story's deficiencies. That isn't enough to cover all of the holes though and ultimately the movie feels a bit unsatisfying.

- John Shea

What do you think?  Talk about it on the Forums