Rules of Engagement (2000)

Interesting as a Snapshot in Time
Interesting scenario; Battle hardened Marine Colonel drops in to secure a besieged embassy and evacuate the staff. His men are getting killed by snipers and a hostile crowd. He gives the order to engage, but is the only person among the group with a clear view of the armed bad guys in the crowd. The Marines fire on the crowd and it creates a firestorm in the press and the State Department with everyone trying to save their careers by sacrificing the Colonel.

Even more interesting to me is what this movie portrays almost exactly a year prior to 9/11. Although very relevant post 9/11, I suspect that nobody would touch this script with a 10-ft. pole today.

One of the stronger images in the movie, also more relevant today than when it was released, is when the Colonel leaves the courthouse after the verdict and is verbally attacked by the media and public but saluted by his former enemy, the North Vietnamese Colonel.

Not a great movie, but one worth watching. If nothing else, it gives a fictional example of why you should not believe everything you hear/see from the media.

Courtroom Drama
A good portion of this is set in the courtroom. Samuel L is a Marine officer tasked with guarding the US Embassy in an Arab country. An attack occurs and he is put on trial for violating the rules of engagement. He enlists the help of his friend and former lawyer to find the truth and defend him. Everything in this movie is JUST good (acting, storyline, entertainment value), not great.

Leaves the wrong message
I don't understand why the filmmakers were trying to convince everyone that Samuel L. Jackson's character couldn't have violated the rules of engagement. The opening scene sets his attitude pretty well when he blatantly kills a Viet Cong prisoner to encourage the enemy commander to call off his unit which is killing everyone in Tommy Lee Jones's platoon. While the plot is different, the atmosphere of old, beat-down, used-up has-beens reminds me of Clint Eastwood's Unforgiven. The problem lies in the ending.

I think it could have been a good movie, but it lacked a key ingredient. I lost that suspension of disbelief that makes it necessary to enjoy the movie. I will illustrate this point next, but beware...

SPOILER AHEAD...

When the old Viet Cong commander who stopped the attack on Tommy Lee Jones's platoon shows up in the court room to testify, I was stricken with how unlikely that would be. When he testified that Samuel L. Jackson murdered his radio operator to force him to call off the attack, I figured it was a done deal. Regardless of all the emotion brought forth by Tommy Lee Jones's defense, which sounded good, but didn't change the facts, the whole time I'm watching this I'm thinking "guilty, guilty, guilty." I was sure they weren't going to convict the main character, I was just wondering how he was going to get out of it. The ultimate defense was Tommy Lee Jones asking the Viet Cong commander if he would have done the same if that had been his friend's platoon being killed. Of course, the guy says "yes." So the viewer is supposed to believe that makes it ok? Since when did the American military hold the values of the Viet Cong up to such high admiration that they condoned flat-out murder, point-blank, in the head, to an unarmed prisoner? This is just too unbelievable.