Rule of Engagement (2000)

Rule of Engagement (2000)

 

5/10

Starring

Tommy Lee Jones

Samuel L. Jackson

Guy Pearce

Bruce Greenwood

Blair Underwood

 

Directed by William Friedkin

 

This movie drags so much that if you’re not sitting upright, you’ll probably fall asleep while watching, I almost did. The script feels highly unrealistic, and its setup isn’t compelling at all. When they finally get to the courtroom—where the main plot is supposed to unravel—even that fails to win me over.

The movie spends half its time setting up an implausible view of an incident based on a supposedly successful military mission. It pushes the blame onto the commander of a team and tries to make him the scapegoat for taking action that, while gruesome, seemed necessary in the moment.

One glaring issue is how many soldiers were positioned on the roof, yet none of them seemed to notice the bullets coming from the ground. After the incident, it also makes no sense that none of the soldiers mentioned seeing any firearms on the ground in their reports. The idea that a country would sacrifice one of its own for taking what appeared to be minimal action under the circumstances is possible, sure—but the way it’s presented here feels completely unconvincing.

Then comes the court case. After what feels like an eternity of waiting for it, the courtroom drama itself lacks any punch. The proceedings feel flat and unengaging, and the prosecutor acts like he has a personal vendetta against the defendant.

The plot revolves around Colonel Childers (Samuel L. Jackson), who is sent on a mission to rescue an ambassador. When he arrives, the embassy is in chaos, with shootings that result in the deaths of three marines. Childers notices gunfire coming from both snipers and the crowd on the ground, so he orders his men to shoot back at the crowd.

Once back home, the government decides to make Childers the scapegoat, hiding evidence that could exonerate him and even getting the ambassador to lie by claiming the protest was peaceful. Desperate to defend himself, Childers calls on his old war buddy to represent him and help save him from being court-martialed.

The courtroom drama doesn’t focus solely on Childers’ actions. Instead, it centers on how far the government will go to politically scapegoat a man for taking drastic, albeit grim, action under duress.

The movie wasn’t successful either critically or commercially. Watching it again now, after so many years, I can understand why. It doesn’t stand out as a courtroom drama worth recommending to anyone.