Rules of Engagement

Rules of Engagement (2000)

Director: William Friedkin

Writers: Jim Webb (story), Stephen Gaghan (screenplay)

Cast: Tommy Lee Jones, Samuel L. Jackson, Guy Pearce, Ben Kingsley, Bruce Greenwood, Anne Archer, Blair Underwood, Philip Baker Hall, Dale Dye, Amidou

Synopsis:

Col. Terry Childers (Jackson) is accused of murder following a mission to protect staffers at the U.S. Embassy in Yemen during a protest. During the mission, Childers orders his men to fire into the crowd, resulting in the death of many civilians, who may or may not have been armed. To lead his defense, Childers requests his old friend Col. Hayes Hodges (Jones), a marine lawyer wounded in Vietnam and only a couple of weeks from retirement. Hodges initially resists the request but eventually relents because Childers saved his life in Vietnam and he feels he owes him. Meanwhile, certain officials with the U.S. State Department wish to make an example of Childers to help restore the country's reputation in the Middle East. As a result, Hodges must deal not only with his own insecurities as a lawyer but also with a complete lack of evidence exonerating Childers. 

First Impressions:

I saw this one in theaters when it was released back in 2000. While I wasn't overly interested in courtroom dramas back then, I was interested in the film's stellar cast and that was enough back then to convince me to buy a ticket. Upon first viewing, I thought the film was pretty decent. It didn't blow me away or anything but it was entertaining enough. I grabbed it on DVD some months later while building my collection. It's a film I don't often return to, mostly because I don't often think about it. However, I'm interested to see whether my opinion on it changes with a more critical viewing, so let's jump right in.

Story/Direction: 

"You think there's a script for fighting a war without pissing somebody off? Follow the rules and nobody gets hurt? Yes, innocent people probably died. Innocent people always die but I did not exceed my orders!"

Thsi film has most of the hallmarks one would attribute to a solid courtroom drama. It deals with an interesting moral topic, there is genuine ambiguity as to the accused's guilt or innocence, and some pretty good speeches are thrown in. I want to focus specifically on that second point because it's where the film succeeds and fails. Of course, in a movie like this, the director wants to keep the audience on edge by ensuring that we don't know for sure whether the accused is actually guilty. Director William Friedkin does this by ensuring that we all know about the lack of evidence supporting Childers' version of events. So far, so good. Usually, being accused of a violent crime tends to make a character somewhat unsympathetic, so filmmakers will often compensate by making the accused appear sympathetic or very affable. This is where Friedkin goes against the grain, as Childers is not portrayed either way. He often seems cold and calculating, but he can also appear unhinged at other times. 

This is where the film shines because it creates this uncertainty in the audience, forcing them to question his innocence. So, instead of connecting with Childers, the audience actually connects with his lawyer, Hodges, who only defends Childers because he feels he owes him. Why does he owe him? Well, during the battle in Vietnam where Hodges was wounded, Childers saved his life. The audience is shown this incident as part of the film's cold opening. We're also shown the first inklings of Childers' propensity to become unhinged during combat situations. It's a bit of a subversive move by Friedkin and makes for better viewing.

Now, where the film fails in this regard (and I'm going to try to do this without spoilers) is concerning a particular piece of evidence that can possibly exonerate Childers. In the film, the National Security Advisor, Bill Sokal (Greenwood), decides to conceal this piece of evidence from both the prosecution and the defense. That makes sense; every film needs a villain, right? Unfortunately, the film drops the ball when the audience is treated to a scene where Sokal reviews the evidence. Moreover, the audience also gets a good view of it, completely removing the ambiguity. If the film had opted not to show the audience what the evidence contained, or at least waited until the film's end, it wouldn't have bugged me so much. I understand why they did it, but it changed the movie from something that pushed the boundaries of the genre, like Primal Fear and relegated to a kind of by-the-numbers courtroom drama. 

Acting/Characters:

As I mentioned in the earlier section, the film has an all-star cast, most of which were at the top of their respective games. Tommy Lee Jones does an excellent job as Hayes Hodges. He's a man who's unsure of himself and unsure whether or not his client is a monster. Jones is almost always solid in anything he does, and here he plays Hodges as a man who regrets losing what might have been. He's unhappy with how his life turned out, and he takes the case because it's his only opportunity to save the life of the man who once saved him. 

Moving on, we have the great Samuel L. Jackson as Col. Terry Childers. I loved this performance because Jackson excels at playing intense and driven characters. That intensity is a perfect counter to Hodges' downtrodden cynicism. However, it's not all crazy eyes and courtroom outbursts with Childers, as the audience is often shown his vulnerable side. Childers is a man who has given his entire adult life to the Marine Corps. He's unmarried and has no children or other family. His life is the Corps, and when he's faced with the prospect of losing all that, he becomes somewhat broken. Again, I really dug the performance.

The rest of the cast is solid to spectacular, with the great Sir Ben Kingsley as the shift U.S. Ambassador Morain. Guy Pearce overcomes a distracting Philadelphia accent to post a good showing as the prosecuting attorney Maj. Biggs. Bruce Greenwood is appropriately skeevy as Wiliam Sokal, and Phillip Baker Hall brings his trademark Library Cop grumpiness as Hodges's father. 

Visuals/Action:

Nothing about the film sticks out visually, so I won't dwell on it too much. However, there is a fair amount of action for a courtroom drama. The battle in Vietnam to open the film was done well, even if the attempts to de-old Jackson and Jones are less than stellar. The incident a the embassy is also tense and well done. All-in-all, the action is pretty good for a non-action film.

Score/Music:

The film's music was composed by Mark Isham and was...okay, I guess? It involves the traditional snare-heavy percussion and bugles that are common with most military-focused movies, but there really wasn't anything that stood out for me about the score.

Final Verdict:

Overall, I like this film. I'd have liked it more if the filmmakers were a bit more courageous about the story, but that's a quibble. It's a solid courtroom drama, if a tad predictable. Check it out if you're a fan of that genre or a fan of Tommy Lee Jones or Samuel L. Jackson.