Frankly, they should have called off the engagement. In Rules of Engagement Samuel L. Jackson plays Colonel Terry Childers; a career soldier who is accused of opening fire on civilians in a mid-eastern country during a riot at the American embassy. Childers claims he and his men were fired upon first and were taking heavy fire from the crowd, but there are no witnesses who will support his claim. The Secretary of State knows Childers is innocent, he�s seen and destroyed video from the embassy�s security cameras that verify Childers�s story, but he�s willing to sell Childers down the river in order to save American prestige. Knowing he�s being railroaded and not knowing who he can trust Childers calls upon his old friend Hayes Hodges, played by Tommy Lee Jones, to defend him. Hodges was badly wounded in Vietnam and would have died had it not been for Childers, but the wounds Hodges suffered ended his career as a warrior and set him on the path to an undistinguished career in military law. Despite their friendship Jones isn�t sure he believes Childers story either, but reluctantly takes the case even though he knows he is in over his head professionally.
Rules of Engagement is not a bad film, but when you�ve got talent such as Samuel L. Jackson and Tommy Lee Jones heading the cast you should have better then this. Certainly those two worthy gentlemen can�t always control the script they�re given, and both men did good jobs in this movie, as they always do, but the point is that talent such as theirs deserves a better script then they were given here. For one thing this is an underdog coming out on top movie and the one thing that neither Jackson nor Lee are well suited to play is the underdog. No matter how they try to build the suspense you know what the final verdict will be so what�s the point? The moral of the story, if there was one, is also so muddled and diluted that again I came away feeling like�what was the point? One other small nit to pick is I also found it distracting that they used the same shot for both Childers�s memories of the rioters firing on him *and* the video shots at the scene by the embassies security cameras. Since this shot was used repeatedly during the film for both viewpoints it came across as contrived and cheap. Couldn�t they have taken the time to shoot this scene from different angles for each viewpoint?
So, since the rules are that I can�t recommend a film if it�s not good I have to suggest you give this one a pass despite my great respect for Samuel L. Jackson and Tommy Lee Jones.
Average Grade: C
