Father Geek here with not one but two lengthy reviews of William(Exorcist) Friedkin's new feature presentation RULES OF ENGAGEMENT. This first look at the flick comes from a small Windy City press screening that long time informant Capone managed to grease his way into. Ol' Scarface has many a reporter on the take in his deep pockets, and this time it paid off big time for all of us...
Hey, Father Geek. Capone in Chicago here with what I believe is your first review of the Samuel L. Jackson/Tommy Lee Jones military drama RULES OF ENGAGEMENT, directed by William Friedkin.
Just some preliminaries about this screening: It was a critics screening with only about 25 people in the theatre. Although I wouldn't exactly call this a "rough cut," it was not a clean print either. The opening credits were restricted to the main, above-the-title cast members and there were no closing credits. The editing and sound seemed fairly clean, but the score was a temp track. I think the movie is supposed to open at the end of March.
The story opens up in 1968 Vietnam. Jones and Jackson are fellow Marines under serious attack. All you need to know from this sequence is that Jackson saves Jones' life and did so by killing an unarmed Vietnamese radio operator. Flash forward almost 30 years. Since Vietnam, Jackson remained a combat soldier, but Jones went to law school and became a Marine lawyer. We see them a Jones' retirement party, still obviously very close friends. Soon after Jackson and several Marines are sent to protect the American embassy in Yemen, which has been the site of several large (albeit peaceful) protests against the American involvement in the Persian Gulf. But it appears that peace will not reign much longer and that the lives of the American ambassador and his family (Ben Kingsley and Anne Archer) are in danger. American are evacuated at rock and fire bombs are hurled at the building, and snipers begin to pick up Marines. Under heavy fire, Jackson orders his men to open fire, not on the protesters but on the crowd below. The carnage is unbelievable as men, women, and children are mowed down. Finally the Marines make it back to their helicopters and flee Yemen. What follows is an international outcry against the American action. 83 are killed and about 100 are wounded. And all fingers (even those in the State Department) are pointing at Jackson.
He is formally charged with 83 counts of murder in a court martial hearing, and he calls in his old friends Jones to defend him. Jones is smart enough to know that he's not a good enough lawyer to handle the case, but Jackson insists. The prosecutor is played by Guy Pearce (sp?) (with a very strange and heavy Brooklyn accent). Evidence is suppressed and witnesses lie, anything to make sure that the U.S. government doesn't have to accept any of the blame for the massacre. But the questions pile up. Did the protesters on the ground have weapons as well? Is there a videotape of the event from embassy security cameras? Did Jackson force the ambassador and his family from the embassy or did they leave willingly? Will the events in Vietnam come back to bite Jackson in the ass?
What I like best about RULES OF ENGAGEMENT were its understated qualities. This is not a rehash of A FEW GOOD MEN or COURAGE UNDER FIRE, though it shares common plot element with both those films. But there's no grandstanding here (maybe Guy Pearce a little); there are no big courtroom speeches, no shocking revelations during testimony. Everyone plays out their part in the trial as they are instructed. Maybe the most interesting part of the story is that the suppressed evidence never surfaces, the lying witnesses are never exposed on the stand. Jones has everything stacked against him, including his history with drinking and just not having to live in the shadow of his much more successful military father (Philip Baker Hall).
What I liked here are the abundance of quiet moments. There are several small conversations here between the two leads, but also between fellow conspirators. I wasn't real thrilled with the character of the National Security Advisor, who is behind much of the double dealing. He's just too cookie-cutter bad government guy. I also didn't buy Ben Kingley's ambassador character. Without revealing what he does, I didn't believe his motivation for his actions. In addition, Jackson's testimony at his trial was a little too similar to the build-up and outburst technique used against him in A TIME TO KILL. What I did like is the gradual way the truth is revealed to us. We are not allowed to see the actions of the protesters until we need to. The filmmakers want us to despise Jackson's actions along with the general public. I also liked the neutral stance toward the military the film takes. It doesn't portray military men as gung-ho boys club types, nor are they entirely sympathetic. The film also spends a lot of time with the characters outside of their jobs, relaxing with their families and with each other. Some may find this laid-back approach to a military courtroom drama a bit too relaxed, but I liked the change. I've seen so many overblown and unbelievable courtroom encounters in my years that it was nice to see something a bit more realistic. It's also nice to see Tommy Lee Jones back in form playing an actual character with flaws and a backstory. Two strong lead performances propel this piece, and I was impressed.
A small side note: all the literature I read about this film before I saw it said that NYPD Blue's Kim Delany was supposed to be in it. Either I'm blind or she got chopped out, because I didn't see her anywhere.
Capone
Good work, Al. And now for our report from R-man deep in the heart of Hollywood and the darkened cavern of Paramount's very own test screening room...
I had an opportunity to see "Rules of Engagement" at the Paramont studio screening room Friday, Jan. 4th. As you may know it stars Sam Jackson , Tommy Lee Jones and Guy Pierce. I hope you'll post this.
Rules of Engagement is an entertaining movie, it tackles some great political and social issues, but at times it plays out like a typical like your typical court drama. In the end, it's a good movie not a great one. Although a lot of time is spent developing the characters, the courtroom scenes at the end felt like they were truncated in an effort to make sure no one gets bored.
Here's a brief run down of the story…. Minor spoilers may be included.
The film starts out in the Vietnam war. We're introduced to Jackson and Jones as Marine platoon commanders on a mission. They split their groups up to sneak up on the enemy but Jones's group is caught in an ambush. Through an act of brutal negotiation, Jackson is able to get the Vietcong division to leave, but Jones' is the only one to survive the ambush.
Twenty-eight years later we pick up on Jones' retirement party. He's a lawyer now, and apparently not a very good one. Jackson attends the party and later tells Jones about his new command of a special ops (or something) unit.
In a exciting sequence, Jackson and his unit are called out to Yemen to protect the US Ambassador. The citizens' protesting the US government are getting violent and snipers have opened fire on the Embassy. Jackson and his unit successfully save the Ambassador and his family. Jackson even risks his life to retrieve the US Flag.
He goes to check out his men on the Embassy roof and finds 3 of his Marines dead and others wounded. The sniper fire gets more intense and Jackson gives the order for his men to fire into the crowd. Apparently he has seen people in the crowd firing guns and orders his Sargent to "Waste the mutha*uc*ers". The Marines do their thing and mow the protestors down.
With 83 dead and over a 100 wounded the Head of the State Department flips out. We are told that a videotape was recovered from the embassy, but he pockets the tape and orders his man not to mention it. Jackson is brought up on murder and 2 other charges and a court marshal is set in for two weeks.
Jackson then appeals to Jones to defend him. Jones is reluctant, but signs on to help his long time pal. Guy Pierce is the young hot shot prosecutor who accepts the case and pursues it because he honestly thinks Jackson went overboard. He asks if all the evidence has been turned over, and the State Department head looks him in the eye and lies.
The middle section has Jones going to Yemen to investigate which leads to the obligatory fight between friends that ends with them laughing, to the court marshal.
Jones gets a chance to shine here, however as I mentioned above, it's not enough, it moves too fast and I felt a little cheated. Guy Pierce sort of gets lost here. He starts yelling for no other reason to show his conviction, but it's too much and I thought he looked and sounded silly.
The rest of the movie involves some legal sparing, some minor victories and setbacks. One of the best lines in the last act is Jones in a verbal showdown with the State Department Head: "Have you ever had a pissed off Marine on your ass?"
Overall, it's Product, entertaining, some nice shootout stuff and good performance by the leads but not the end-all-to-be-all that Paramount's marketing department wants you to think it is.
That's it….
Call me R-Man
