RULES OF ENGAGEMENT review

Sorry I’m late with this review, but life has been pretty hectic recently. Juggling a million things at once while still retaining focus.

Alright, I’ll admit it, when I should have been writing reviews, I’ve been hanging out in the AICN LIVE CHAT till dawn every night. It’s a hard habit to break.

I saw RULES OF ENGAGEMENT last week and enjoyed it quite a bit. However, the movie is likely to really piss some people off. Offend some sensibilities.

Now, for me to write this piece up, I am going to have to talk about what happened in the film. The issues that were brought up. Some of the twists. And to do that, well.... That means if you haven’t seen the film, you might not want to read what I’m going to write below. Just know that I really enjoyed the film.

Now, for you readers that have seen the movie, by all means.... continue reading....

War, combat, violence is not a pretty thing. In THREE KINGS, we saw some pretty hairy shit. The bullet hits didn’t feel like clean hits, they felt like metal ripping it’s way through flesh.

But it was basically troops vs troops. It was ugly, but both sides had guns raised at one another. They were adult men firing at adult men, who were firing at them. In basic sandbox rules, this is fair and just.

However, war and combat is not always fair. Rules not so easily drawn. In order to survive, to save lives on your side of the field, some compromises are made... and rules have to be broken.

This is a film, where you see the slaughter of a square filled with women and children. A little girl gets her leg blown off. A boy lies dead with his skull obliterated by automatic weapons fire. Women.... Children... Old Men.... DEAD.

One man ordered it.

And the movie argues that he did the right thing, the only decision he could’ve made. That that man should go unpunished.

This man is our hero. The good guy. He’s G.I. Joe. He’s Samuel L Jackson.

That’s the task that William Friedkin, director of this film, has to do.

No matter what happens, there are people in this world that can not excuse the killing of women and children. God knows I certainly can’t imagine ever being put in a situation where it could even be fathomable.

Some feel that showing these Women and Children.... deserving the fate they got is even worse. Women and Children firing at soldiers... Just leave. That’s what you do. You simply retreat. However, this was a situation where your men were pinned down. Lives had been lost. To retreat would mean to lose further life. Killing the kids and the women. It had to be done.

It is not pretty. We like to think that the whole world is that innocent surburban street that we grew up at. Hopscotch and jumprope are universal. This film shows a glimpse at the sort of universe we really kinda do live in. In Vietnam there were children with handgrenade Coke cans they’d throw in the back of a truck killing soldiers. There are situations where children and women pick up weapons and go to war. And when you are faced with an enemy pointing a gun at you... Well, you kind of have to fire back. It’ll haunt your memory.

I don’t think Sam Jackson’s character enjoyed the mission. I don’t think he’ll sleep particularly well. I don’t think it’s a happily ever after lifestyle for the man. I think he’s going to end up a burnt out alcoholic that places a bullet through the back of his head while living alone and without companionship.

BUT... He did order the only order he had to make. This is the reason why war is bad. Why sending in the troops.... can be a bad thing. Adding guns to an equation ends in death, if that offends you. If it scares you. Then don’t send in the troops. It’s one of those unfortunate things a President, a General and a soldier has to decide. And it’s why I don’t want to be any of them.

RULES OF ENGAGEMENT is brutal at times. The images it places before your eyes.... they hurt. They are not soft ball images. Friedkin doesn’t play footsie. And really... he never has. Friedkin’s use of violent images to force an emotional reaction is a trademark.

The performances of Tommy Lee Jones, Samuel L Jackson, Guy Pearce, Ben Kingsley and even Anne Archer... well, they are all very commanding. The relationship between Tommy and Sam is especially electric. For me, they reminded me of the way John Wayne and Victor McLaglen used to be.

In one scene, Tommy Lee Jones comes back from seeing the results of Jackson’s order. He’s furious by what he’s seen. We’re furious. He wants to beat and kill his client, his best friend... Samuel. He storms to Sam’s place, busts in... and then procedes to enter into one of those QUIET MAN/THEY LIVE sort of brawls. Now some might wonder how Tommy can keep up with Sam, but for me... They are both trained Marines. Tommy might not have been in combat in a while, but that’s because his leg was shot to shit. His upper body.... his ability to throw a punch that can dislodge your jaw and break your nose... I absolutely believe. Just as I always bought those inevitable beatings back-n-forth between Mel Gibson and Danny Glover.

The point of the scene? We, the viewer... needed to see Sam Jackson take a few lickings for what had happened. We wanted to do it, and Tommy Lee Jones was our fists. For me... it’s integral.

I love the fact that there is no copy of the missing video tape that pops up, or that someone testifies at the last minute that Bruce Greenwood’s character destroyed it. I love that there are no last minute angels, no courtroom tricks to get Sam Jackson off. All that is on trial are the known facts at hand.

I was flinching in anticipation to such a hack ending as a possibility. When it didn’t come... I was quite pleased. This is Friedkin’s best film since TO LIVE AND DIE IN L.A. and in addition to the release of the brilliant new version of THE EXORCIST... Friedkin has a damn good year in my opinion.