Product Details

• Amazon Sales Rank: #17071 in DVD
• Released on: 2001-03-05
• Rating: Suitable for 15 years and over
• Aspect ratio: 2.35:1
• Number of discs: 1
• Formats: Anamorphic, Dubbed, PAL, Widescreen
• Original language: English, French
• Subtitled in: English, French
• Number of discs: 1
• Running time: 122 minutes

Amazon.co.uk Review
Rules of Engagement opens strongly with a Vietnam battle sequence that sets the stage for the rest of the story. But then director William Friedkin knows a thing or two about staging harrowing action sequences, and if you don't believe that, you've never seen The French Connectionor To Live and Die in LA. Unfortunately, Friedkin can't do much about the implausible plot that follows, in which the Marine commander, played by the always-terrific Samuel L Jackson, is accused of slaughtering innocent civilians (who actually were shooting at him and his men). He must rely on an old Marine buddy--a lawyer played by Tommy Lee Jones--to get him through the jury-rigged court martial. But the central premise--that an evil presidential aide would perjure himself and destroy evidence simply to maintain good relations with US allies in the Middle East, rather than defending a highly decorated Marine colonel who risked his life--is inevitably hard to swallow. And the ending is even flimsier. --Marshall Fine, Amazon.com

Video Description
DVD Special Features:

Featurette
"A Look Inside" Cast and Crew Interviews
Commentary by William Friedkin
Language Choice: English, French
Subtitles: English, English for the hearing impaired, French.

Synopsis
William Friedkin unleashes his flare for tense action and gripping suspense in RULES OF ENGAGEMENT, an exciting military legal thriller that examines the moral gray area of combat experience and reflects on the ethos of the American military in the late 20th century. When the U.S. embassy in Yemen is stormed by anti-American protesters, Marine Colonel Terry Childers (an intense Samuel L. Jackson) rescues Ambassador Mourain (Ben Kingsley) from the explosive siege, and under fire from snipers within the crowd, he orders his men to return fire, resulting in many civilian casualties. To appease international outrage at an apparent war crime, the U.S. government court-martials Childers for violating the Marine's "rules of engagement," and his only hope rests on Marine lawyer Colonel Hayes Hodges (Tommy Lee Jones), a veteran who owes Childers his life for, ironically, a war crime committed by Childers in the Vietnam War. An intense, chiaroscuro courtroom drama and brutal combat film, RULES OF ENGAGEMENT takes a difficult look at the moral ambiguity of life in combat and the value of guilt, honor, and loyal sacrifice in the duty to one's country.

Customer Reviews

Entaining, but dangerous anti-Arab propaganda
As a film, this is good entertainment both in the Yemen action and the courtroom drama, BUT BEWARE its message. The film was described by the American-Arab Anti-discrimination Committee as "probably the most vicious anti-Arab racist film ever made by a major Hollywood studio" : having now seen the film more than once, and thought about it, I can see why. We are initially made to feel some sympathy for the civilian "victims", especially through the images of the little crippled girl and the dedicated Yemeni doctor who deals with the suffering of those shot by the marines. Then, progressively, we have the "truth" of the situation unfolded to us - the end result is that we realise that the doctor has lied, as has every Arab who says anything in the film, and the little girl is an armed terrorist - i.e. we were in fact wrong to have sympathy for all those dead and wounded people shot by the American soldiers. There is not a single trustworthy Arab shown in this film - all are liars and/or terrorists. Also, the film is presented as if it is a recent event from American history, with information about what subsequently happened to the key characters - the Yemeni ambassador to the U.S. reported many viewers asking when this actually happened. This film, with its one-sided presentation of good guys and bad guys, simply contributes to tragic prejudice and misunderstandings of the Middle East situation.

The meaning of the International Law
The International Law of War on Land says about qualification of belligerents: "Article 1: The laws, rights, and duties of war apply not only to armies, but also to militia and volunteer corps fulfilling the following conditions: 1.To be commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates; 2.To have a fixed distinctive emblem recognisable at a distance; 3.To carry arms openly; and 4.To conduct their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war."
"In countries where militia or volunteer corps constitute the army, or form part of it, they are included under the demonstration 'army'. Article 2: The inhabitants of a territory which has not been occupied, who, on the approach of the enemy, spontaneously take up arms to resist the invading troops without having had time to organize themselves in accordance with Article 1, shall be regarded as belligerents if they carry arms openly and if they respect the laws and customs of war."
In this film, the key issue is the lawfulness of the Yemeni "civilians" who were in the "peaceful demonstration" at the American Embassy in civilian clothes (1), and hiding deadly weapons (3), then attacked the U.S. Marine corps with armed forces killing a few marines before they started to fire back (4).
Colonel Childers' action was eventually justified by the Marshal Law, as his lawfulness was tested according to the Rules of Engagement, but, in my opinion as an amateur, International law also tells you that the Yemeni civilians' action was illegal as you can see in the abovementioned Article 1 because those Yemeni civilians were not legally categorised as belligerents and their action was not a "spontaneous" resistance, either.

I am well aware of that some people would want to make an argument against this view, but, I must be clear that I am not a sympathiser of the U.S. globalisation / dominance over the world with invincible armed forces, yet, at the same time, I strongly believe in the necessity of compromise through the truly objective International Law between Western Powers who have enormous military power and countries that are categorised as the third world where people can only rely on terrorism and guerrilla warfare to resist the dominance of the Western Powers over their own countries.
No one can never emotionally justify the horrific mass-killing Childers' decision caused. And the fact that the terrorists of Arab world have to use even their own women and children as human shield and, in this instance, attackers, is truly tragic. However, if you allow your sentiment to cloud your judgment on this Childers case and distort the truth (in this case, the fact that Childers' action is legal by the Marshal Law and the International Law) to call Childers murderer it would be a kind of anarchist connotation. I do not believe such view would solve the problem of the power balance in the military world.

I know that the International Law is mostly being manipulated by the arbitrariness of the Western Powers, namely, the U.S.A. So, I am not saying at all that the current situation is perfectly alright and all terrorism deserves total elimination which would facilitate the U.S. dominance of the whole world. Still, I think both side of this conflict - globalisation and terrorism - should stick to the International Law as mutual compromise, although it definitely needs decent reconsideration in the light of fair treatment for the "non-powers".

Excellent cast help out a clichéd plot.
I've never been one to look out for court room dramas but whenever I've caught one I've enjoyed it. A Few Good Men is one of the best of the bunch. Rules Of Engagement isn't quite there but it's a very entertaining movie. Tommy Lee Jones, Sam Jackson and Guy Pearce are three of the best actors around, without them the film wouldn't really be that good. In the hands of a lesser director this would be at best a boring tv movie, but William Friedkin (The Exorcist, The French Connection) is one of the greats. The opening Vietnam sequence is superb and there are a lot of disturbing images throughout the movie (the massacre in Yemen being one of them). The film is quite predictable but it never gets boring, it's well worth watching for the odd superb set piece and to see all those fantastic actors doing their stuff.