If you don't like this, we can't be friends.

It's fun, it's light, [but] it has a hard time when its tries to get heavy.

Blistering performances.

By the time the dramatic fireworks start popping off, each one feels earned.

An attorney defends an officer on trial for ordering his troops to fire on civilians after they stormed a U.S. embassy in a third world country. Rules of Engagement benefits from excellent work from actors Tommy Lee Jones, Samuel L. Jackson and Guy Pearce and of course an excellent and talented Cast in general. The story is interesting enough and the characters are well written and the viewer can of course feel sympathy for them. This film is not as good as 'A Few Good Men' but it's still a terrific Drama, Thriller and War Film that thanks to it's amazing leads and great story succeeds from start to finish. (10/10)

This is a pre-9/11 film which raises questions on the rules of engagement in civilian/urban zones as well as combat/war fields.The backdrop is the a US Marines-led evacuation of the Yemen embassy which is surrounded by protesters and is facing sniper attacks.The conduct of Samuel Jackson,the colonel leading the operation is called into question .Its alleged that his blood-mindedness had resulted in the slaughter of 83 peaceful protesters.The director had Tommy lee jones at his disposal to make a superb courtroom drama out of it.But somehow the trial seems very low key and not engaging enough.Guy pearce,as the prosecution attorney makes a mockery of the whole show with his affected performance.Maybe he was trying to copy tom cruise's performance in A FEW GOOD MEN,but he didn't succeed.Even tommy lee jones seems surprisingly off colour .Samuel Jackson does well but not enough to save the flick.The film is doomed,especially in the post 9/11 era because the rules of engagement have changed,if not officially,at least on ground.One better appreciates under how much pressure do state forces operate versus the non-state actors.The margin for error is zero,and the opportunity costs are very high.Middle East is no longer given any benefit of doubt as far as restraint,democracy,fair play and lawful warfare are concerned.One knows it is global jihad one is fighting against,in which the only rule of engagement is elimination of suspected terrorists.The world has seen the destruction of twin towers,embassy attack in Benghazi,drone attacks,killing of bin laden,prolonged warfare in afganistan and Iraq,arab spring,Libyan uprising,Syrian civil war and continued existential crisis for Israel in this millennium.The script of the film rings hollow and premise seems weak when seen in 2017.The special forces need a lot of immunity in these times,and international law shud evolve accordingly.

During the Vietnam War, Marine Terry Childers (Samuel L. Jackson) executes a prisoner to intimidate a North Vietnamese officer into calling off an attack on his unit and thereby saving the life of Hays Hodges (Tommy Lee Jones). Years later, Hodges is retired and Childers leads a group of Marines sent to relief the embassy in Yemen. Ambassador Mourain (Ben Kingsley) is begging to evacuate and Childers loses 3 men. He orders return fire and 83 civilians are killed. National Security Adviser Bill Sokal (Bruce Greenwood) is angry and intends to make Childers the scapegoat. Childers faces court martial and he asks Hodges to defend him. Maj. Mark Biggs (Guy Pearce) prosecutes.The first thing director William Friedkin has to decide is whether we root for Childers or not. Every step forward is followed by a step backwards. He's working at cross purposes with himself. The action scenes at the embassy are terrific. Friedkin is still at his best doing action. However he should hold those scenes for later in the movie. That way the movie can play with his guilt and innocence. Also the movie skimps on the CSI aspects. It's really questionable how everybody just skips over the snipers across the way. There were snipers but nobody cares. Also Greenwood is basically a cartoon villain. The politics is simplified to a ridiculous amount. The whole thing feels manufactured and not well done. Then the closing credits force a happy ending wrapped up in a nice little bow. That's almost as ridiculous as everything else.

Although this has been called "contrived" the factual basis, is not only possible, it is probable given all the deployments of our military personnel for the time frame depicted. Moreover, this piece of trivia would go against that assessment:"James Webb provided the story for the film, based partly on his own military experience in Vietnam and his tenure as the Secretary of the Navy under President Ronald Reagan; in 2006, Webb was elected as Virginia's newest U.S. Senator."I am not sure why it was given a "bad rap", but the courtroom scenes, especially with the prosecutor Guy Pearce, are some of the best I have seen depicted of a general court martial (I am an ex-JAG from the Navy). Moreover, the GCM result is also probable.The NSA who hides evidence is VERY believable. Loved the flick - it's now a guilty pleasure. I recommend it as capturing a scenario which could happen in at embassy in a Muslim country. As for production and direction, William Friedkin is a more than able director having won an Oscar for "The French Connection" and being nominated for another in "The Exorcist". The cast includes notables Oscar winner Ben Kingsley, Oscar nominated Anne Archer, and the ubiquitous warrior Dale Dye to go along with Oscar winner Tommy Lee Jones and Oscar nominated Samuel L. Jackson. All in all, it was given "short shrift" perhaps because of politics. The story was more than exciting for the purpose.