MovieChat Forums > Rules of Engagement (2000) Discussion > just posting my review here to see waht ...

just posting my review here to see waht other people feel about this

posted 22 years ago by erland-3
41 replies | jump to latest

I´ve been visiting IMDB for a long time without reviewing any movies but I cannot be quiet about this film. Any cinematic qualities aside this is one of the worst movies I´ve ever seen because it is so blatantly racist and prejudist. The worst part is, judging from the other reviews, hardly anyone seems to be bothered by this.

The film starts with an evacuation of the American embassy in Yemen under attack by gunmen. This evacuation leads to a massacre on a group of demonstrators consisting of civilian men, women and children. Of course the officer in charge (Sam Jackson) is put on trial for this atrocity. During the course of this trial we revisit the scene of the massacre and each time more details are revealed.

The first time it is revealed that the crowd weren´t just demonstrators, they were working with the gunmen to confuse the Americans. Next time gunmen are in the crowd firing and finally, lo and behold, we are shown that the entire crowd were vicious terrorists, even the sweet little one-legged girl the good-guy lawyer (Tommy Lee Jones) met down in Yemen while investigating the case. And to think I actually pitied that wretched extremist for a while! The officer is freed and all ends well.

Lessons learned from this film:

-All arabs think all Americans should die. This is not for a specific reason it´s just a part of being Muslim (well, maybe because they hate values such as "freedom, tolerance, prosperity religious pluralism and universal suffrage" to quote NYT).

-All Arabs are ready to act on these beliefs by killing americans, even Arab children.

-It is morally correct to kill Arabs for these reasons, all of them.

-Next time you see some liberal sob-story on TV showing crippled children from Afghanistan, look in those kids eyes before feeling sorry. You´ll see a killer in there, just like in any other arab.

I might have expected a film like this after 9/11, but this is actually made before that sad day. Any respect I had for William Friedkin, Samuel L. Jackson, Tommy Lee Jones or anyone involved in this film is gone. That this movie was made and spent two weeks as #1 in the US goes to show the obvious disregard with which that nation treats the issues of the rest world, especially those stemming from culturally different areas.

If you watched this movie without at least reflecting on these issues, watch it again and ask yourself: -Do I really think this is a believable story? Do I really believe five-year old girls attack US Marines with guns? If not, why was this movie made, and made in such realistic way, almost giving the impression it was based on a true story?

[–] 22 years ago

[deleted]

[–] bah_humbug 22 years ago

Sorry, I'm a bit late but I've just seen this movie and I am seething with rage!
What a load of rubbish.
All the evidence pointed towards the OIC Jackson being guilty, no one saw the video tape so how did the members come to the conclusion that he was innocent? With what was presented at the court he is guilty beyond reasonable doubt.
I guess it was suposed to be a 'feel good' movie, with the main character wrongly accused and then the truth comes out, bands play and everyone goes home. Only the truth didnt come out!

The only movie worse than this at trying to play on the audience and adjusting the facts for a 'moral' outcome is 'John Q'.
Dont get me started on that one...

"Don't make assumptions, you make an ass out of you and 'umption" S.L.J.

[–] fedrulez 22 years ago

All the evidence pointed towards the OIC Jackson being guilty, no one saw the video tape so how did the members come to the conclusion that he was innocent? With what was presented at the court he is guilty beyond reasonable doubt.

He is not guilty beyond reasonable doubt. There was no hard evidence supporting the governments claim. Their main angle was that there were no guns found at the scene of the massacre. Well Yemen isn't exactly known for securing its crime scenes. The police couldn't even hold the protesters in line. The terrorists could have easily come in (the snipers who where near) and cleaned off all the guns. The next evidence was that of a doctor he is bound to be bias. There is clearly reasonable doubt especially with the lack of a tape being produced which just re-enforces the defenses's notion of 'hanging him out to dry'. This is clearly reasonable doubt.

There is a major plot hole though. The defenses''s claim that there were guns in the crowd could have been substantiated by the angle the bullets hit the embassy. Since the snipers were positioned in high buildings any forensic team (they sent the FBI in this film) would have taken this into account. Also when the issue to fire is ordred all the marines stand up and start shooting. If they did that they would have been shot by the snipers. They were pinned down; and all of a sudden the order to fire back is issued and suddently the marines have time and space to return fire even though 5 seconds before they were being pinned down by sniper fire.

Overall the film is a bit one sided and has plot holes. They should have expressed more that the mission plan was bad. They should have had gun ship support to take out the snipers and intimidate the crowd. And it was wrong to fire into a crowd where only say 15-20 were armed. But overall I found this film quite enjoyable I was surprised it was about 2 hours long.

[–] smartgggg 21 years ago

Hi.

I saw this movie yesterday, and it left me in anger. And especially the ending, which one could predict from miles away, but I still hoped they wouldn't go for it. But they did. Of course they did.

Really, one who approves of what happened here, approves of what Children thinks and does, should also approve of the WTC'01 attacks.

One of the messages in this movie: "if your life's in danger, you may kill anyone".

And when I finally thought it couldn't get any worse, they made this Vietnamese veteran salute the American officer. That was totally ludicrous and beyond imaginability.

The whole defense of the American officer was also beyond any credibility. He was "only trying to protect his men". Give me a break here. And all that talk about some tape. They should have shut up about that stupid tape, because it doesn't make a substantial difference. The guy said "shoot the motherf**", so he has no respect for human life. Which was also the case in 'Nam. War can do a lot to you, but that doesn't mean you're entitled to do anything you want. Well, you can, but you will have to face the consequences. And that does NOT include a "not guilty" verdict.

[–] mrrulez7 21 years ago

How are people so outraged about this movie. Guarentted most of the people maaking comments have never een in a war zone. The movie does not say that "if your life's in danger, you may kill anyone". Childers does not kill just anyone. There was danger from the streets, it was shown on video, whether that video was seen in court or not should not even matter.

As for the vietnam matter, Childers did what he had to to save his men. While it ended up being only one survivor, e did not know that at the time. He did what he felt was needed to save the life of his men.

As for the salute at the end, it was not ludicrous and beyond imaginable, it was a showing of two "warriors" on opposite sides of a war showing their respect for eachother.

[–] chinaskee-418-613225 11 years ago

This is an easy one. The list of evidence recovered from the embassy said there was a tape. But no tape was produced at the court martial and the NSA Director testified that he didn't know anything about any tape. Well obviously there was a tape because it was on the list. It was therefore very easy for Tommy Lee Jones to instil reasonable doubt in the minds of the jury because the obvious implication is that if a tape that obviously exists can't be found that something must have been on the tape that the government didn't want anybody to see. And as long as there is reasonable doubt you cannot convict anybody of anything.

[–] willogan60 22 years ago

"-All arabs think all Americans should die. This is not for a specific reason it´s just a part of being Muslim (well, maybe because they hate values such as "freedom, tolerance, prosperity religious pluralism and universal suffrage" to quote NYT).

-All Arabs are ready to act on these beliefs by killing americans, even Arab children."

While this may not be fully true, it is mostly true.

Many Arab countries have an official holiday called "Kill Americans Day" As sad as it is, probably about 85% of the Islamic world is anti-USA.

[–] 22 years ago

[deleted]

[–] chandlerusmc 21 years ago

Keep in mind, combatreview, not everyone that feels hatred joins up with an extremist terrorist force. Need more info? In the 1960's when racism was in-your-face controversy, how many caucasions were members of the KKK? A vast majority? No.

I do submit, however, that I'm unsure if most Arabs hate the United States. Other than the ones that live in the United States and the ones that shoot at me, I supppose I have no benchmark for the answer. The funny thing is, as tongue-in-cheek as I'm making this, I really don't know.

My heart tell me no. I don't believe most Arabs/Muslims hate the United States. The Information Age would make you think otherwise. I suppose if one could answer the question, "Did most members of the Nazi party feel themselves superior to other cultures?" then you may be on the right track to determine the Arab's stance on the U.S.

-Chan
United States Marine Corps

[–] smartgggg 21 years ago

"Did most members of the Nazi party feel themselves superior to other cultures?"

Back then, most Germans didn't even know what was going on. And hardly anyone knew about the concentration camps. Most soldiers were drafted simply because it was war and they had to fight for their own country - they didn't question the reasons. In general, they didn't have anything against the Allies.

In the Arab world of today, regimes determine what the West thinks of those countries, not the people living in it. If there's a "Kill the Americans" day, that does by no means say the people of that country think that. Remember that in Iraq, there was a 99.98% vote count for Saddam? What does that say? That Saddam was a popular guy? No. It meant that Saddam was the only one you could vote for, and if you didn't, your life was in extreme danger. Things are often so much more subtle than presented. That's why I hate "Rules of engagement".

[–] alex_v 21 years ago

I suppose if one could answer the question, "Did most members of the Nazi party feel themselves superior to other cultures?" then you may be on the right track to determine the Arab's stance on the U.S.

I've read your post a number of times now and I'm still unsure quite what you're getting at. Rules Of Engagement to me is the perfect indicator of a section of the US that feel themselves superior to other cultures, yet I think you're rather foolishly attributing the sentiment to the Arab world's stance towards the US!!?

[–] chandlerusmc 21 years ago

Hm.

With all due respect sir, you can name-call, however, I ask that you back up your sentiments. What are you saying exactly except to call others foolish? I'm just not clear on it.

A section of the U.S.? Are you telling me that you will find bits of evil everywhere? Because if you are, then you and I are in agreement. There have been sections of evil everywhere in every culture. Sections of evil Germans, evil Arabs, evil Indians, evil Americans, evil Mexicans, ad nauseum. What matters is how much of a voice that evil is given by the mainstream.

See I can't open up my paper or watch the local news and see advertisements for the Ku Klux Klan. They're a significant minority and are righteously portrayed as such. I can, however, watch Al Jazeera and catch a daily dose of "Kill the Americans." I believe the America-haters are also a minority however the vast majority of good natured Arabs are doing little to stop it.

In case I haven't made it clear enough sir, I believe most people are good natured and that good-will supercedes categories such as race and religon. However, all good has to do for evil to succeed is do nothing.

[–] iabutair2000 21 years ago

mmm i dont like u ur so blind of the truth out there am glad not all americans are like u most muslims hate the us gov but can u blame them even people in the us hate it and most of the world ok am saying this to people like u only kill us all if it makes u feel better thank u

ps this film is racist

[–] alex_v 21 years ago

Sorry, your comments are just pure garbage. You fail to make any distinction between being anti-USA and wanting to kill all Americans - disgraceful. There are many people from all over the World who are anti the American government's actions in the middle east, muslim and non-muslim, and to ally everyone holding these sentiments with actual murder is hysterical nonsense. And exactly the trap that this reprehensible film falls into.

[–] Guess Who 21 years ago

Many Arab countries have an official holiday called "Kill Americans Day" As sad as it is, probably about 85% of the Islamic world is anti-USA.

With all respect
----------
|willogan60|
---------- from where did you get this stupid information?

Are you resident in Arabian/Islamic Country?

Have you been in Arabian/Islamic Country ?

Do you have Arabian/Muslim Friend?

Okay at least "Did you search or even ask about this infromation"?

Oh..& from where did you get this percentage "85%"?

If there's a "Kill the Americans day" at least you gonna read about it in the newspaper..& do you think if there is a day called "Kill Americans day" other countries will had relations with Arabian Countries?

All of your words make no sense...

Advice from Good-Hearted for you..."Educate first & make sure of your resources then come & write truly infrmations"..

[–] smartgggg 21 years ago

[–] chinaskee-418-613225 11 years ago

Wait wait wait. Are you saying that if your life was in danger that you would just let yourself be killed and not even try to kill whoever it was that was putting your life in danger ? Why ? Why would you do that ? That's just absolutely mind-boggling to me.

[–] smartgggg 21 years ago

/sequel of my other posting/

And to comment on some of your own remarks:

"The film starts with an evacuation of the American embassy in Yemen under attack by gunmen."

Well, by then, we've already seen Children shoot an unarmed Vietnamese guy between the eyes. Not unimportant, I'd say.

"It is morally correct to kill Arabs for these reasons, all of them."

See my other posting. Indeed, the message is something like: "if there's this population, a fraction of which is armed and performs terrorist acts, you may waste them all; none of them are innocent". But if that is justifiable, then why moan about the WTC deaths? I mean, many people do not want US military intervention in their area, so when it comes, the US army is not considered 'innocent'. The US army is just a small fraction of the US population, but according to the above message of this film, the common civilian may be regarded just as guilty, so one may act accordingly - for example, by killing all people inside the WTC towers. In essence, there is no difference.

[–] 21 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Lusiphur_Malache 21 years ago

________________________________________________________________________________
Watch RoE and you will come away thinking all Arabs are evil people whose sole purpose in life is to kill Americans, whatever the cost.
________________________________________________________________________________

People aren't allow to make their own opinions? Or does this movie invade your head and make you think this?

I watched it last night and didn't come away thinking that all Arab's are anti-american and try to kill them on site. I came away thinking that the betrayal of a soldiers life at war, and the decisions an officer has to make was at least somewhat accurate. And if you want to look at Anti-American just watch the news at the moment, riots like this are happening, suicide bombers are coming from all age groups.

But hey, lets ignore the facts and believe everything that this obviously raciest movie "forces" us to.

[–] 21 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 21 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 21 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 21 years ago

[deleted]

[–] jmen788-1 21 years ago

Well, my father served for the Israeli Army in Lebanon and a lot of this stuff is true. For instance a terrorist would hide behind children who had guns to not get shot. This stuff did happen, you arab-loving, pro-terror liberals can cry about it and say it isnt true because you hate this country just as much as the terrorists, but it is true. So know the facts before opening your mouths and bashing a movie saying "how could a kid be firing a gun"

[–] vikcy 21 years ago

Apart from the fact this is one of the most stupid, racist movie Ive ever seen, the question is not that Arabs (and I would add, most Europeans) hate the USA government. The only question you should ask, why is that ?
Ever seen unbiased (or biased to the other side) news, films from Palestina ? Did you notice the Israelis always just ANSWER to an Arab terrorist act ? Ever seen israeli soldiers shooting into a very very dangeorus funeral vrowd ? Killing small kids who throw very dangerous stones at them ? Not to mention foreign reporters. Once I saw a soldier shooting an unarmed fleeing man and his children with one shot...with a .50 Barrett. Heroic fight of the IDF...Not any Arabs would hate the States if it hadnt been the main supporter of the tyranny going out on their land.

Oh and before you would jump on me with the nazi anti-jew stuff, I have many jew friends. Many of them live in Israel and hate its policy...

[–] igoresse 21 years ago

I have read most of the replies and I have even visited the israeli indymedia site, but still, I can't understand one important thing.

Example: 20 unarmed israelis are killed by a suicide bomber = TERRORISM

20 unarmed palestinians killed by israeli army = LEGITIMATE MILITARY ACTION AGAINST THE ENEMY

By the way, the palestinians have no army. So basically what this is, is a war between Israel and Palestine (not yet a state, and probably will never be one), but the thing is that Israel uses it's tactical army units, while the palestinians use suicide bombers.

So it's like this: for as long as the suicide bombings continue, the israeli army will continue attacking palestinian regions, tearing down houses, arresting, bombing buildings that are probably safe houses for Hamas fighters, and assasinating (something that they admitt publicly and are proud of) leaders of palestinian liberation armies -AKA terrorist groups.
On the other hand, as long as the israeli army continues to bomb, kill, arrest, assasinate, build walls etc, etc, the suicide bombers will continue thei action which unfortunately targets unarmed civilians. So this will continue and will be recycled like a viciou cycle of violence.
So if you do the math, taking into account that the palestinians are almost 1/5th of the population of Israel, then the cycle will end, since there will no more palestinians to take it further. And then, only then, will the israeli people feel safe in their land. So what I am saying is this: the goal is to kill every living palestinian on earth. They just don't admitt it yet because it's not politically correct. But that's what they're aiming to. Sharon is really glad about suicide bombings. If that stopped he would have no excuse for killing about 20 palestinians per week! Anyway, I am stopping here beause I am starting to get a little angry.

Oh, and by the way, I think that "Rules of Engagement" served as one of the most well made piece of propaganda: it could even be compared with CNN's reports during the war on Iraq! If you liked this movie I also recommend that you watch another one called "The sum of all fears" and you watch it closely. Notice that the russian prime minister is dressed to look exactly like a mafia crook.

ok, I'm done.

bye

[–] f-society 21 years ago

Example: 20 unarmed israelis are killed by a suicide bomber = TERRORISM

20 unarmed palestinians killed by israeli army = LEGITIMATE MILITARY ACTION AGAINST THE ENEMY

How about this...

Example: Israeli steals the Palestine land = THEFT

20 unarmed israelis are killed by a suicide bomber = WAR TO GET BACK THEIR LAND

20 unarmed palestinians killed by israeli army = MILITARY RESPONSE AGAINST THE OWNERS TO PROTECT THE STOLEN LAND

ok?

--
The Purpose of Life is to End

[–] 21 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 21 years ago

[deleted]

[–] f-society 21 years ago

> with your Bin Laden nonsense....

Dude...Bin Laden and Palestinie are two different thing

--
The Purpose of Life is to End