Am i the only one...
who thinks this film has many logical mistakes???
share
Yeah but all the brain farts are nullified by Col. Childer's exhortation to "waste the motherf*ckers!"
MovieChat Forums > Rules of Engagement (2000) Discussion > Am i the only one...
the major logical flaw:
generally speaking they dont call up a retired legal officer to defend the accursed free of charge ,,,,
HA Andrews
[deleted]
accursed for accused is dark humour from the judge advocate general's corps
"what the pen inscribes, the sword defies and the wreath swishes away."
a cheery cherio
HA Andrews
http://www.angelfire.com/bc/RPPS/movie_reviews/war_movies/high_crimes_war_reprisal.htm
And remember the line Mel took out of Passion:
{christ}: one amongst you will be betray me.
{{peter}{andrew}{matthew}{james}: (in unison) Is it I, Lord?
{{judas iscariot}: Blimey Lord! Is it me?
Well, the movie itself doesn't have too many mistakes, but I did find some omissions in the defence-case. Then again, perhaps it was meant to be so, seeing that the defence lawyer was supposed to be slightly incompetent.
F.a. I would have creamed the ambassador with the fact that bullet-holes appeared in his flag without being shot at first (he testified that the shooting started after he was evacuated).
I want to know how they didnt see weapons on the dead bodies after they opened fired on the crowd.
shareThe Marines quickly take up positions on the roof of the Embassy in case things take a turn for the worst. The evacuation itself is a tour de force of war-movie filmmaking. The only problem is that the Marines take off in Marine Corps CH-46 Sea Knight helicopters. In the next scene they are flying towards the target and the helicopters have been magically transformed into the Army's CH-47 Chinook [the twin-engine Marine Corp UH-1Ns also suddenly become single-engine Army UH-1Hs].
Do you mean such mistakes ??
Quack, damn you (Jamie Hyneman)