the audience applauded

From my favorite movies..

This is a must-see and one of the best documentaries - and films - of this year.

There's no way I can possibly love it entirely but I just think its ridiculously bad, but enjoyable at the same time.

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.

Woody Allen said that after listening to Wagner, he always felt an urge to invade Poland. There was a line of truth behind that joke, one that echoes the opinion of many Holocaust survivors. Not that I put the same experience on the same level, Wagnerian music can be appreciated regardless of any historical contextualization, I think that watching a movie like "Rules of Engagement" will inspire a similar urge to go shoot some Arab civilians or kick them out of the country or just call them by the names they (supposedly) deserve.Obviously, there are two ways to look at this film. If you're an Arab, you're probably going to join that angry crowd and call it "one of the most racist films against Arabs Hollywood ever made". If you're not an Arab, you might consider it a flawed but not uninteresting military trial movie questioning the methods of the US Marines Corps, with an interesting friendship between two Vietnam veterans played by Samuel L. Jackson and Tommy Lee Jones. Well, it would have been interesting if the Marines were really being unethical, but then the Marines Corp. would never have permitted it. It was "A few Good Men" again.Which leads to the premise of the film, the whole trial revolves around the fact that the man charged to evacuate the US Embassy in Yemen deliberately killed 83 civilians, even using the word with M and F so cherished by Jackson, to call the people. At that point, the film had already crossed the line, because I can't recall any other instance that made a villain out of people, children and women included. I guess it could only be done for Arabs and/or Muslims. And then the McGuffin of the film, the piece of evidence is a missing tape that will prove that the civilians were armed, again, even the children.Sure, the film isn't anti-Arab, it is anti-Extremist, no kidding. As soon as the kids carried guns, they were a threat, they were killers and they "deserved" to be killed. That's not the element I blame on the script, what I condemn is the idea that such a story had any particular relevance, that there was a need to find a case to justify a mass-killing of civilians. To make a movie where Samuel L. Jackson the most popular US actor, defended by Tommy Lee Jones, who's not hated either, would take crap from everybody because he ordered to kill women and children, so that the emotional 'Gotcha' of the film, would be the proof that the hero was right, after all. What a relief! American honor is safe, it was the Arabs all along.Some say the film was prophetic, anticipating 9-11, how is that exactly? Did women and children pilot these planes? 9/11 was the result of a context starting with Muslims being ruled and killed by Barbarian regimes, and the military interventions didn't make things easier. But people have an inclination to accept Arabs and Muslims as fully barbarians and irremediably bad guys. I'm not saying that's the intent of William Friedkin, but what was he thinking? He's brandishing the authorization he got from the King of Morocco to shoot the film, not to mention that many extras were Moroccans, so they were part of it, it's not the Asian-looking guys passing for Libyans in "Back to the Future".But, as a Moroccan, I don't give much credit to Friedkin's defense, my country was the scenery of many movies that weren't exactly Arab-friendly, I even saw the shooting of some "Homeland" scenes in my neighborhood, and I was surprised to see that the place I grew up with could pass as Iran. But in the long history of Arab and Muslim shaming, this film is probably the culmination. I have seen it many years ago, I have loose memories, but I'll never forget the ending and the infuriating effect it had. It was the only instance of a movie that made an aggressive statement against a population, and not having a single redeeming character, it was American Marines vs. Arab Civilians.In 1993, people wept with the little girl from "Schindler's List", she was the living incarnation of the tragedy lived by the Jews. Arabs deserve reverse symbols, the one little girl who's seen dying in the film carried a weapon, I'm a father of a little girl and I don't want to venture into an analysis that would lead me to the conclusion that one deserved to die, but the film wants me to do so. As for the prophetic argument, those who claim that the film somewhat anticipated 9/11, well, how about an even that happened the very year of the release. Let me refresh your memory.In 2000, a Palestinian kid died under the arms of his fathers who was begging everybody to stop shooting. It was proved that an Israeli soldier did it, and I'm sure it was an accident, but even that kid's death met with denial. Supporters of Israel said it was a set-up, he was killed by one of their own, I even remember a French actor saying that he read the father was ready to sacrifice another son, no one questioned the veracity of this information. Now, there was a kid, he wasn't armed, and he was killed but no one made a symbol out of him, outside the Arab world, it's like the Western audiences would rather have fictional Arab villains than genuine victims, and that's the core of the problem.Same shtick, when Muslims die in a bombing, it's because they wanted to, when their kids die, it's because they were used as shields. There's already a strong anti-Arab resentment and movies like "Rules of Engagement" make it worse. it will teach them to always be careful about Arabs, even women, even little girls, who knows? They might hide grenades inside their dolls.

A military action / courtroom drama combo platter that promises to pay special attention to the thin gray line separating morality and duty for occupying troops. It knows how to best use its stars - Tommy Lee Jones gets plenty of time to chew screen as a grizzled retiring Marine attorney, while Sam Jackson is given free reign to scream and shout both on and off the battlefield - but is somewhat less sure how to arrive at the conclusion it wants to leave us with. A forced attempt to cram an evil mastermind into the fray disagrees with the otherwise-universal theme that there is no black and white picture in a situation as difficult and politically charged as this one, and that's not the only scene that should have been shown the cutting room floor. Despite a few heated exchanges between Jones and the prosecuting attorney (a fiery turn by Guy Pearce), it's a great load of topical potential that never amounts to more than a weak fizzle and a sudden, puzzling jury decision.

Samuel L Jackson plays an experienced US Marine officer who is in charge of evacuating the US Embassy in the Yemen. When the crowd opens fire and Marines are killed, Jackson orders retaliation. It subsequently appears as if he has opened fire on unarmed civilians, and it is expedient for the government to hang him out to try. He calls upon Tommy Lee Jones (whose life he saved in Vietnam) to defend him, and the stage is set for a courtroom drama.As courtroom dramas go, this is quite a good one. Jackson and Jones are heavyweights and punch their weight here, aided by Guy Pearce as the prosecution advocate, Ben Kingsley as the Ambassador, and Bruce Greenwood as the duplicitous State Department official who wants a scapegoat in order to safeguard his own position.The story is good, the performances are good and, apart from one unnecessary and improbable punch up, the film is well presented.Recommended.