Genres

Visitors Review

F_Jenkins 2012-05-23 07:10:03

Well, it's got Samuel Jackson

Samuel Jackson raises the bar in any film he's in. This film would have beena much lesser film without him. The premise is the usual stock, "he did whathe had to do and it was the right thing after all" idea. In fact, theconclusion is actually pretty unsatisfying. The real results are displayedin titles as Jackson's character walks away. And I can't think of anythingthat takes away from a major film more than when characters are portrayed 28years earlier and look just as old as they do in the present time. Iestimated Tommy Lee Jones was in his early 20s (at best) in the Viet Namscenes, yet he looks 50. And when Samuel Jackson was on the stand, I kepthaving flashbacks to "A Time to Kill." I was waiting for him to yell "yeah,I killed them and I hope they burn in hell." But with that said, this movieisn't bad, mainly because of a good cast (and SJ of course). Could have beenbetter, but it's still an okay rental.

Jeff 2012-05-22 20:32:34

Garbage

There's more realism in the plot of Star Wars than in this piece of garbage. Lazy plotting, poor acting, conspiracy theory nonsense... it's the world as Hollywood wishes it was.

2012-05-17 23:11:49

The real take on "JAG"

I liked this movie more than most critics. Tommy Lee Jones' performance was good and Samuel L. Jackson did a good job portraying a military officer caught up in a political mess. Its not a "great" film but it is very entertaining.

jaromiller-2 2012-05-17 11:49:44

Grand acting and a common plot...

If not for the expected, and solid, grand acting of Jones, Jackson andPearce, this movie would deserve to sit on the shelves gathering dust nextto old Super Bowl clips. Jones and Jackson craft believable and interestingcharacters within the confines of a common plot-did the Marine exceed hisbounds in war? Well, there's a juicy question-always was, always will be.But, I'm not sure more movies should be made about it, at least not withouta twist. That's not to say, that we should stop asking the moral questionfor the ages ("how far is too far in war"). Even though we viewers areshown, at the onset, what happened at the scene of the "alleged crime," westill must opine if the alleged offender went too far. Although the movieanswers the question legally, it doesn't answer it, morally. In taking usthrough this story, Friedkin does not offer up the kind of suspense he didin his grand, French Connection." That's not to say the film is everboring.It is not boring. This is a guys' movie. Pour a beer, or better yet drinkout of the bottle, light up a robusto, put the feet up on the table, andwatch Jones, Jackson and Pearce do their swaggering so well. The acting isto be enjoyed, and then it's time to get back to doing the family taxes. Ijust may watch it again, and push the taxes aside. Oh yes, and I'llcontinueto ponder the quesion, "what's too much in war?"

2012-05-15 11:13:19

Good Film

This review is from: Rules of Engagement (Amazon Instant Video) When I watch the prieview, it looked pretty good. So I purchased the movie. Turned out to be pretty good.

casdaddy 2012-05-14 20:06:49

upsetting to veterans

Warning possible spoilers in here.I went into this movie full of hope. When I was in Bosnia I saw up closejust how dangerous "peace keeping missions" can be. The ROE is veryambigious and often times can cost you your life since you have to doalmost everything but load your enemys gun for them, before you canfire. So I expected to see some reality about what our soldiers are doingright now in foriegn countries. What I saw was a farce. When Jacksonfirst flys in you see his helicopter fly over snipers on the rooftops. Hisdoor gunners should have dropped them the second he saw them firing.You have allegedly highly trained soldiers who cant seem to identifywhere fire is coming from. Also the very first thing you learn in basic iswhen someone shoots at you, you take cover not keep running and noteven looking where your attackers are. The worst part was the commonsense factor. According to Standard ROE you can return fire. But onlyas last resort if you have to fire towards civilians. Imagine if when bankrobbers take hostages and fire at cops the cops just took them all out.Same concept . Also Jackson had his troops on the high ground. If hepulls back to where they originally entered the roof then he can take outthe snipers since those are the ones that killed his men then he candeploy and try to take out the armed people with well placed shots. Youare never told to just fire indiscriminately into a crowd. You are supposedto take well placed shots. I know this is nit picking but that is what thismovie should be all about. Our soldiers are going through thingseveryday and people should understand that. We sacrifice our safetytrying to help others and then when things go ugly people want to pointfingers. But instead of me being able to symphatize with jackson I woundup hating him. He showed no remorse whatsoever. That is just wrongbecause no soldier enjoys having to kill. That is just our job. He waswrong and there is no other way around it. He should have known betterthen to open up on the crowd, this was a peace mission and as suchtactics that work in combat have to be tweaked just a little. I am just somad because people can take this movie and point at the military in abad light.This movie just left me with no one to root for. Jackson waswrong. The politicians were politicians. The other Marines tried to hangjackson out to dry. Good Idea but to many holes for something that hasthis much importance. Feel free to contact me to discussfurther.

2012-05-12 16:46:40

Tripe

I personally felt soiled by this outragous piece of jingoistic propoganda. The plot concerns an American Marine who is put on trial for allegedly shooting at civilians in an Embassy Siege. Our intrepid hero calls on the services of an old Vietnam War buddy to defend him against a conspiracy of politicians and military sell outs who want a conviction to improve Americas reputation. In the end out hero is vindicated and it is shown that the various women and children who were killed, were in fact armed adversaries who deserved death. The films images and plot reminds one of a Nazi propoganda film rather than the normal US adventure style movie. Although made prior to September 11th the images of Arabs is designed to inspire hate and fear. This is truly a revolting film

okieinu 2012-05-12 14:22:44

Weak in the Courtroom

this movie left me with an indifferent feeling. I've always enjoyedJacksonand Jones in most movies they've made. And in this one, theirperformanceswere notable. However, the weak link in this flick was the courtroomproceedings. Let's just say there was little drama, and the outcome waspredictable. The characters were underdeveloped which undermined theircredibility to pull off a convincing performance, specifically, BenKingsleyas the US Ambassador to Yemen. His perjured testimony was ridiculous. Somany holes in his made-up story, a Sherman tank could have driventhrough -is story was so out of whack with what really happened...i mean whathappened to all of the other soldiers (witnesses) that would easilydisputehis account of events.Also, consider the evidence presented during the courtroomproceedings....was full disclosure not considered by the screenwriter as astandard (lawful) practice of pre-trial evidence exchange betweenprosecutorand defense. Let's just say the rules were really loose in the courtroom.I would expect more from a high-caliber hollywood courtroom drama.It played out like a bad Perry Mason episode.

jeff cox 2012-05-11 13:06:46

worth the cost of a rental ...

especially if you're either a samuel l. jackson fan (which i happen to beina major way) or a fan of tommy lee jones.i agree with some of the other reviewers ... there are a number of holesinthe flick, but not enough to take away from its overall entertainmentvalue,especially if you're a "fan" as i mentioned above.this was a typically great performance by jackson, although there was oneoutburst of his in the courtroom that was just a bit too similar to his"negotiator" character ... but again, not enough to take away from hisoverall performance (look at the job he does when jones comes to visit himand has to let himself in the door ... he pulled that scene offbrilliantly). and jones closing argument alone was worth the price of therental in my book.jones has some other brilliant moments in his visit to yemen ... showssomevery good emotion. in fact, if you're expecting a repeat of his "samgerard"character a la "the fugitive" and "u.s. marshalls" (as i was), you'll bepleasantly surprised by the range of emotion he shows.there were a couple of scenes that had me going back and forth ... i mean,at one point, i was totally behind jackson, at another point i wasseriouslyquestioning whether he acted correctly, and then i was back in his court(nopun intended). this type of involvement is what makes a movie enjoyable tome.on the whole, i felt all the characters were very believable, althoughsome(like kingsley's wimpy ambassador-diplomat role and bruce greenwood's evilnsa director) were pretty stereotypical. guy pearce does a very good jobasprosecutor (i have to watch "l.a. confidential" again to remember him inthat) ... i'd hate to have him prosecuting me. blair underwood also has avery very nice, but small supporting role.there was a couple of "over the top" scenes ... was it really necessary tohave that fistfight?????? i mean, puhleeease!!!! and jackson's distortedflashback didn't do anything for me.i have to say i was disappointed in the closing comments that come up onthescreen at the end of the movie. please understand, i feel i should bevague,because i don't want to reveal anything ... but the closing comments leftmefeeling "incomplete" ... they brought to mind questions like "well, howdidthat happen? based on what?" but it wasn't enough though, to take awayfrom my overall enjoyment of this flick.overall, i give jackson and jones each a "9" rating for individualperformance and the movie a "7". i hope i didn't steer you wrong.jeff

Joe Que 2012-05-11 03:11:35

What happened to smoke?

When I saw how the mission unfolded, and how they were almost sittingducks for the terrorists, I just thought: "Well, if they can't shootback, whatever happened to smoke?" Smoke could have made it impossiblefor the terrorists to see what they were aiming for, but instead theykept taking bullets. And when enough was enough, they ended up with amassacre.So I missed this aspect of the film. There was never questions how theycould have done the job without exchanging bullets. It was as ifChilders had only two options: kill or be killed. And then you end upthinking that the crowd had it coming, and it becomes anotherpropaganda movie with crazy Arabs, sleazy politicians and spotlessmarines.Having said this, it was an OK movie, and Samuel L. Jackson is always afave of mine.

Prairie Miller 2012-05-05 07:32:16

Hey, dazzle us with a movie, don't shove it down our throats.

kc_jr16 2012-05-04 13:32:01

this movie was okay

--first, I would like to comment on the above comment. just to clarifyAmericans are NOT the only ones to use the term "marines". it ishistorically used to describe soldiers that serve on the ships in thenavy. this is used to distinguish between the sailors and the fightsaboard the ship. they were called "marine sailors" that was thenshortened to marines. and i would like to point out that this termbegan in Britain not America. So please do not complain about simpleterminology that has been used for hundreds of years. (And is stillused by most countries that have a working Navy).--Second, this movie was meant to show that workings of the militarylegal system. While the situation is deplorable, it is unreasonable toblame a soldier for preforming as he was trained, to protect hiscompany of men while defending his country. I am not in anywaycondoning the actions of the main character but i won't deny thatthings like that happen and we as a society need to try and change sothat they don't. the answer is not to complain about a truthful of thesituation.

Benjamin Wolfe 2012-05-02 22:37:53

An injured Marine and an injured Marine

It occurs to me after seeing "The Rules of Engagement" how one thingcan lead to another. 'Point'... things are not always as they wouldseem to be. For Hayes Hodges,(Tommy Lee Jones) a sort of 'underdog'lawyer, who is taking a case that, he feels he has been pulled into.You can see the doubt in his eyes. National Security Adviser Sokal,played by(Bruce Green)a great 'pick' for that role!! Sokal, is viewingan American embassy security video tape, wants to bury the copy, forhis own career appeasement. Sokal offers no help, and seems in allsense to be anti-military as his actions show that he is not there tofind the truth, rather to get an answer that will sit well with hisboss and in the public's eye.This shows the lack of backing that the government will sometimes giveto the troops, or some military situations that tend to be to'politically hairy', when the media takes over, bringing heat andstarting to paint a picture about a story that is not fully accurate.That will get some people in harms way, fast and to some certain death!Samuel L Jackson(Childers) and Tommy Lee Jones' (Hayes Hodges)characters, are close friends. When Terry Childers approaches Hodges,with a crisis on his hands, it makes his friend that has 'chewedjungle' with Terry before, very uneasy and of of center. Hayes in hisquest for answers takes a plane trip to the embassy and the surroundingcity to investigate further, but ends up not liking what he islearning. Furthermore, Terry looks as if he has painted himself into acorner, by the story he has given to 'Hodge' and with AmbassadorMourain (Ben Kingsley) who Childers was coming to take out (rescue)from a fiery situation, is not any help at this point at all forTerry's defense. Guy Pierce plays an upcoming and hungry prosecutor,(Maj. Mark Biggs) who wants Jackson's character, to do nothing lessthan prison, for a middle eastern incident at an American base inYemen. With Hodge getting upset and the upsetting turning to anger,things are starting to get done.This is an excellent military drama that ranks with "A Few Good Men"only prefer this one, over, "Santiago had no code!" as far as anenveloping action drama story. Some will disagree, but this one doesn'tlet you down. Recommended highly!(****) Great direction, WilliamFriedkin

Charlesc-5 2012-05-02 11:05:33

2 stars - VERY Disappointing

Performances were good yet inconsequential. My biggest problem with thefilm was the (REALLY FLAT) ending, which tacked on "what happened to them"titles.THE PROBLEM IS: THE STORY ISN'T TRUE.What was the point of having "what happened to..." this character or thatcharacter if these characters weren't real to begin with? I went to checkto see if the story was true (which would have made me forgive the leadballoon ending) but surprise, it was all made up!Good performances give it one star, and the siege on the embassy WAS awelldone action sequence, giving it another star.

dbk 2012-04-28 16:11:23

Cheesy way to wrap up loose ends.

I felt this movie was worthwhile until the very end. The wrapping up of theloose ends with written explanations ruined the whole movie for me. It'sobvious that they didn't want to the movie to run too long by actuallydepicting the scenes wherein the referred to "investigation" reveals theNational Security Advisor's duplicity being uncovered. I would havepreferred to have seen it rather than to read about it. It would have takenanother fifteen minutes, tops. Besides, I like longer movies as long astheyare entertaining. I can't help but think director Friedkin caved in tostudio demands to keep the movie around two hours.

olof.dellien-2 2012-04-28 00:47:53

Perhaps fun - for marines. Others beware.

What do you know about Soldier's Morale? Now I don't mean the kind asexplained in the Geneva Convention or other sissy internationalconventions.I'm talking about the "real stuff". Well, this movie could be described asacrash-course in it. It is impossible to see the logic in what the peopleinthe movie do, but the essence it boils down to can be summarized as:1) There is a true Soldier's Morale which all Real soldiers (American andotherwise) adhere to2) People who have never been In The Field (i.e. politicians, lawyers etc)can never understand the Soldier's Morale3) Soldier's Morale grants the right to do whatever it takes to solveproblems In The Field, usually killing anybody (man, woman, child, dog orotherwise) in the wayThe plot boils down to demonstrating 1, showing the consequences of 2 (wartrial when non-soldiers interfere in Soldier's businesses) but problemgetsresolved when non-soldiers realize 3.Not even a marine can like this mideival load of Saddam Husseinmorale.

DonB-5 2012-04-25 08:08:54

Right out of the President Clinton playbook

I'm sure the whitehouse is not overly amused by this movie given how closeit hits to home. Since Clinton took office in 1993 the US military has beenturned into a global police force rather than an elite fighting force. Thatis not the role of a soldier, and many missions have gone bad (Somalia forexample) where US soldiers have been killed. Needless to say the buck neverreaches Clinton or anyone high up the food chain as some low level schmoe isforced to fall on his sword instead (for example - when the WH securityoffice obtained over 900 FBI files on Republicans it was deemed a snafu, andno one could remember who hired Craig Livingstone despite sworn statementsthat Hillary Clinton did). This is just so typical - this movie fits theClinton Admin's style to a T. It is no wonder the US military is losing itsbest in large qty. Who'd want to serve under these conditions?

2012-04-24 19:30:35

Interesting as a Snapshot in Time

Interesting scenario; Battle hardened Marine Colonel drops in to secure a besieged embassy and evacuate the staff. His men are getting killed by snipers and a hostile crowd. He gives the order to engage, but is the only person among the group with a clear view of the armed bad guys in the crowd. The Marines fire on the crowd and it creates a firestorm in the press and the State Department with everyone trying to save their careers by sacrificing the Colonel.Even more interesting to me is what this movie portrays almost exactly a year prior to 9/11. Although very relevant post 9/11, I suspect that nobody would touch this script with a 10-ft. pole today. One of the stronger images in the movie, also more relevant today than when it was released, is when the Colonel leaves the courthouse after the verdict and is verbally attacked by the media and public but saluted by his former enemy, the North Vietnamese Colonel.Not a great movie, but one worth watching. If nothing else, it gives a fictional example of why you should not believe everything you hear/see from the media.

James Sanford 2012-04-21 07:13:28

Unlike the much better 'Courage Under Fire,' in which viewers had at least four different sides of a story to choose from, 'Rules' offers only two, and only one of them is genuinely credible.

2012-04-20 09:50:55

Better Than A Few Good Men

Great teaming of two of the finest actors today. Excellent action sequences combined with dramatic courtroom scenes. What more could anyone ask. This film also boasts good supporting cast. There is a good lesson here, also, about Marines under fire and doing what is necessary to accomplish the mission. I hope our government saw this and understands that successful missions depend on our men and women in uniform doing their job without any suit-wearing bueracrats telling them whats-what!