Rules Of Engagement review

Swedish writer Ellen Key famously said: "The worst barbarity of war is that it forces men collectively to commit acts against which individually they would revolt with their whole being."

One man who knows all about the barbarity of war is Colonel Terry Childers Samuel L Jackson), a decorated 30-year marine veteran with combat experience in Vietnam, Beirut and Desert Storm.

Now the same country which asks Childers to serve and protect, is putting him on trial for allegedly ordering the slaughter of 83 innocent men, women and children in a bungled rescue mission in the Yemen.

Childers claims that the victims were all armed but foreign authorities strenuously deny the allegations, stating that no guns were found on the bodies. Something clearly doesn't add up.Faced with a court martial for violating the rules of engagement, Childers turns to old buddy Colonel Hays Hodges (Tommy Lee Jones) to represent him.

Hodges isn't the most brilliant legal eagle in the service but he does understand what it means to risk death under enemy fire, having served alongside his client in Vietnam.Childers saved his life during an ambush, now the least Hodges can do is to salvage his friend's career.

A film of two halves (the first decidedly better than the second), Rules Of Engagement is a misfiring courtroom drama in the mould of A Few Good Men which tries to give voice to an intelligent debate on the thin line separating necessary force and cold-blooded murder.

Unfortunately, Stephen Gaghan's screenplay is too concerned with courthouse fireworks to give serious attention to the morality and ethics of war, or to deal sensitively with political ructions in the Middle East.

Instead, he creates a simplistic battle of good versus evil, with Hodges and Childers on one side, and Bruce Greenwood's corrupt National Security Adviser on the other.

Friedkin opens impressively with a frenetic 20-minute sequence in Yemen,detailing the events leading up to the bungled rescue mission of Ambassador Mouchain (Ben Kingsley) and his family, and the massacre in the town square.

Once the film settles down to hear evidence in the courtroom, Friedkin seems to lose interest, allowing tension to dissipate and the pace to slow to a crawl.

Jackson has one impassioned speech-cum-rallying cry on the stand which allows him to lose his temper, swear and strike the fear of God into the galleries, but otherwise, the testimonies hold no last-minute surprises. No-one acts out ofcharacter, suddenly breaking down under the pressure of cross-examination.

Jackson and Jones both wear their combats with a certain amount of weary pride, but neither have much acting to do. Bruce Greenwood chews scenery as is he hasn't eaten for days as the crazed villain of the piece, affecting a stare of wide-eyed lunacy on the stand.

You expect Hodges to pull some clever legal trick out of the bag and ensure Sokal gets his comeuppance, but the big pay-off never comes.