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.

Released in 2000, "Rules of Engagement" is about two Marine officers, Childers (Samuel L. Jackson) and Hodge (Tommy Lee Jones), who have a relationship going back to Vietnam. Childers is charged with murder after leading a team to the Yemen embassy to save the Ambassador and his family during a violent "demonstration" (more like an all-out attack) and calls on Hodge to defend him. To save face, the National Security Adviser (Bruce Greenwood) wants Childers to be the scapegoat at all costs, disregarding blatant evidence to the contrary. Can Hodge, an alcoholic and mediocre lawyer at best, save his buddy who once saved his life? Guy Pierce plays the prosecutor while Ben Kingsley & Anne Archer play the Ambassador and his wife.This is a war-drama by the maker of 1973's "The Exorcist" and 1977's "Sorcerer" similar in tone/plot to 1992's "A Few Good Men." I like "Rules" better, despite some flaws (like being contrived). It may not have an iconic line like "You can't handle the truth!" but it has quality combat action (which "A Few" didn't have) and the story of the protagonists is just more compelling IMHO. The movie's effectiveness hinges on Jackson and Jones convincing us of their characters, their relationship and their crisis, which they easily do. Some critics have decried the film as "racist" (naturally), but it's more like telling the awful truth with 2012's infamous Benghazigate scandal lending support. Director Friedkin said the movie's not anti-Arab, anti-Muslim and certainly not anti-Yemen, it's anti-terrorist. Bear in mind that the King of Morocco had to read and approve the script before the filmmakers could use Morocco for locations and nobody participating from the Arab side of things felt the film was anti-Arab.One critic complained about a peripheral character not resurfacing at the end, but why pan a story for NOT being predictable?The blurb at the end makes it seem like the movie was based on a true story, but it's not. It simply reveals what happens to the characters after the story ends so the viewers aren't left in the air.The movie runs 128 minutes and was shot in Morocco (substituting for Yemen), South Carolina (Vietnam), Virginia and Washington DC.GRADE: B+

During the Vietnam War, Marine Terry Childers (Samuel L. Jackson) executes a prisoner to intimidate a North Vietnamese officer into calling off an attack on his unit and thereby saving the life of Hays Hodges (Tommy Lee Jones). Years later, Hodges is retired and Childers leads a group of Marines sent to relief the embassy in Yemen. Ambassador Mourain (Ben Kingsley) is begging to evacuate and Childers loses 3 men. He orders return fire and 83 civilians are killed. National Security Adviser Bill Sokal (Bruce Greenwood) is angry and intends to make Childers the scapegoat. Childers faces court martial and he asks Hodges to defend him. Maj. Mark Biggs (Guy Pearce) prosecutes.The first thing director William Friedkin has to decide is whether we root for Childers or not. Every step forward is followed by a step backwards. He's working at cross purposes with himself. The action scenes at the embassy are terrific. Friedkin is still at his best doing action. However he should hold those scenes for later in the movie. That way the movie can play with his guilt and innocence. Also the movie skimps on the CSI aspects. It's really questionable how everybody just skips over the snipers across the way. There were snipers but nobody cares. Also Greenwood is basically a cartoon villain. The politics is simplified to a ridiculous amount. The whole thing feels manufactured and not well done. Then the closing credits force a happy ending wrapped up in a nice little bow. That's almost as ridiculous as everything else.

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.