Un avvocato difende un ufficiale sotto processo per aver ordinato alle sue truppe di sparare sui civili dopo che hanno preso d'assalto un'ambasciata degli Stati Uniti in un paese del Medio O... Leggi tuttoUn avvocato difende un ufficiale sotto processo per aver ordinato alle sue truppe di sparare sui civili dopo che hanno preso d'assalto un'ambasciata degli Stati Uniti in un paese del Medio Oriente.Un avvocato difende un ufficiale sotto processo per aver ordinato alle sue truppe di sparare sui civili dopo che hanno preso d'assalto un'ambasciata degli Stati Uniti in un paese del Medio Oriente.
- Regia
- Sceneggiatura
- Star
- Premi
- 1 vittoria e 2 candidature totali
- Jimi
- (as Ahmed Abounouom)
Recensioni in evidenza
With a pair of real heavyweights in lead roles I was quite looking forward to this film. It is quite easy to get into the film as the opening 40 minutes are pretty exciting and shocking in equal measure it forces you to think where you stand on the action taken by Childers in both past and present. However as the film goes on the moral debate becomes simplified and it is clear where we are being steered, as opposed to being allowed to think things out for ourselves. The `debate' or thoughtful side is lost and we are left with the courtroom drama side of things.
I'm not a big fan of courtroom thrillers as they often rely on unlikely twists at the end and lots of shouting in place of substance. However I do enjoy the odd one if it hangs together and has energy. However, the courtroom scenes here never really get off the ground and surprisingly (given the emotive subject) really lack energy and twists. Even the conclusion of the film is a real damp squid, the verdict is simply delivered, so if you're expecting twists and turns and big revelations forget it. Inexplicably, the film puts up two or three captions over the final shot to tell us more information for some of these the film would have been much more exciting if it had worked these into the final 20 minutes of the film. To have them as flat words on a screen is pointless (especially since this isn't a true story!).
Jones and Jackson both do good work, as you'd expect for a pair of tough nuts such as they. Jackson has the better character (until the script weakens itself). Pearce is OK in support but the script doesn't give him too much to work with, his side of the case is easy of course, so the film stops him overpowering the court case at the same time as it simplifies it's stance. Support from faces such as Kingsley, Archer, Greenwood and Underwood is OK but in some cases are so brief to be cameos.
Overall this starts well, but it fairs to really involve once the moral debate side of the film is simplified and phased out. The question `what would you do' is rendered null and void with each flashback Jackson has. The courtroom scenes barely fizzle let alone ignite the screen and the film putters to a poor ending that is badly done. Worth seeing with good performances from the leads but still a pretty big disappointment.
There are some outstanding action scenes in the first 30 minutes and if you have a 5.1surround system, it gets quite a workout. After that, the story settles down into a court battle.
Its politics are typical Hollywood: the government is corrupt with the main villain the National Security Adviser who burns a video tape that would clear a U.S. Marine colonel from being framed for murder. That colonel also is a black man which makes the story even more politically correct. Samuel J. Jackson plays that role, a Col. "Terrry Childers." Jones plays his attorney, "Col. Hayes Hodges." The two veteran actors play off each other very well.
It gets even more dramatic when two other witnesses lie and make justice look almost impossible to attain in the case. But, dramatics aside, it's a good story and certainly an entertaining one. Once again, William Friedkin has directed a good movie.
One more point; Watching this film post 911 gives it an all too creepy reality.
The performances of Tommy Lee Jones, Samuel L. Jackson and Guy Pearce were very good. Probably no Oscars here, but well worth watching.
Lo sapevi?
- QuizWhen Hodges (Tommy Lee Jones) returns to the bombed-out embassy, there is a picture of then Vice President Al Gore on the charred wall. Gore and Jones were roommates at Harvard.
- BlooperNational Security Adviser Bill Sokal is worried about political pressure from other countries about the internationally publicized "slaughter of innocent civilians in Yemen", so he hides the one piece of evidence that would exonerate Col. Childers: a video tape of the crowd initiating contact with the Marines. Sokal does this as a means of "throwing Childers under the bus". The problem with that is that not only would that tape reveal that Col. Childers was innocent and performed his duty admirably, but it would remove all political pressure from the US - thus removing the reason why Sokal hid the tape in the first place. Couple that with the evidence presented in the courts-martial that proved Col. Childers innocent, and it would have been painfully obvious that Col. Childers performed his duties honorably and, therefore, would have been returned to active duty. In short, Sokal helped propagate the very problem he was trying to solve: political pressure against the US, that would cause embassies to be removed around the world.
- Citazioni
Colonel Hayes Hodges: You ever had a pissed-off Marine on your ass?
National Security Advisor William Sokal: Is that a threat?
Colonel Hayes Hodges: Oh, yes, sir.
- Versioni alternativeSome international prints, made for DVD/TV broadcast, have removed the Paramount logo and fade straight into the Seven Arts Pictures logo. The opening titles also now read "Seven Arts Pictures Present in association with Paramount Pictures". This is due to the fact that Seven Arts owned the international rights and wanted prime credit.
- Colonne sonoreOn the Threshold of Liberty
by Mark Isham
Contains a sample performed by Mark Isham
Courtesy of The Windham Hill Group
I più visti
- How long is Rules of Engagement?Powered by Alexa
- What is "Rules of Engagement" about?
- Is "Rules of Engagement" an action movie?
- Does Samuel L. Jackson have a fight scene?
Dettagli
- Data di uscita
- Paesi di origine
- Siti ufficiali
- Lingue
- Celebre anche come
- Bajo Fuego
- Luoghi delle riprese
- Marocco(Embassy)
- Aziende produttrici
- Vedi altri crediti dell’azienda su IMDbPro
Botteghino
- Budget
- 60.000.000 USD (previsto)
- Lordo Stati Uniti e Canada
- 61.335.230 USD
- Fine settimana di apertura Stati Uniti e Canada
- 15.011.181 USD
- 9 apr 2000
- Lordo in tutto il mondo
- 71.732.303 USD
- Tempo di esecuzione2 ore 8 minuti
- Colore
- Mix di suoni
- Proporzioni
- 2.39 : 1