Rules of Engagement

Herald rating: * *

Cast: Samuel L Jackson, Tommy Lee Jones

Director: William Friedkin

Rating: M, (violence, offensive language)

Running time: 127 minutes

Screening: Village, Hoyts cinemas from Thursday

Review: Russell Baillie

This is what you learn from Rules of Engagement: like "military intelligence," "military justice" is something of an oxymoron. But we knew that already because there's been other movies about that - better films about what happens when decisions made in the heat of battle are dissected in the cold wood-panelled walls of a courtroom.

Another lesson from ROE: American troops do not like being shot at when they in the middle of noble acts like rescuing an ambassador, his family and, by golly, Old Glory from rampaging Arab hordes apparently intent on storming a US embassy somewhere in the Middle East. So much do they dislike this they are likely to start firing back and damn the consequences - the consequences being a high body count of women and children out front.

Oh wait, one more thing: it's really tough trying to do your warrior duty in this man's US army. Especially if you've been in the job since losing your market share in Vietnam ...

No, while ROE may hinge on a dilemma - if a US military officer is left no choice but to inflict civilian casualties to save his troops, should he do it? - it just doesn't get away with being anything other than an exercise in American jingoism and a crummy movie at that.

Certainly, it's kind of watchable, what with the pairing of Samuel L. Jackson as Colonel Terry Childers, the commander of the embassy rescue mission, and Tommy Lee Jones as Colonel Hayes Hodges, his fellow 'Nam vet and army burn-out who defends him in a subsequent court martial.

But Jackson especially just seems to be going through the motions, all glowering eyes and trademark swagger. While Jones, with his disillusioned character at least has something approaching depth to his character.

But most everything else is a minus. That's whether it's Vietnam flashbacks which look as if they were shot down the tropical section of director Friedkin's local garden centre, the unconvincing embassy sequences (good thing those towel-heads never figured on going round to the back door, huh?), and the sense of deja vu that pervades the formulaic courtroom scenes.

It makes its obvious predecessors A Few Good Men and Courage Under Fire look like works of peacenik genius by comparison. Undoubtedly that and its otherwise solid delivery helped it do sturdy box office Stateside and mark it as a comeback for veteran Friedkin.

But it's a cop-out of a film, one which pretends to contemplate some big questions about military duty, ethics - while offering a detective story about What Really Happened in the fatal incident - but its bluster and sabre-rattling drowns out any attempt at answers. Popcorn propaganda.