Talk:Rules of Engagement (film)

From the ending of this film

The producer and director and writer say that all of these events are based on a true story. We should find out, if these events really happened. Perhaps someone at Wikileaks knows. LOL This article should be classified as Fiction. I cannot recall any embassy shootout and rescue in Sana Yemen. Seeing this movie, makes it look like it was a planned Al Qaeda attack. similar to the USS Cole attack.

69.121.74.52 (talk) 14:03, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Where did the filmmakers say it was based on a true story? This says, "The original—entirely fictional—story, written by James Webb, secretary of the US navy in the Reagan administration, placed the events in an unnamed Latin American country." The story was re-located. Erik (talk | contribs) 15:21, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

This is 'Benghazi' and cover-up, but troops fight back; it was prescient for its time ...

References to use

• Review of "Rules of Engagement" by Mark Freeman, Senses of Cinema
• 'Rules' soldiers on, variety.com
• Arab Americans Denounce Paramount's Racist Film "Rules of Engagement", adc.org
• Film; Friedkin Tries Again for the A-List, nytimes.com

References to use. Erik (talk | contribs) 15:39, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Was this possibly based on a true story? Go back to 1968 in Saigon and you might find your answer.

[1]

Fictional Movie

In the introduction it should be explained that the movie is entirely fictional, especially since the end looks like it would be based on a real case! 79.204.61.253 (talk) 20:48, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

• Aren't most people smart enough to know that movies are fictional unless told otherwise? Most movies I've seen that are based on real events tell you that with a little note at the start. And since this obviously isn't a documentary, the presumption would be fiction. Niteshift36 (talk) 00:03, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

This is 'Benghazi' and cover-up, but troops fight back; it was prescient for its time ... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.81.249.226 (talk) 19:02, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

• This is wholly unrelated. Niteshift36 (talk) 19:59, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Not even close to Benghazi...movie was made in 2000, Benghazi happened under Obama's administration. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.51.215.120 (talk) 14:30, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Plot

The film opens with Operation Kingfisher, a disasterous American advance in the Vietnam War, and shows Lt. Terry Childers (Samuel L. Jackson) execute an unarmed prisoner to intimidate an NVA officer into calling off an ambush of American marines, thereby saving the life of Lt. Hays Hodges (Tommy Lee Jones).

The movie jumps to 1996; Childers and his Marine Expeditionary Unit are called to evacuate the United States Ambassador to Yemen from the embassy grounds, after a routine demonstration against American influence in the Gulf turns into rock-throwing and sporadic fire from nearby rooftops. After escorting the Ambassador to a waiting helicopter, Childers returns to the embassy to retrieve the American flag; meanwhile several Marines are killed by the Yemeni snipers on nearby rooftops. Childers orders his men to open fire on the crowd (many are firing weapons at his men) and "waste the motherfuckers", resulting in the death of 83 civilian protesters.

Back in the United States, the National Security Adviser decides to proceed with a court martial to try and deflect negative public opinion about the United States, shouldering all the blame for the incident onto Childers, and salvage American relations in the Arabian Gulf. Childers finds Hodge,whose life he saved, is now serving in the JAG Division and asks him to be his defence attorney at the upcoming tribunal.

The film closes with Childers found Not Guilty, and suggests that the National Security Advisor was convicted of failing to produce a surveillance tape that may have shown armed protesters, and the ambassador charged with perjury for suggesting that Childers had acted negligently during the evacuation. The film closes, stating that Childers retired honorably from the Marines Corp.

Ltchilders (talk) 22:02, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Box office hit?

A movie that cost $61 mi, and returned $71 mi, is far from a hit (it's actually a flop). Shouldn't something be said of Friedkin's self-serving description of the movie's commercial performance. Rafe87 (talk) 05:32, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

In his defence it did open at number one, and was top at the box-office for that week - the big problem is that its international box-office was tiny. It largely depends on the timing of Friedkin's comment. -Ashley Pomeroy (talk) 21:22, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Not Arabs

It seems to me that the article should point out that, when Friedkin defends the movie against accusations of being anti-Arab by saying that Arabs in Morocco did not object to the script, he fails to understand that Morocco is not an Arab country. Óli Gneisti (talk) 10:08, 18 August 2021 (UTC)