KAUFEN RULES OF...
Amazon.com Amazon.ca Amazon.co.uk Amazon.de Amazon.fr
IMDb > Rules of Engagement (2000)
Rules of Engagement
[Add to My Movies]
Quicklinks
Top Bezüge
trailers and videosBesetzung und StabDies und dasOffizielle WebsitesDialogzitate
Übersicht
HauptübersichtDetailangabenBesetzung und StabBeteiligte Firmentv schedule
Auszeichnungen & Kritiken
NutzerkommentareKommentar/KritikUsenet Kritik(en)awardsIhre Bewertungparents guideEmpfehlungenDiskussionsforum
Inhaltsangaben & Dialogzitate
Inhaltsangabeplot synopsisStichworte zum InhaltAmazon.com VideoDialogzitate
Fun-Ecke
Dies und dasPannenSoundtrackUlkiges im AbspannAlternativfassungenBezüge zu anderen TitelnHäufig gestellte Fragen (FAQ)
Weitere Angaben
Zu kaufen bei...EinspielergebnisseStarttermineDrehorteTechnische AngabenLaserdisk(s)DVD(s)LiteraturNachrichtenartikel
Promotionmaterial
Werbezeilentrailers and videosFilmplakateFotogalerie
Nicht-lokale Verknüpfungen
Spielorte und -zeitenOffizielle WebsitesVerschiedenes...Fotographiensound clipsvideo clips

Rules of Engagement (2000)

Werbung
Registrieren oder melden Sie sich an, um diesen Titel zu bewerten.
Nutzer-Bewertung: 6.2/10 (13,901 Bewertungen)
Fotos (Alle 100 | Diashow)

Übersicht

Regisseur:
William Friedkin
Drehbuchautoren (WGA):
James Webb (story)
Stephen Gaghan (screenplay)
Premierendatum:
31. März 2000 (USA) mehr
Werbezeile:
A hero should never have to stand alone.
Plot:
An attorney defends an officer on trial for ordering his troops to fire on civilians after they stormed a U.S. embassy in a third world country. full summary | add synopsis
Filmpreise:
1 win & 1 nomination mehr
Nutzerkommentare:
Interesting but too simplistic and lacking in courtroom sparks mehr

Besetzung

 (Hauptdarsteller)
Create a character page for: ?

Weitere Details

Alternativ:
Règles d'engagement, Les (Canada: French title)
Rules - Sekunden der Entscheidung (Deutschland)
Rules of Engagement - Die Regeln des Krieges (Deutschland) (TV title)
mehr
MPAA:
Rated R for scenes of war violence, and for language.
Länge:
128 Min
Produktionsland:
USA | Canada | UK | Deutschland
Sprache:
Englisch | Arabisch
Farbe:
Farbe (DeLuxe)
Seitenverhältnis:
2.35 : 1 mehr
Tonverfahren:
DTS | Dolby Digital
MOVIEmeter: ?
V 11% since last week why?
Firma:
Dune Films mehr

Fun-Ecke

Dies und das:
The opposing attorney for Hodges (Tommy Lee Jones) is Maj. Biggs. In U.S. Marshals (1998), Gerard (Jones) has a deputy named Biggs. mehr
Pannen:
Faktische Fehler: The Court-Martial board had several Lieutenant Colonels sitting on it. Since Childers is a Full Colonel, all of the members should have been equal or higher rank according to the UCMJ (Uniform Code of Military Justice). mehr
Dialogzitate:
Colonel Hayes Hodges: If this gets bad, it gets bad for both of us.
Colonel Terry L. Childers: Why, Hodge? Are you going to jail too?
mehr
Bezüge zu anderen Titeln:
Ausschnittsweise enthalten in Reel Bad Arabs: How Hollywood Vilifies a People (2006) (V) mehr
Soundtrack:
On the Threshold of Liberty mehr

Häufig gestellte Fragen (FAQ)

This FAQ is empty. Add the first question.
13 out of 22 people found the following comment useful:-
Interesting but too simplistic and lacking in courtroom sparks, 14 November 2003
Author: bob the moo von Birmingham, UK

Years have past since Col Hodges and Col Childers were comrades in combat. Hodges is now retired while Childers is still on active service in the Middle East. When he is called in to help protect and evacuate the US Embassy in the middle of a riot, Childers orders his men to return fire despite not having any definite targets. With a crowd of 80 dead, many women and children, the authorities are forced to go after Childers to have someone to blame. Childers turns to his old friend to help defend him.

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.

Was the above comment useful to you?
mehr

Diskussionsforen

Discuss this title with other users on IMDb Diskussionsforum für Rules of Engagement (2000)
Recent Posts (updated daily)User
It Could Never Happen crossini-1
The ending was absurd! parkerdg
Propaganda at its best gothic-2
A Flag is more important than Marine´s life ? lobo-cinzento
Is this a TRUE STORY? mamatodallas
What's your favorite line or lines of this movie? dnljack01-1
mehr

Empfehlungen

Wenn Ihnen dieser Film gefallen hat, empfehlen wir:
- - - - -
Jarhead Apocalypse Now San Paolo GoldenEye Blue Streak
IMDb Nutzer-Bewertung:
IMDb Nutzer-Bewertung:
IMDb Nutzer-Bewertung:
IMDb Nutzer-Bewertung:
IMDb Nutzer-Bewertung:
Hinzufügen einer Empfehlung | Zeigen Sie mehr Empfehlungen

Weitere Links

Besetzung und Stab Beteiligte Firmen Externe Kritiken
Nachrichtenartikel IMDb Action section IMDb USA section
Add this title to MyMovies

Sie können das IMDb-Team auf Fehler und Lücken auf dieser Seite hinweisen. Ihre Angaben werden überprüft und sofern akzeptabel bei kommenden Datenbankaktualisierungen miteinbezogen. Wenn Sie auf den Button links klicken, starten Sie den neuen und verbesserten Schritt-für-Schritt Prozess zur Dateneingabe.