Rules Of Engagement 2000

Critics score:
36 / 100

Reviews provided by RottenTomatoes

Susan Stark, Detroit News: At their best, [Jackson and Jones] are merely two of the most cunning, commanding performers in all of movies. Read more

Philip Wuntch, Dallas Morning News: Reconfirms the talent of onetime wunderkind director William Friedkin. Read more

Elvis Mitchell, New York Times: There is little suspense. Read more

Geoff Pevere, Toronto Star: The casting pays off. Read more

Steve Murray, Atlanta Journal-Constitution: What distinguishes Rules is its use of xenophobia to bolster its legal arguments, and presumably tap audience's deep-seated prejudices. Read more

Kenneth Turan, Los Angeles Times: It doesn't have the chops or the ambition to wrestle with the questions it raises. Read more

Houston Chronicle: Read more

Paul Clinton (CNN.com), CNN.com: At its best, Rules Of Engagement is merely bad. Read more

Steven Rosen, Denver Post: Jones and Jackson in uniform absolutely command our respect. Read more

Lisa Schwarzbaum, Entertainment Weekly: The two actors are soldiers of hard-headed substance at attention in a field of milder actors at ease. Read more

Globe and Mail: Read more

James Berardinelli, ReelViews: Rules of Engagement suffers from a serious split personality disorder. Read more

Roger Ebert, Chicago Sun-Times: At the end we have a film that attacks its central issue from all sides and has a collision in the middle. Read more

Bob Graham, San Francisco Chronicle: This drama about a massacre in Yemen takes on unexpected interest because the main character, a fiery-eyed Marine combat hero played by Samuel L. Jackson, is presented as a believably flawed man. Read more

Geoff Andrew, Time Out: Read more

Todd McCarthy, Variety: A broad and obvious approach to ambiguous material that's virtually all plot mechanics with little nuance or characterization. Read more

Michael Atkinson, Village Voice: Read more