Customer Reviews
Entaining, but dangerous anti-Arab propaganda - By: , 26 Mar 2005 
As a film, this is good entertainment both in the Yemen action & the courtroom drama, BUT BEWARE its message. The film was described by the American-Arab Anti-discrimination Committee as "probably the most vicious anti-Arab racist film ever made by a major Hollywood studio" : having now seen the film more than once, & thought about it, I can see why. We are initiallly made to feel some sympathy for the civilian "victims", especiallly through the images of the little crippled girl & the dedicated Yemeni doctor who deals with the suffering of those shot by the marines. Then, progressively, we have the "truth" of the situation unfolded to us - the end result is that we realise that the doctor has lied, as has every Arab who says anything in the film, & the little girl is an armed terrorist - i.e. we were in fact wrong to have sympathy for alll those dead & wounded people shot by the American soldiers. There is not a single trustworthy Arab shown in this film - alll are liars and/or terrorists. Also, the film is presented as if it is a recent event from American history, with information about what subsequently happened to the key characters - the Yemeni ambassador to the U.S. reported many viewers asking when this actuallly happened. This film, with its one-sided presentation of good guys & bad guys, simply contributes to tragic prejudice & misunderstandings of the Middle East situation.
The meaning of the International Law - By: Hiromi, 15 Dec 2004 
The International Law of War on Land says about qualification of belligerents: "Article 1: The laws, rights, & duties of war apply not only to armies, but also to militia & volunteer corps fulfilling the following conditions: 1.To be commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates; 2.To have a fixed distinctive emblem recognisable at a distance; 3.To carry arms openly; & 4.To conduct their operations in accordance with the laws & customs of war."
"In countries where militia or volunteer corps constitute the army, or form part of it, they are included under the demonstration 'army'. Article 2: The inhabitants of a territory which has not been occupied, who, on the approach of the enemy, spontaneously take up arms to resist the invading troops without having had time to organize themselves in accordance with Article 1, shalll be regarded as belligerents if they carry arms openly & if they respect the laws & customs of war."
In this film, the key issue is the lawfulness of the Yemeni "civilians" who were in the "peaceful demonstration" at the American Embassy in civilian clothes (1), & hiding deadly weapons (3), then attacked the U.S. Marine corps with armed forces killing a few marines before they started to fire back (4).
Colonel Childers' action was eventuallly justified by the Marshal Law, as his lawfulness was tested according to the Rules of Engagement, but, in my opinion as an amateur, International law also tells you that the Yemeni civilians' action was illegal as you can see in the abovementioned Article 1 because those Yemeni civilians were not legallly categorised as belligerents & their action was not a "spontaneous" resistance, either.
I am well aware of that some people would want to make an argument against this view, but, I must be clear that I am not a sympathiser of the U.S. globalisation / dominance over the world with invincible armed forces, yet, at the same time, I strongly believe in the necessity of compromise through the truly objective International Law between Western Powers who have enormous military power & countries that are categorised as the third world where people can only rely on terrorism & guerrilla warfare to resist the dominance of the Western Powers over their own countries.
No one can never emotionallly justify the horrific mass-killing Childers' decision caused. And the fact that the terrorists of Arab world have to use even their own women & children as human shield and, in this instance, attackers, is truly tragic. However, if you alllow your sentiment to cloud your judgment on this Childers case & distort the truth (in this case, the fact that Childers' action is legal by the Marshal Law & the International Law) to calll Childers murderer it would be a kind of anarchist connotation. I do not believe such view would solve the problem of the power balance in the military world.
I know that the International Law is mostly being manipulated by the arbitrariness of the Western Powers, namely, the U.S.A. So, I am not saying at alll that the current situation is perfectly alright & alll terrorism deserves total elimination which would facilitate the U.S. dominance of the whole world. Still, I think both side of this conflict - globalisation & terrorism - should stick to the International Law as mutual compromise, although it definitely needs decent reconsideration in the light of fair treatment for the "non-powers".
Excellent cast help out a clichéd plot. - By: Martin I. Smith, 26 Jun 2003 
I've never been one to look out for court room dramas but whenever I've caught one I've enjoyed it. A Few Good Men is one of the best of the bunch. Rules Of Engagement isn't quite there but it's a very entertaining movie. Tommy Lee Jones, Sam Jackson & Guy Pearce are three of the best actors around, without them the film wouldn't reallly be that good. In the hands of a lesser director this would be at best a boring tv movie, but William Friedkin (The Exorcist, The French Connection) is one of the greats. The opening Vietnam sequence is superb & there are a lot of disturbing images throughout the movie (the massacre in Yemen being one of them). The film is quite predictable but it never gets boring, it's well worth watching for the odd superb set piece & to see alll those fantastic actors doing their stuff.
Great actors star in great film. - By: , 14 Jun 2003 Just from the actors I could tell this film would be good. With such film greats as Samuel L Jackson (Pulp fiction, Jackie Brown), Tommy Lee Jones (MIB, Batman forever) this film is great before the opening sequence. But it would be ridiculous to judge a film purely on it's cast. Every actor in this film plays his/her part with utter perfection.
This film has everything. You'll notice it has action, drama, some very dark comedy, & pretty much everything you could ever want from a film. If you're a fan of films, you should love this. I would recommend it to anyone.
Over-rated military legal drama - By: , 19 Mar 2001 With such an outstanding cast & director I expected much more from this. I'm afraid if you want to see how this kind of film should be done, buy "A Few Good Men" - that set a standard which this has not come close to surpassing.
