William Friedkin died recently, so I decided to watch this lesser known movie of his.
Think about this. Reports arise of US troops in a Middle Eastern country brutalizing the locals, with images of it splashed across newspapers worldwide. Hoping to put on a good face, the army decides to prosecute the perpetrators. The world awaits the verdict.
If I simply said this with no context, you might think that I'm describing events in Abu Ghraib. But I'm not. It's the plot of Friedkin's "Rules of Engagement". It's questionable enough that they set the scene in a Middle Eastern country and made it look as though the colonel was justified in opening fire on civilians. But the events take place in Yemen, now leveled by the US-backed Saudi intervention there (they filmed it in Morocco, now leveled by an earthquake).
My point is that this is very much not the sort of movie that I would expect from Friedkin. More like what you'd expect from John McTiernan or Michael Bay (except for the trial).
Think about this. Reports arise of US troops in a Middle Eastern country brutalizing the locals, with images of it splashed across newspapers worldwide. Hoping to put on a good face, the army decides to prosecute the perpetrators. The world awaits the verdict.
If I simply said this with no context, you might think that I'm describing events in Abu Ghraib. But I'm not. It's the plot of Friedkin's "Rules of Engagement". It's questionable enough that they set the scene in a Middle Eastern country and made it look as though the colonel was justified in opening fire on civilians. But the events take place in Yemen, now leveled by the US-backed Saudi intervention there (they filmed it in Morocco, now leveled by an earthquake).
My point is that this is very much not the sort of movie that I would expect from Friedkin. More like what you'd expect from John McTiernan or Michael Bay (except for the trial).