When the American embassy in Yemen finds itself under siege, Childers and his team are sent in to rescue Ambassador Mourain (BEN KINGSLEY), his wife (ANNE ARCHER) and their young son while securing the embassy. After removing the ambassador and his family and losing three of his men to sniper gunfire, Childers orders his men, including Capt. Lee (BLAIR UNDERWOOD), to open fire on the hostile protesters.

The resulting large loss of life immediately creates a political firestorm that reaches the highest levels of the U.S. government. As such, National Security Adviser William Sokal (BRUCE GREENWOOD), not wanting the U.S. to take the blame for what he considers the actions of a lone madman, has Childers brought up on charges of violating the rules of engagement by killing presumably innocent people during that conflict.

Unable to believe he's facing a court-martial for what he considered to be the correct course of action, Childers asks Hodges to defend him in a military trial that's being rushed through the system. Despite worrying that he's not a good enough lawyer to defend his friend and that he might taint his reputation of being the son of the legendary Gen. H. Lawrence Hodges (PHILIP BAKER HALL), Hays decides to help Childers.

As the trial begins and military lawyer Maj. Mark Biggs (GUY PEARCE) heads the prosecution and their seemingly strong case, Hodges, with the assistance of Capt. Tom Chandler (MARK FEUERSTEIN), sets out to learn what he can about Childers' actions in Yemen, refute the evidence or lack thereof presented by Biggs, and prevent his longtime friend from being found guilty as charged.

Next up is a plot and/or conspirators that stack the odds against that soldier or officer to the point that there seems to be little or no chance of them being exonerated. Of course, the inclusion of the determined defense lawyer is the next rule, and whether he or she is green or the seasoned military type, they must go through the typical emotions - hesitation, hope, and dejection, among others - that naturally mirror the dramatic arc of the court case.

Finally, since most military courtroom dramas - just like your run of the mill, cinematic "civilian" ones - usually end with the not guilty verdict (lest they alienate the audience for investing their time and/or emotions into the proceedings), the filmmakers must make the moments leading up to that conclusion as believable, riveting and as full of uncertainty as humanely possible.

As such, the question that naturally follows is whether the latest such film, "Rules of Engagement," follows those rules and proves its case to its moviegoing panel of judges. While it has a great cast and some powerful scenes, I'd imagine this one's going to end up with something of a hung jury.

That is, some viewers and critics will ignore or overlook its flaws and enjoy the proceedings, while others will find the film guilty of some problems that prevent it from being as good as it could and should have been. For what it's worth, the film - which isn't based on true events despite some closing "whatever happened to" credits that imply otherwise - does follow most of the rules and should prove to be a general crowd-pleasing experience.

Working from the screenplay by Stephen Gaghan (a TV writer for shows such as "The Practice" and "American Gothic") - that's based on an original story by James Webb - Academy Award winning director William Friedkin ("The French Connection," "The Exorcist") follows the well-blazed trails of similarly plotted films such as "A Few Good Men," and "Courage Under Fire."

Like those pictures, this one features big profile actors, a mostly engaging plot, and a decent amount of dramatic and highly charged, emotional fireworks related to the questioning of the motives and lethal actions of some of those serving in the military.

Although they mainly serve as plot catalysts and expositive devices, the film's two best scenes don't occur in the courtroom as one might expect, but instead involve a Vietnam battle flashback and the instigating incident at the American embassy in Yemen. Friedkin infuses those several minute sequences with the proper action and suspense and they're by far the film's most riveting moments.

Those stemming from them, however, aren't quite as powerful and that's due to several problems. For one, the plot doesn't offer enough suspense and/or doubt about the defendant's actions. Sure, he does some morally ambiguous/questionable/disturbing things that paint the first half of the film in the proper shade of gray.

Yet, the actions and motives of the film's villain - played too one-dimensionally by Bruce Greenwood ("Double Jeopardy," "The Sweet Hereafter") - are far too obvious and we see a vital piece of evidence that clearly demonstrates whether Childers' actions - notwithstanding the related moral issues - were justifiable or not, at least in the eyes of the military courtroom. The result is that what was once dubious no longer is, and that removes what could have been an interesting layer of complexity to the character and the final jury decision.

What's left then, is a rather straightforward "David vs. Goliath" type story where the defense lawyer must figure out how to overcome seemingly insurmountable odds in proving his friend's innocence with little time to prepare. While that familiar element holds the viewer's interest simply by making one naturally wonder how (but not necessarily if) the protagonist will succeed, the filmmakers unfortunately don't deploy any tremendous or imaginative tactics for the lawyer and his client to use in doing so. The result, while still easy to watch and moderately intriguing, doesn't contain much of the audience pleasing moments most viewers are accustomed to seeing in pictures like this.

The film's biggest assets, however, are its two leads. Both Tommy Lee Jones ("Double Jeopardy," "The Fugitive") and Samuel L. Jackson ("Deep Blue Sea," "Pulp Fiction") are commanding figures and often play the type of big screen characters audiences love to watch. While neither performer's character here is written with enough depth to make them truly interesting (we often learn about them through comments rather than observations such as about Hodges being divorced and a former alcoholic, while Childers has no outside life), the seasoned actors do their best and do offset many of the film's more glaring problems.

Among them is the previously mentioned early disclosure to the audience of important facts, and the main villain being, well, too villainous when a more nebulous characterization would have made the character and his interaction with the co-protagonists far more interesting. In addition, Jones character doesn't go after some important but missing evidence as fervently as he should and one would expect (especially considering it's all he really has with which to work).

Meanwhile, a major and quite obvious piece of evidence - the easy to identify trajectory of bullet holes in the embassy building - is never brought into play despite the fact that if such holes went up, that meant the bullets came from protesters on the ground and Childers' actions were justifiable, at least from a military standpoint

A few scenes are also thrown in that are too obvious in their directorial motives -- including the fistfight between Childers and Hodges and the latter's repeated views and then brief encounter with a one-legged girl back in Yemen -- and reek too much of obvious symbolism. Finally, and despite probably having no practical way to get around the involved logistics, the scenes of Jones and Jackson thirty years ago in Vietnam are hampered by the fact that they don't look thirty years younger than they do now. That's not a big problem, but it is rather obvious.

Overall, however, the film still manages to be moderately compelling and it's certainly never boring to watch despite those problems. While the resolution or outright avoidance of them, however, as well as having more fleshed out lead characters would have made the film more credible and that much more riveting and entertaining, it has enough decent moments and manages to overcome its deficiencies to enough of a degree to earn a passing grade. As such, "Rules of Engagement" rates as a 6.5 out of 10.