The movie opens with one of the more perturbing scenes I've ever seen in a war film--precisely because it was so
indeterminate. A soldier sees a figure on top of a bluff. What should he do? He shouts to his friends. "Are we shooting?"
But his buddies aren't really paying attention, and are oblivious to any potential danger. The soldier (Mark Wahlberg)
watches him through the scope of his rifle, trying to persuade his fellow travellers to *look* at what's going on, so
they can give him some advice, dammit--and then the figure moves.
This was, apparently, the first time anyone in that unit had the opportunity to fire his gun--and it was the day after
the ceasefire was signed. And yet, that question--"Are we shooting?" Was he even authorized to shoot? Was the soldier
trying to surrender? Does anyone care? Not the soldiers--they were pumped because they had finally seen a dead person.
Welcome to the Desert Storm film era; while Three Kings is not the first movie to use it as a backdrop (that honor goes
to Courage Under Fire), it is the first that could only be made within the framework of the Gulf War. It is also the
first movie to really address warfare as it exists in the post-Viet Nam era. As such, it may actually escape notice
as a war film at all. Which is too bad, given that it is one of the best war movies made in the past 30 years--certainly
better than Saving Private Ryan, whose brilliant beginning and unforgettable emotional impact barely covered up a host
of serious problems.
Three Kings has no such weak points. It is smart, funny, gruesome, painful, political, subtle, and--if that's not
enough--educational. I don't think there was a single moment in the movie that isn't utterly believable. Every scene is
multi-layered; there are no jarring tone shifts. The screenplay is certainly one of the finest this year.
The story alone is "high concept": a map to the bullion in Saddam Hussein's bunker is found (I'll spare you the details)
and four soldiers decide to go after the bullion and get rich. They find it easily, and that is the last part of their
day that goes well. Any other details would prime you, and I really think you'll prefer going in with no knowledge of the
plot. But forget the trailer you've seen. This is not a heist film.
If the movie has a flaw, it is that the final third of the movie--and its ending--might be a letdown of sorts,
given the unconventional beginning. But I don't think it is an unbelievable ending; I also don't think the specifics
of the ending are relevant to the movie's impact. There are no easy answers provided; no sense that damage has been
mended, bad acts redeemed. A subtext of Three Kings (whether deliberate or not) is that nothing is definite, nothing is sure.
You do what you can at that moment in time; if anything genuinely good arises from that action, count yourself lucky.
The movie draws no conclusions from its ending; it just counts itself lucky.
There are no villains--unless you want to call US policy the bad guy, and you won't get too much argument from me on that
one. The modern U.S. Army gets one of its best portrayals in years--the grunts are well-trained and cool under fire,
despite their inexperience. The officers are media savvy, but not stupid and certainly educated and competent.
The media itself doesn't even come off too badly.
Most importantly, the Iraqis are given their full due. Finally--truly for the first time since Lawrence of Arabia--a
movie portrays Arabs as something more than a combination of a few easily identified stereotypes.
The Iraqis aren't stupid, they aren't simple, they aren't cowardly, and they aren't used. That Russell can manage
all this in a movie that also creates four solid heroes is an amazing accomplishment.
The movie is stunningly photographed--I love the bleached out look, but maybe that's because I lived in the desert
for so long. For four years my home was right next to a Saudi army base; they got the look of the Arab soldier exactly
right. The milk truck exploding nearly caused me to shout in outrage--I spent too many years in a country where milk
was a rare commodity not to be fussed by seeing it spill into the sand. There were also some lovely shots of rock
and sand drifts that made me homesick.
Clooney turns in one of those performances that looks easy until you realize how few actors there are that can hold down
the center of a movie this complicated. Wahlberg is one of the sweetest, most genuine presences in the movies today.
Ice Cube has always been the most underrated of the rap actors; he has a solid strength that works well. Cliff Curtis
(a New Zealander) turns in a damn near perfect performance as the nominal leader of the Iraqi village;
the guy who plays the Iraqi interrogator is also superb.
The only showy part in the movie belongs to Spike Jonz (director of Being Malkovich), who takes what could have
been an annoying hick character and does comic and emotional wonders with it. The other major characters
(Mykelti Williamson, Nora Dunn as the woman who may as well be Christiane Amanpour) are nicely tuned.
A note--the two men who play the hairdresser twins acted as advisers on the film. They were part of the Iraqi
resistance during the Gulf War.
Three Kings might upset you, or it might enrage you--depending on how you felt about the politics of the
nice, safe, war in which we kicked Saddam's ass in the first place. But it doesn't give you any cheap morality;
there is no sermonizing. It isn't an anti-war tract, either. Russell presents the reality of the war and the issues
involved and demonstrates how everyone lives within that reality--not questioning it, not fighting it. Just
working with it and doing their best to win out over it.
If nothing else, it kicked Tarzan out of first place on my year's best list. All reports I've read
predict that it won't do well. I hope that's not true; if it is, don't let it be because you decided to wait for video.
