I saw Three Kings tonight. It is entirely convoluted, and I say that as the highest of praise. Three Kings has a compelling,
visceral, and thoroughly confusing punch from moment A -- a bleached out, disorienting, panorama shot of a foot print
strewn desert -- to moment Z -- a rather tidy denouement that is all the more compelling and discombobulating for all of
its somehow wrong but equally right and uplifting tidiness. Think Saving Private Ryan without the tacky bookends and
earnest stabs at profundity. Succinctly put, Three Kings is geared to perplex and as such it is an appropriate -- highly
compelling -- commentary on war, in general, and the aporia that is modern warfare, in particular. It isn't a perfect movie,
but it is definitely damn good.
N.B. The above review comes with a caveat. Prior to seeing Three Kings, I was in a horrible, self-involved, mood with
a Britney Spears' song going beyond its bubble-gum wrappings to a part of my psyche that it had no earthly right to go.
I really needed to get into a movie and Three Kings was there. Buyer beware.
Response to Review
828. CalGal - 10/8/99 4:09:00 AM
TJ--you see my review? I agree with you. Lovely way to describe the ending, btw.
829. TabouliJones - 10/8/99 4:22:51 AM
CalGal,
Yes, I saw your review and agree with everything you said. I especially liked your discussion of Clooney's performance,
which is one of those which people tend not to appreciate. He really brings a commanding presence to the movie and,
as you said, really ties things together. The very brief scene when he shoots the sniper near the end really displays
his skill. The anger and frustration in his face at that moment is perfect to the scene. I can't say more b'c it would be
a bit of a spoiler, but I thought to myself: WOW Clooney's pretty talented.
830. TabouliJones - 10/8/99 4:25:01 AM
Oh yeah, I also agree with you when you say that some people will probably criticize the ending, but,
like you said, it is entirely believable.
831. CalGal - 10/8/99 4:39:04 AM
TJ,
That is the saving grace of the ending.
Happy endings are always associated with implausible resolutions--or you'll hear the accusation of it being
too "neat". But in this case, the villagers going back home would have been every bit as "neat" a resolution--just
a negative one. And in fact, I think Mykelti Williamson seemed a tad too nonchalant with those cameras there.
But it made sense to assume that he was so focused on punishing Clooney that he wasn't thinking straight. It was
entirely believable that that the MP would free Wahlberg, and it made sense that Williamson would view the gold
as a tradeoff that would allow him to do the right thing while saving his ass.
I was discussing this at TableTalk, and some people seem to see it as a morality play. Can't see how.
That is one of its charms--no tracts, no pieties, no bullshit.
832. TabouliJones - 10/8/99 4:45:23 AM
"no tracts, no pieties, no bullshit."
I couldn't agree more. The movie makes you want the soldiers, and the U.S. Army as a whole, to dive in and save the
Iraqui rebels. At the same time you just want the soldiers to get the fuck out of there and back to their families.
I think it would be somehow smug to interpret Three Kings as if it said anything profound or definitive about war.
It is just damn confusing message-wise, which will, I think, prove to be its most lasting strength.
835. CalGal - 10/8/99 4:57:08 AM
Oh, and I agree about Clooney in that scene. Spoiler: Like FUCK! We were almost there, dammit! The hard part was over,
and now things were falling apart!
Also the scene before the showdown with the Iraquis, when he and the soldier were facing off. Very well done.
837. TabouliJones - 10/8/99 5:00:25 AM
Contrast Clooney's performance in Three Kings with his charming performance in Out of Sight and you have an
actor worth watching.
