Three Kings

Three Kings, the new "Action-Drama-Comedy" starring George Clooney (of ER fame) is a decent effort that tries to be many things. Even though it accomplishes many of them admirably, I couldn't help but be struck with the fact that even at its reasonable length (1:51) it is still a remarkably thin movie.

The story of Three Kings (stolen gold) comes to us pretty clearly from the trailer, and is nicely summed up by George Clooney: "Saddam stole it from the shieks, and I have no problem stealing it from Saddam," he says.

With a secret map, and three bickering soldiers along for the ride (there are actually four kings in the movie) we're off into the desert after stolen gold. With their crackerjack plan, the men think they'll be back before lunch. Of course, things are going to get a little more complicated than that.

What is Three Kings about? I've called it an "Action-Drama-Comedy" (an "Actramady," I wonder?) and each part gets time in the spotlight the movie progresses. Since it is really three movies in one, breaking the segments apart can give you an idea of what kind of film-goer or reviewer is going to like the film. Putting the pieces together will let you know how much I liked Three Kings.

As an Action movie, Three Kings is hit and miss. Director David O. Russell (who also wrote the screenplay) has put together some remarkable shots and sequences. There are several jarring moments as we cut to a "point of view" shot to emphasize the characters' dialogue. The effects are jarring when you first see them, but are very effective. In the later part of the film they are used quite effectively to generate a strong emotional response from the audience. The effects worked for me, but seemed sometimes like an attempt to visually create the kind of dialogue effects we see in movies like Pulp Fiction. More on that style a little later in this review.

For action sequences, Three Kings gives us one of the best if not the best this year. As complications in the plot begin, gunfire erupts and we can see each characters' point of view, and how they react to it. The effect is intense and gripping.

This style carries over through most of the film, up to the final sequence, which, to be blunt, is disappointing and rather run-of-the-mill.

For all of the promise, Three Kings gets a suggested Matinee viewing for its Action portion (or 4 out of 5). There is a lot of excellent gripping material here, but we never get a big payoff at the end of the film.

At the same time, Three Kings is more than just an Action movie, so we get more than gunbattles. At the point where the story takes place, the war has officially ended, and a ceasefire is in effect. As a result, Clooney and company can get into places and do things with bravado rather than guns.

In an Action movie, we move from action sequence to action sequence with just enough pauses in between to establish our characters and villains. If you've seen more than a few of these types of movies, you can see the formula coming a mile away. Three Kings is a better movie than that.

It seems that screenwriter David O. Russell set out to do tell us things in Three Kings with his script:

As a reviewer seeing a movie, those are some pretty important points, and movies about important issues serve an important and lonely role. At the same time, they are all points that I have been aware of since 1991. The result left me with a hollow feeling--wanting some real meat to the story, when I was supposed to come away rethinking my government's strategy in a war.

Its obvious that Russell is trying to make Three Kings a definitive movie about Desert Storm. Warner Brothers has agreed with him with the fall release date. The problem with his attempt is that we've already heard his message. Movies like Platoon and Born on the Fourth of July took us places in the Vietnam War that the cameras didn't and couldn't. They gave us a vision of the minds and souls of the men who were on the lines doing the fighting (or, more precisely, Oliver Stone's ideas about what they were thinking and feeling--many veterans have voiced their disapproval for that work.) Unfortunately for Russell, Three Kings doesn't take us anyplace that CNN hasn't been already.

At the same time, a reviewer will grant a movie like Three Kings a measure of slack for even venturing into the empty wasteland of movies with an agenda and a message.

For the Drama portion, Three Kings gets a rating of Rent it on Video (2 out of 5). The film has a serious agenda, but that agenda is nothing that we don't already know.

Finally, this review would not be complete without talking about the Comedy aspects of the film, and specifically the dialogue.

David O. Russell has filled Three Kings with some very funny dialogue. From the first words spoken in the film, "are we shooting?" Russell has written some fast-paced and genuinely funny dialogue which pervades the film. Three Kings continues in the trend set by Pulp Fiction: characters are doing some dangerous if not horrific things, but manage to keep up the witty banter. For me, this was the strongest part of the film, especially in the first act where we get clearly defined and interesting characters. As frequent film-goers and critics know, much of this seemingly unimportant dialogue will later turn up in the film as part of the punchlines and payoffs. Russell further punctuates his dialogue with dramatic shots to drive it home, which works well!

Three Kings does not disappoint in dialogue or humor. If you don't mind your humor added to some tense, violent situations, you will find yourself laughing out loud at several points in this film.

For the Comedy portion, Three Kings gets a rating of Matinee Viewing (4 out of 5).

Some notes on the performances in the film are in order.

George Clooney is your basic loveable rogue that he made popular on ER. George has been more or less typecast in this kind or role, but Doug Ross is not the worst role to reprise. He performs all of the lead actor roles appropriately. The only problem is that the audience never, even for a moment, believes that Clooney isn't on the side of the angels, even when he seems to be out just for himself.

Mark Wahlberg has the most realistic character in the film, who actually has to be won over to doing the right thing. As the film progresses, he seems to genuinely change his attitudes and become a better person. Wahlberg's performance is strong, positive and likable.

Ice Cube also puts in a strong performance. His character is a little on the preachy side (being a little too good to be believable as a thief) but this is a strong, positive role for an African American actor, which makes Three Kings something different.

Putting the three parts of the film together gives a net rating between  Second Run Theater or Matinee (or 3.3 out of 5).

Three Kings is a smart, funny and slick looking film. It stumbles when it tries to be something more and something deeper.

Three Kings is rated R for violence, adult situations, language and dialogue, and would be appropriate fare for older teenagers.

Credits:

Staring George Clooney, Mark Wahlberg, Ice Cube, Spike Jonze, Nora Dunn.

Written and Directed by David O. Russell.

Original Story by John Ridley

Rating System Note:

This film is rated according to my unique system. The ratings reflect my suggestion as to how you should spend your hard earned movie-going dollars. The ratings are as follows:

George Clooney (left) and Mark Wahlberg make off with Saddam Hussein's cherished blue blanket in the war drama Three Kings.

The above image blatently stolen from www.theonion.com, your on-line source for news