Rating: 
Summary: By No Means The "Best" of '99
Review: I bought this movie after hearing all the great things, how "neglected" it was, etc... And I'll agree, it was somewhat entertaining. Some of the cinematography tricks are pretty neat, but that's the only thing I found appealing about the movie. It just seemed to brush lightly on the major touch elements to the movie. It has a political agenda underneath which, while is a good message, appears heavy-handed in the end. It is OK, but by now means the best of '99. Save your money to get Fight Club. Now that is definitely the best of '99.
Rating: 
Summary: What a Bomb!
Review: I almost fear it's unfair of me to review the movie, because I couldn't watch too much of it. The language was unbearable. If you give stars each time a profanity is used, this movie is for you. I'm no prude, but this is ridiculous!
Rating: 
Summary: Actually 4 Kings, but who's counting?
Review: This is the type of film that I call a really well made American film. It pays homage to the war movies of old, yet doesn't seem cliched or dated. That is thanks in part to the fantastic acting turns by all 4 kings;Clooney,Wahlberg,Jonze & Ice Cube! All 3 remaining kings deserved nominations by Oscar, as did the film itself.Maybe I liked this film so much (outside of the acting) as its the first real war movie about the Gulf War. And its not just about the war itself, but the change in modern warfare, the rape of a country, and the seeming indifference to profiteering by US soldiers after the battle. It's also interesting to see these Sadam "hideout bunkers" that he supposedly used to elude capture, as well as many of the other familiar footnotes to the Gulf War that Americans watched on their tvs just a decade ago!The director eschews the only hinted at subplot of America's lack of aid to the Kuwaitees after the liberation of their country to keep the film light. And finally there's that "golden age of Hollywood" ending with the villians of the film eventually doing the right thing at great cost to themselves. It's very sharp and uplifting for a war film, and a nice change of pace from the "downer" movies that pervaded the theatres in 1999.
Rating: 
Summary: Must see!
Review: The "nice" Americans went to the middle-east to liberate the "poor" Kuwait people from the "bad" guys. That's what the US government wanted us to think and that's what CNN tried to show. But how far is this from the truth? Miles away! The movie reveals to us the true purpose of the war, which was to prevent Iraq from controlling the oil supply. Simple as that! But the movie also digs a little into the ugliness of the American society, much like American Beauty (ugliness) did. For example, it shows the Rodney King beating on TV, as the three US soldiers enter one of the bunkers. The black soldier of the group freezes for a moment, probably questioning his own loyalty to a coutry that treats blacks with disrespect. Americans sitting comfortably at home, watching this war and the Kosovo war on CNN were selectively fed the news that would make them support their government's actions. Similarly, the soldiers in this movie thought they were doing the right thing leaving the Iraqui people to deal with Sadam on their own. Fortunately in this movie, at least, the soldiers got a close look at the suffering of the people and in the end they did the right thing, which was against the orders of the US government.
Rating:
Summary: Three Kings DVD Review: One of the best DVD's out there!
Review: Awesome! Awesome! Awesome! Awesome! Awesome!I really enjoyed this movie! OK, it's not exactly a "true to real life" movie but it's very entertaining! When I first watched the movie trailer, I wasn't sure if I would enjoy it and so I didn't see it. After hearing how awesome the movie is and many months later, I saw the movie and I'm really impressed. The storyline, the sound, the way the directors shot the movie and the dedication to make this movie...truly awesome! If there was any negative, I couldn't find one, unless you are expecting a war movie which this is not. I'm not going to go into why the movie was shot the way it is, the extras on cinematography well answer that question for you. So, the video and audio gets high marks but what about the DVD itself? Any extras? Well, Warner Bros. did fans a service and loaded, I mean LOADED this DVD with many extras. So, in the end, this DVD is one of the better made DVD's around. Great video, great sound and many extras to keep you busy. It doesn't have the collector's edition or special edition logo attached to front cover of the case but it should because this DVD is truly special. This DVD is highly recommended!
Rating:
Summary: Kelly's Heroes it ain't . . .
Review: thank God. This is the wartime heist movie done right. Fast-moving story, great cast (who'd have thought: Clooney, Cube, and Wahlberg?), and tremendous production values (the film stock is perfect and the editing inspired) all contribute. Above all else, Three Kings is exceptionally innovative. While the plot isn't necessarily new, the adaptation of the story specifically to the Gulf War and the use of the grainy film and rough, CNN-like camerawork really grounds it and makes it new. The quick parenthetical cuts are likewise ingenious, as are the strangely understated firefight effects. Plus the script is downright hilarious at many, many points. All this and more doors kicked in than you'll see in a month of COPS re-runs.
Rating:
Summary: EXCELLENT
Review: I heard the movie was good but finally got the chance to see for myself. The cast was top rate (go on Ice Cube, with your bad self), the story line intriging and unsuspecting. This is one of the best, if not the best movie I've seen from 1999.
Rating: 
Summary: Not as good as expected.
Review: This film was good but nevertheless something of a disappointment. Much of it was very good; a few parts were almost infuriating, and they did not have to be. In the opening minutes, we are introduced to the four main characters: their names and one attribute appear on the screen. Unfortunately, this is about all we learn about them. (Of the George Clooney character, we learn virtually nothing at all. His motivations remain a mystery throughout the picture, which is a polite way of saying that he is drawn pretty thin. The female reporter, a fifth character, is the typical parasite-wretch. Which is not surprising, this being a Hollywood movie.) These four main characters take off on a mission for money which later turns humanitarian. The problem is that we are never told or shown why they would conspire together in the first place, or, later, why they want to do what they end up doing for the rebel Iraqis. Though the latter is perhaps explainable by human compassion, the former is completely unexplained. I presume that the filmmakers simply suspected that their viewers came to the movie expecting to see a picture about four soldiers looking for Kuwaiti gold, and accordingly were not looking for an introduction. I myself checked my DVD player twice to make sure I hadn't inadvertently skipped a scene. This elision is not alone. Later in the picture, the Mark Wahlberg character is locked into a room. Inside that room he discovers a box full of cell phones, one of which he uses to call back to his wife in the United States. This scene is critical because only with that call can the movie end exactly as it does. At the same time it is preposterous, for two reasons, each of which was obvious to me and should have been for the screenwriter, who ought to have taken a little more time with the story to avoid insulting a viewer's intelligence and taxing his or her credulity. I would not, however, have asked Mr. Russell (screenwriter and director) to have devoted less energy to his visuals. They can be awesome: After the opening shots of the first firefight, for example, the characters are captured by the low-held camera underneath a turbulent sky. It makes for a terrific shot, and an original one, as far as I know; Peckinpah caught a moment like that and made it his, but not this way. Of other images -- the paths of the bullets, the flow of electricity -- I'm sure much has been written. The ending, too, is an asset. Though it is "conventional," any other conclusion would have altered in the tone of the movie in such a way as to have detracted significantly from it. The film has a picaresque element to it, and I was happier for it.
Rating:
Summary: Cute little film but leaves a little at the end..
Review: Nice war time flick, but the overall premise misses in the end. It's a bit of a farce, if you think about it. It does however do a nice job of mixing stunts, a bit of drama, human plight, guns and blood, humor and irony. The explosions are gratuitous at best and the cow scene is borderline funny. It is worth a rental as opposed to a purchase, but for late night, nothing on cable and lets see how cranked up our DVD can get, then okay add it to your shopping cart.
Rating:
Summary: I really wanted to like this....
Review: And maybe that was the problem... Three Kings seemed like three movies smushed together...but not in a good way. It was part treasure hunt, part anti-war, part left-field absurdist. The film lacked focus, and because of that, the script suffered, as do the characters and the pacing of the film. Loved the cinematography, liked the plot, and that just wasn't enough. This movie also stereotypes -a lot-. It's an equal-opportunity stereotyping film. And then, the film highlights one person in a stereotyped group and tries to make that person look "real", thus debunking the stereotype. But the stereotype gets made to begin with (all of the troops-both sides, the villagers, everyone) so it doesn't matter how many "individuals" get shown-the damage gets done. It was really annoying-it's as if the film assumes that the viewers hold the same stereotypes as the characters and have to learn along with them, when in fact, that device gets a little insulting after a while. There were some really weird and out of place things in this movie. True, visually, they were stunning, but I couldn't help but think that they were wasting the technology on an image or two just to show that they could do it. Certain moments just didn't belong in the film; they belonged in some other sci-fi sort of film. I even went back and watched this movie again; seeing all the positive reviews of this made me wonder if I'd just missed something. But my taste must just be different. The movie didn't do enough to make me care for the main characters. Nor did it do enough to make me care for the pseudo-spirituality they tried to throw in. It also didn't do anything in the way of making me not like the Persian Gulf War, which I didn't like to begin with-it's not like the film had far to go on that one. Summary: violent, long, insulting stereotyping to no effect, drags a lot, nice cinematography, a feeble attempt at putting a more "human" face to the much misunderstood Persian Gulf War, and that's about it.
|
