Rating: 
Summary: Kings of movies
Review: Terific movie great cinimatography and exceptional acting. What else can I say.
Rating:
Summary: One of the best of 1999
Review: In any other year, this might be the best film, but so many classics and will-be-classics - American Beauty, Fight Club, Being John Malkovich, Iron Giant, Toy Story 2, The Insider, The Sixth Sense, the list goes on - prevented this from being seen by much of the moviegoing audience, which is a shame. George Clooney, Ice Cube, and especially Spike Jonze give terrific performances in a story as timeless as the Bible - how greed can destroy and divide, and how love for one's fellow man can see you through the other side, regardless of your differences. Plus, a cow blows up. How cool is that?
Rating:
Summary: Best film of 1999
Review: This has been the best year for films in perhaps a couple of decades. American Beauty, Magnolia, Fight Club, and this little masterpiece. I can't believe it did not get a nomination. If you read some of the reviews before mine, you will see that the ones that did not like the film didn't like that it changed moods throughout, from comedy to action to drama. That is the best part! You don't have any idea what will happen next, but you can't wait until it does. I did not have this on my short list to see last fall, but when I did, I was blown away by every scene and every shot. Smart, funny and eventually very moving. I guarantee every minute of this film to anyone who hasn't seen it.
Rating:
Summary: The Best Film Of 1999
Review: David O. Russell's "Three Kings" is the film that Iwould name the best of 1999. It's original, hyper, brilliant, stylish,effective, intelligent, well-acted, and a masterpiece. It vibrates with style and energy. Like the best films of Oliver Stone and Martin Scorsese, this is a movie that's always alive through the writing and performances. Not to mention the visual look. Finally George Clooney makes a film that really does deserve four stars. "Three Kings" is never boring and always action-packed, but it's not some stupid action flick, this is a movie that raises issues, explores the mechanics of war and the people involved. It doesn't use the Arabs as stereotypes, in fact, it paints them almost as equals to the American soldiers. Russell makes a great point, showing that the other side suffers just as much as us. "Three Kings" shows how the world is getting smaller and the word "minority" can't be used as much, which is just as good. Then there's the brilliant cinematography that has an energy of it's own. The performances are superb and as in "Out Of Sight," Clooney proves he isn't just an actor used as a package to sell an action movie like "From Dusk Till Dawn" (which was a cool movie). "Three Kings," the best film of 1999. In a weird, way, it ranks along with "Platoon" and "Apocalypse Now." A true modern war film.
Rating: 
Summary: Good fun all round
Review: Three Kings is set on the end of the Gulf War about four soldier (yes, four not three) looking for 23 million Dollars worth of gold from one of Saddam's bunkers. The movie is fast moving with action right from the start and loads of humour thrown in; the scene with the cow at the beginning will have you in stitches. The action sequences are all handled well with a lot of smart camera work to keep the audience entertain. If your are looking for a war film similar to the likes of Saving Private Ryan or The Thin Red Line then you are on the wrong path. It is a much more lighter war film than those but it does have it's own morality about the Gulf War thrown in. Overall it's quite good, it won't win any Oscars but it's fast, funny and entertaining.
Rating:
Summary: Brilliant
Review: Ok, in response to "a viewer" who asked if there was 2 screenwriters... Yes there was. What you saw was predominately David O. Russell's work. Now, I looked up in my screenwriting mag an interview with the other writer, John Ridley. I guess he wanted the film to be more action oriented, like Treasure of the Sierra Madre or Kelley's Heroes. It was mostly about getting the gold. BTW, the title of the Ridley script was The Spoils of War. David O. Russell wanted it to be more political, and pretty much completely rewrote it completely. The Gold was the catalyst in this story, similar to the 30,000 dollars in Psycho. It is what drove the characters to get themselves into the story. Thats the part where it is not funny anymore. Where these characters get their eyes opened and are given the chance to react and become true heroes. Now, I am not going to spoil the film for you, but a lot of people complain about the ending being "too conventional" where as I think it was the best possible way to end the film. If you have a Saving Private Ryan (wonderful movie) style ending, it loses that humor, which made the film so accessible to people.
Rating: 
Summary: What?
Review: When I saw this movie at a pre-screening at my college movie theater (Tulane), I was extremely unimpressed. After seeing Fight Club, American Beauty, and Man on the Moon, I was ready for some inventive filmaking. I love Spike Jonze's work, but the plotline was so horribly weak. I found myself wanting to get up and walk out. It was such a done once.. done again movie. This movie brought relatively nothing new to the table (including the "black hole sun" shot of the three main characters after they steal the gold). Good compilation, great premise, but very poor execution. Try making me think next time..
Rating:
Summary: One of the finest war movies
Review: I have seen this film three times in the theater, and each timei see it, i enjoy it more. It has truly redefined in my mind the waya movie should be made. Not just a war movie, but any movie. Yes, there is some good action, yes there is some good comedy, yes there was some good drama. But this film ties these elements together really well. I have read some of the reviews already posted, and i agree with some, and disagree with many. I read one review which said that this film turns into a rambo style thriller at one point. Nothing could be further from the truth. where rambo generally runs into a place and opens fire, the heroes in this film only killed about two people in this sequence. instead, the writer had the heroes develop a plan which spared the lives of the enemies. This is truly one of the finest war movies ever made. there have been attempts recently to make great war movies. saving private ryan succeeded only in the war sequences which were amazing. the thin red line wanted to say something, but it did not know how to say it. instead, it wandered through 3 hours, not following a single character or developing them. But three kings had incredibly real characters who were human. yes, they were greedy, they had selfish motives. but in the end, the human spirit triumphs. they know they can not make everything better, but they can at least make some good in the war. this is a movie that everyone should see. whether or not you like it is up to you. END
Rating:
Summary: No blase nihilism here.
Review: David O. Russell has achieved, in "Three Kings,"something that, under the creativity-stifling regime of big studios,is extraordinarily rare: the right employment of visceral and savvy production values in the service of compellingly realistic moral vision. Russell, the director of two other fine films, "Spanking the Monkey" and "Flirting with Disaster," is undoubtedly among the most promising American film-makers alive today.
Rating:
Summary: Excellent portrayals
Review: This is an excellent film which exposes the aftermath of war, something we seldom see in the real world. I would also like to make mention of the excellent portrayals of the Iraqy people particularly by Cliff Curtis in his role as Amir and Said Taghmaoui as Capt Sa'id. Both Cliff(NZ) and Said(Morocco/France) are not from Iraq but do an incredible job to accuratly portray their roles with credibility and honor to those they are representing.
|
