ReaderKenka Let's be realistic.

Dorathen Better Late Then Never

Yash Wade Close shines in drama with strong language, adult themes.

Payno I think this is a new genre that they're all sort of working their way through it and haven't got all the kinks worked out yet but it's a genre that works for me.

sharky_55 It is called Three Kings, because presumably, that is how these soldiers view themselves, strutting in their gear, towering over the common foreigners and by waving a piece of paper, able to stroll in any camp or village and take what they please. One is a party animal. Another is shameless womaniser. They all stink of the same material greed and unethical practice that dries them towards the stash of bullion gold that will make them rich if they can just sneak by unawares and avoid a court marshalling. But by the end of the film they have been struck by their innate goodness, heart and compassion and therefore give up (most of) the gold so that their refugee friends may cross the border.Is this change gradual? Not exactly. Grit is not so easy to pull off, especially in a such a politically precarious situation like the American military presence in the middle east, so Russell has gone in the completely opposite direction. The entire film has been cross-processed to produce those hyper-saturated, eye-popping colours that give the war zone a comic dreamland feel. Great billowing oil fires become little chimneys puffing up cartoon pillars of smoke. The sky takes on a garish, bubble-gum shade of blue. The never ending plains are not a desolate, parched wasteland, but rather a brightly lit playground. This might have worked if Russell had gone all the way with it and embraced his zany, ultra-stylised approach with a satirical relish. But for every kinetic, high-flying action sequence with whip pan and smash cut galore there is another that uses the same intense style but without a hint of irony. Russell can't expect the audience to laugh along when a truck is flipped on its side and skids to a grinding halt just centimetres from a mine, and then suddenly appreciate the gravitas to the silenced, slow-motion shootouts and the cold-blooded execution of a mother. Another example - Barlow is captured by the Iraqi army and tortured viciously. They are not necessarily bad people, but they are angry at this war and how the Americans have made promises they have not kept and left their country in disarray. The interrogator simply talks - he asks Barlow how he can answer for the mass bombings and how they have taken away his wife and child. He appeals to their shared fatherhood. Barlow has no answers to these difficult questions, of course - the segment is deliberately posed to force the same reflection in the audience, and although it's a little on the nose, it works. But this is coupled with the most ridiculous spiel about Michael Jackson and a American racial conspiracy about the colour of his skin that is so obviously designed to make us laugh, and on a second level, take the interrogator less seriously. The entire film Russell is leaning on these moments, hiding behind the comic absurdity that he creates himself and hoping no one will notice that he has posed the hard questions, but given nothing in response but the simple morality behind that saccharine, Hollywood ending.

Mr-Fusion "Three Kings" is all over the map - sometimes funny, sometimes harrowing action, war/heist movie - and that erratic behavior works in its favor, up to a point. I was onboard and entertained for the movie's first 45 minutes, but then the movie becomes a bit too top-heavy, mired in its anti-war message and the racial tensions. Basically, once Mark Wahlberg is captured, it just sort of slogs. It feels like it's flavored by "Apocalypse Now" (sure seems as long). There's an uplifting (Hollywood) ending that gives the movie back its step, but between those bookends when the gold's in our main characters' possession, it's not nearly as interesting.I get the feeling this would've been a lot more subversive had I seen it 15 years ago. That's on me.6/10

mbjustice This story follows three soldiers during Desert Storm in Iraq, where they test the ethics put upon them by the US military. They test the morality of themselves when a moment was created of "us or them". They lie, they steal because of greed, they don't follow orders, and for what? In the end to save innocent people from Saddam's dictatorship? Is human life, unknown human life, worth the sacrifice of your life? These are the questions that make you think in this movie and what it makes you face in that moment. My first impressions of the movie were not in favor of the rating you see above. The filmography seemed like a student trying to express their artistic abilities; it did not impress me. Just some shots seemed unnecessary or not appropriate for that particular scene. Some of the satire seemed really inappropriate. This was a time of total unrest and injustice among the Iraqi people. And so to try and make that traumatic experience "light", is honestly a very "white privilege" thing to do. One thing this film captured very well was the political unrest. While you had the peace treaty signed by the two nations, USA and Iraq, it was very hard to trust that as an American soldier or an Iraqi soldier. You had to put all your trust and faith that the other person would uphold that treaty with you. That is one thing the three main characters challenge, is the ethics of the peace treaty, and ultimately it being "us or them". Overall the movie is very good because of the political aspects, and the moral aspects; the testing of right and wrong and does that change depending on the situation? Acting was average, fight scenes were good. Although film will never truly capture the horror of war, this movie gives us a taste of the ability of man.

lewisfclark Confusing evolution of a relatively simple plot line. Lots of gratuitous violence and strong language. While there were plenty of Saddam's treasures hidden around the country and some GIs may have been tempted by their recovery, the story is essentially far-fetched and grim. A liberal political message, albeit uneven, runs through the dialogue and can be summed up as pretty naïve. Having spent several weeks in Kuwait, Saudi Arabia and along the Iraqi border (in the oil fields) on business days after the conflict ceased in Spring 1991, I found the film basically unpleasant and of minimal entertainment value. Given the intensity of the action, it was hard to judge the individual performances by the key players. I would not wish to see this film again.