Are You With Us?: Three Kings
By Ryan Mazie
October 10, 2011
BoxOfficeProphets.com
Starring the motley crew of a post-ER George Clooney, a pre-box office draw Mark Wahlberg, and the relevant-at-the-time Ice Cube, Three Kings is an unusual mix of war-drama seriousness, art-house experimental visual flare, and flavor-of-the-month referential fun. However, under the wild eye of David O. Russell, the potential turkey soared like an eagle with critics and didn’t do too shabby at the box office, either.
Beginning at the end of the Gulf War, Three Kings follows four soldiers (played by the aforementioned actors as well as Spike Jonze … yes, the one you are thinking of) who find a map of stolen Kuwait gold. Determined to do a quick search-and-seize of the fortune to keep for themselves, the soldiers quickly see a bigger picture at hand when they get entangled with desperate denizens of the desert village in which the gold is hidden.
Highly visceral, much of the character information is literally spelled out right away during a montage of celebratory drinking and debauchery. While the typewriter text across the screen is later abandoned, I enjoyed how Russell applied the technique. While it is better to show than say, sometimes the opposite is much more time-efficient. Although text can’t build character development, the actors commanding performances and the dense dialogue certainly do.
I can get behind Russell’s idea of making the film more engaging through visuals whether it is color tints or deeper blacks or ultra-bright yellows. However, some of the choppy edits made me think my DVD player was skipping, and the defined color technique that is usually seen more in summer blockbusters seemed slightly out of place here.
Warner Bros. also must have felt that the visuals were out of place, too. Before the movie played, this message popped up: “The makers of Three Kings used visual distortion and unusual colors in some scenes of this film. They intentionally used these unconventional techniques to enhance the emotional intensity of the story line.” I enjoy an unusual look to a film, but when the filmmaker has to ensure you that your TV isn’t broke, there is a problem. The visuals enhance the eye appeal of the film, but it certainly doesn’t enhance the emotions or the plot. If anything, it pushes the intensity overboard where you aren’t feeling much at all.
What draws in the emotions are the actors, not the visual style. Luckily, Three Kings is loaded with fine performances. I was surprised to find myself most engaged by Wahlberg’s fine performance. Playing the hotshot soldier, Wahlberg has to immediately transform as he turns into a helpless hostage. Walloping to whimpering, Wahlberg walks away with the show. Russell directed Wahlberg again in I Heart Huckabees and The Fighter.
Clooney is fine as the smooth-talking brains behind the mission, in a role well within his usual range. With some rapid character changes when he stumbles upon the distressed villagers, Clooney manages to make it seem within his emotional arc, but it is more a mark against some lazy writing. Three Kings was released in 1999, on this same October weekend where Clooney’s new film, The Ides of March, is hitting theaters. Since Three Kings, Clooney has expanded his acting (and directing) repertoire with some serious dramas that make him one of the most interesting leading men in Hollywood, balancing art-house subjects with mainstream aesthetics.
I am always surprised when rappers make decent actors and Ice Cube, earlier in his career, gave some fine performances. However, in Three Kings, he is the third wheel. Not given much to do but yell in the desert sand, Ice Cube melts in with the background for a rather forgettable part. The standout actor is director Spike Jonze. Friends with David O. Russell who had to champion the studio to give him the part, Jonze is surprisingly effective as the scrawny soldier out of his element. Why did he cast Jonze for the part? The only answer I could come up with is “why not?” Three Kings certainly did not bite the Being John Malkovich director with the acting bug, for this movie is still his only major acting credit. But the inexperience and nerves Jonze must have felt on set, certainly and effectively (I think more by luck than skill) transcend into his character.
Russell is not a director who is known for his gentle ways on set (YouTube “I Hate Huckabees” and you’ll see what I mean), and he certainly found no good graces on Three Kings. With reports of verbal arguments with Clooney and even the actor punching him in the face, Three Kings quickly turned into the focus of gossip. By telling by the film’s wild visuals, I can see why David O. Russell might not be the easiest director to reign in.
Budgeted anywhere between the rumored $48 million (IMDb) to $75 million (boxofficemojo.com), I would suspect it came in closer to the latter. Although Kuwait and Iraq were substituted with Arizona, some of the action sequences were impressively CGI-free. Although a hit among the genre of “political satire” and “modern day war” films, Three Kings debuted to a ho-hum $15.8 million ($24.9 million adjusted) in second place, certainly less than expected with such a stellar cast who could arguably of been more in their media prime back then compared to now.
With raves from critics (the film is at a shockingly high 94% on Rotten Tomatoes), and good (but not as great as the critics) audience word of mouth, Three Kings stuck around, ending its tour of duty with $60.6 million ($95.2 million today).
In 2004, Warner Bros planned a re-release of Three Kings with a short documentary shot by Russell to play beforehand due to the film’s renewed relevancy with the Iraq War. However, Warner Bros pulled the project last minute for unknown reasons. Still, Three Kings is with us for its interesting plot and even more engaging characters.
Not a definitive view on the Gulf War, with a satirical lens, Russell’s commanding Three Kings might have been a battle to get made, but it plays with expert protocol.
7 out of 10
With Us