Review of Three Kings

Three Kings (1999)
hmmm . . . Where to begin . . .
29 April 2000
This is quite possibly the worst war film I have ever seen, and it is definately one of THE worst films in cinematic history. Everything about this films is awful: the acting, the "story," the action, the music, the direction, the cinematography, etc. etc. I've seen better examples of the above-mentioned in 20-second TV commercials. (And you know you're in for a treat when the main character is introduced in a scene that has him getting a furious lap-job from a television reporter.)

What could have been an exciting adventure picture about a search for stolen gold instead turns out to be another artsy-fartsy film that tries to stand out from the rest with so-called "artistic style."

And don't even get me started on what is quite possibly the lamest gun fight ever committed to celluoid. A character fires a gun. The camera pans left-to-right in semi-slow motion (as if tracking the bullet), and comes to rest on the intended victim. We hear a dull thud as the bullet hits, and the man falls over. Each exchange of gun fire in this scene is played out that way.

None of the characters are even remotely interesting, but what do you expect from a film with Ice Cube and Mark Whalberg in the cast?

George Clooney appears to be one of those actors who will just tank and tank in feature films for years, making only one really great film ("The Peacemaker") and too many bad ones to even count. A shame, too, because I kind of like him.

If you want a see a good film that takes place in the Middle East around the time of the Gulf War (and the first film to be set at that time), rent 1991's "The Human Shield" with Michael Dudikoff. It has everything "Three Kings" doesn't, and it's a much MUCH better film.

THREE KINGS: 0/5
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Recently Viewed