Cool News
Eyes on the Money looks at THREE KINGS, but isn't so satisfied
Well, we've heard from Moriarty, Yoshi, Segue Zagnut, Mandrake the Magician, and they have all loved (with all-caps) THREE KINGS. But, it seems that at least at the moment there is a single detractor that has contacted me thus far. The following review has spoilers in it, but this reviewer (Eyes on the Money) feels this film fails at almost every level, which is a direct opposite reaction to Moriarty and the others. So... take note.. While some people would put this film in their elite of the year... at least another puts it in the mud pit. Here's the review
Haven't written you in a while but I couldn't take another "review" praising
and building up what is just an average (at best) film. I'm not sure what
movie these people are watching but the Three Kings I saw was heavy handed,
poorly acted (granted, Clooney, Wahlberg and Ice Cube weren't bad but I
seriously can't remember more than two lines spoken by Cube...that's how
underused and underdeveloped his character is), and BORING. I swear to God I
thought the thing was three hours long. Imagine my surprise to find it was
two. As for the direction, it could not have done a bigger disservice to the
movie. David O'russell's sensibilities could not have been more wrong. This
COULD have been a smart, exciting, thought provoking film. It comes off
however, as a forced, in your face, ain't war horrible, "message" movie that
misses on ALMOST every level. The only remotely fresh idea was trying to
show some of the Iraqi perspective on the war. But the, "America bad cuz dey
only fight fer oil" message is hit over your head in such a basic,
rudimentary way that it's almost painful to watch. Flirting with Disaster
was great...no question, and I think O'russell has a gift with quirky
comedy/dramas. He does not, however, have a gift, or for that matter any
particular skill, with action scenes. In fact, they were horrible. His
overuse of handheld (even in non-action scenes) along with an incredible
number of bad close-ups and camera movements REALLY distracted from the
gaping hole that was supposed to pass as a story. Granted, I was in the Army
and in the Gulf War, but I would hope that simple logic would tell anyone
that the shit these characters were doing -- storming guarded Iraqi bunkers
and TALKING healthy, armed Iraqi Republican Guards into GIVING them tens of
millions of dollars worth of gold was just...shit. And then there's the
whole stupid subplot with the Iraqi refugees (which actually overtook the the
whole treasure hunting idea). Why didn't the Iraqi refugees go to the Saudi
border (as opposed to the Iranian)? It had to have been closer, plus, there
are hundreds of miles of unguarded borderland. Then there was the extreme
lack of attention to detail regarding the US military -- again,
Joe-fuckin'-American won't know the difference so that doesn't really matter
-- but it all adds up to a shitty movie. Then there's the end. I won't
spoil it for you (like that's possible) but lets just say it's predictable
and...BULLSHIT. The ending did however, have one redeeming element -- they
used U2's "In God's Country" as the closing song. It was fun to hear, even
if it was over shitty imagery. Of course, these are just my opinions and I
could be wrong. Nah, I'm not wrong. If you use this, call me Eyes on the
Money.
-
+ Expand All
-
Dammit! My eyes are tearing up from that review... from the overwhelming stench of testosterone! Oy vey! ... "An aint-war-horrible 'message'"? WTF?! Um... isn't war horrible?!? OK, quick poll: how many people like having their homes and livelihoods destroyed, their families slaughtered, their daughters raped, and their land poisoned? Anyone? But I guess Rambo does have a point: I too think it's about time we had a fun, lighthearted, and completely uncritical movie about the slaughter of 200,000 iraqi conscripts, the crippling of their economy, and the subsequent death of around 1,500,000 INNOCENT iraqis (mostly children) from the economic sanctions. Doesn't anyone in Hollywood have a sense of humor any more?... If anyone needs me, I'll be away from my desk weeping for humanity. -CG
-
YEAH! KILL THEM ALL! Let's face it, who cares if they were conscripts, FUCK EM! Oil runs America, they got in the way of that and I could care less who has to suffer for it. It's even better if we get a cool movie out of it. I don't have any sympathy for the Iraqi, Iranian whatever people. They on par with the Libyians. Fuck EM! KILL THEM ALL LET GOD SORT THEM OUT! They started a fight the couldn't finish and all you bleeding heart, liberal bastards who constantly read anything you want into something that's fairly clear can all suck my dick.
Oh and Mr. Reviewer sir! I was in Gulf War and it makes me sick that you have any sort of sympathy at all for those cowardly, backstabbing maggots that had us wasting a year of our lives running around the sand. They don't deserve it. -
For you two to blame this *one* individual for the Gulf War is off topic and a lying spray of infantile vomit. The above review is honest, chock full of corroborative detail, and well written. I
-
(1) Umm... who ever said I was blaming this one person. Excuse me, I blame George Bush, the oil corporations, and Saddam Hussein all together in one big cesspool of greedy, war-mongering, bloody guilt. (2) Humanitarianism is the reason we've fought every war. Don't you know that? Don't you read the papers or the history books? From the Spanish American war to Yugoslavia, the US has never fought a war with a greedy bone in its civic body. (3) Honorable... how many lives have been lost over that word? (4) Did I ever say the reviewer took a prowar stance? Did I ever call him a fascist? Why not respond to what I actually said, instead of creating a straw target to burn in effigy. The reviewer obviously has a problem with someone who has a 'message' that 'war is horrible'. That shocked me to no end, and I responded to it with a little outrage and a little sarcasm. Should my response just have been "oh"? Isn't the point of these TalkBacks that we can post our own views and point out what we think is a deficiency in a reviewer's commentary. Disagree with me; flame me; whatever. But don't misquote me and then use that to say I'm a fool. -CG
-
But that George Clooney sure knows how to put asses in the seats!
-
Even jury duty is preceded by a screening process to ensure that a conflict of interests of laughable proportion doesn't mar the candidate's judgement. I know that SWep1 / Blair Witch positive-review backlash is the in thing this week, but please. This guy didn't have a chance of seeing 3 Kings with any sort of impartiality. Not even the kind most fans, with their directorial, cast and genre allegiances have. It's not important enough to provide balanced reviews that we have to listen to some ex-soldierboy spew about a film that just happens to take place in a war zone.
-
Jul 02, 1999 1:14:49 PM CDT
Dammit to all hell! I screwed up my earlier post - it's suppos
by janedoe33
Damn, that George Clooney is one cool dude.
-
and us Canadians laugh our polite asses off at your expense. Might I suggest Quebec as your next "humanitarian" invasion; those frog fuckers could use a good ass kicking...
-
Actually it was at "Granted, I was in the Army and the Gulf War"
-
...you know all of your bitchin' about "Rambo's" "aint-war-horrible" comment? well, I think you totally misunderstood his point. His point was that an "aint-war-horrible" message is a really smack-your-forehead obvious one. Of course war is horrible... Eyes had a problem with the fact that this movie was essentially an action movie that passed itself of as valid cinema by having an obvious and popular message. Of course, you didn't see that because either 1.) you're dumb or 2.) you didn't want to. I'm inclined to go with 2. on that one; you seem like an overpriveleged teenager that nothing better to whine about than something that has never affected your life in any way: war and the military. It wouldn't surprise me if you turned out to be on those NYU students that called a previous poster "baby-killer." The military DOES still have a place... Oh, and the idea that a soldier would be biased watching a war movie and we should therefore not take his comments seriously? Ridiculous...SOMEone obviously wants to be trendy and not like the "oppresive war machine of the military." Shut up...
-
Hi there to Brendan 3 and others...
I remember the last Talk Back about Three Kings and was curious about whether the same issues presented themselves here. They did, of course. On the whole, however, I could not be bothered going down the same path as I did last time except to reiterate the obvious - any event can have multiple interpretations and, just because you are a participant doesn't mean you have an across the board understanding of what goes on. No, my main point in writing is Brendan3's and others odd brand of hypocrisy. Once again Brendan is running the 'sorry you weren't old enough to protest Vietnam' thing, which he did at me in the last round (obviously this is his idea of a good comeback). In addition to this are his comments on beret wearing, cafes and students. I think we get the drift here. Brendan gets irate when anyone writes critically and broadly of the armed forces, but is quite happy to tar all those with a dissenting viewpoint with the same brush. It is also odd that Brendan has talked about the reaction back home to the soldiers who participated in the Gulf War, but, on the other hand, is somewhat of a dissenter himself and a man who talks about how he was just doing a job. If you understand this level of disinterest and protest in yourself, surely it should not come as too much of a surprise to find it in others. Funnily enough, I am, in fact, old enough to have participated in the Vietnam protests - and did. And I do not have any kind of problem with the armed forces - from Thermopylae to WW2 wars has been fought where the outcome has been to successfully keep this world from unimaginable harm and evil. The bulk of those serving are ordinary people doing a job, upskilling themselves. However, throughout history these same ordinary people sometimes commit horrible crimes, wars are fought over the meanest of human needs and desires and might is not always right. And even a 'good' war sounds like some kind of contradiction. Having said that I am quite prepared to believe that 'Three Kings' is yet another example of Hollywood sprinkling magic dust over something that deserves a far more penetrating look. Any film that reduces complexities to a 'war is bad' proposition is not serving the useful purpose of being thoughful and provocative but falling prey to the kind of lazy manipulating too many filmmakers go for. Something Hollywood does all too often. -
Just a note: you don't know but two things about me, Jack and shit. And Jack just left town.
-
Well I am not sure about other readers of Talk Back but it sure is nice when someone talks reasonably to you as Brendan has here. Brendan, I was most definitely not accusing you of hypocrisy because of your beliefs. If that was the impression my hasty missive bought about, I apologise. My point was simply that, as someone who actively participated and yet remained sceptical, it surely couldn't be too much of a surprise that, upon returning, you have come across non-participants who are either equally sceptical or even more so. You are right, of course, that there are many who live out the sixties ideal of protest more as a fashion statement rather than from any deep seated commitment. (BTW, when I previously mentioned my participation in the Vietnam protest marches, it was with some amusement. I was around 10 or 11, a young kid accompanying his parents and, more importantly, older brothers who were of the right age to be conscripted. It left a hell of a deep impression on me, to put it lightly). There are those who will argue the politically correct idea without even a cursory understanding of the issues. I think this is a mistake - arguing on any topic in an uninformed manner only weakens that argument. It is also important to be reasonably robust about discussion; take things on the chin, think about the others point of view. As much as you think you know, I have found, there are always things you don't. You are also right that it is the government who we should point the finger at. But I also hold it to be true that the history of this century has repeatedly shown governments as concealers of truth in nearly all matters, and that ordinary people can either turn to unspeakable acts or casually accept them. Do I believe this to be the case of the government, the army and the people of the U.S.A.? Yes I do. Do I believe that this is across the board? No I do not. I have a possibly naive belief that the majority of people are generally good, whether they lean a little to the left or to the right. And, if they have prejudices and mean desires, that the bulk of even these can be swayed in the right circumstances. In wartime I believe this to be the case of all those who serve irrespective of what side they are on. So. I do not have any trouble at all with your beliefs, Brendan. I certainly do not think they are in some way contradictory to serving in the armed forces. And this opportunity to butt heads with your good self has been, perversely some might think, enjoyable.
-
You're right. I will respond to your post. Well it's good to know that you've now descended from making baseless and untrue (if you only knew how untrue) generalizations, to simple name-calling. I see the grand tradition of American debating standards is alive and well. Really, I'd just as soon let this go, but since you seem to want to single me out as the epitome of your mindless, unthinking lefty who is just uninformed and pining for a cause, well, I thought I'd just take up some of your issues. First of all, I know quite a bit about the history of American imperialism in both the Middle East and the Balkans (and South and Central America and Asia and Africa). Far from having a knee-jerk opposition to American military intervention, I have always been most concerned with finding out the reasons behind the intervention. As in the case with Iraq, outright capitalist interests are at stake many times. With other interventions, the reasons are subtler, but no less self-serving. Ensuring the superiority or supremacy (or most recently, the "credibility") of American leadership is another major cause of global bloodshed. I've learned that the most vocal justifications for war are never the actual ones. WW1 was variously fought for democracy, to stop "Hun militarism," to end all wars, for the independence of the Balkan and E. European statelets, or for Belgium, depending on who you ask. But anyone who cares to look more than make-up deep (not even skin deep) finds that the slaughter was about nothing more than some countries trying to obtain global empires, and others trying to maintain those they already had. For the naked greed of their rulers, an entire generation of Europeans (and a goodly number of Americans) was wiped out. People often point to WW2 as a "good war," a war that Americans can be proud of fighting (and winning), a war against fanatic racial intolerance, extreme right-wing racial superiority. But if that's the case, why did the US tolerate... or rather, enforce at gun-point and with unmitigated terror, the Jim Crow laws in its own Southern half? Why did it intern people of Japanese descent in camps, which, if less severe than Hitler's, were still just as outrageous and insulting to human dignity. The list goes on. Another point you made was about why people join the military; aside from being almost laughably macho, it was also major bullshit. The main reason is not adventure or some such nonsense like you see on the TV commercials (still less like in that piss funny commercial shown before movies about the marines, you know, the one where the dude fights some goddamn fire elemental straight outta D&D... frikin hilarious!); the main reason people join the military is simply economic - or a mix of economics and enhanced social status. I know quite a number of people who were or are in the military (among them, my father and best friend), and behind the bluster, if any, about adventure or whatnot, everyone's main reason is simple goddamn money (either directly or indirectly because of the college assistance). One by one, all your arguments in your post (when they happened to stray beyond insults) were shallow and barely justify a response. Even your supposedly poignant anecdote about the kid with the KOSOVO=VIETNAM T-shirt; most likely reason he answered you the way he did was that he was unconfidant about talking to strangers about politics (if he was really a kid talking to someone older, this shouldn
-
Again with the straw targets: tell me where I dismissed this dude's point of view just because he was a vet. Excuse me,I would never do that. I reacted to the review and the statements that "an ain't war horrible message" is heavy handed; yes, I did it with a bit of sarcasm and outrage, as I said before - but then again, I wasn't under the impression that each and every talkback had to be a well-thought out and defended thesis. Never once did I say, "vets shouldn't review war movies" or "marines can't review military movies" (someone else did, but did I ever claim to agree with that person?). In fact, I would think that many times they could bring valuable insight. But not this one; this reviewer had an obvious problem with a movie that had a "message," or more accurately, he (I'm assuming the reviewer's a man; apologies if she's not) had a problem with a movie that had a message that he disagreed with. (When movies, or books, or documentaries or whatever are about big, politically important things, there can't help but be a message - either against it, for it, or saying it's just something that happens (which is half-way towards saying "you can't change it so just accept it.").) As for your nit pick about "shooting back": (1) yes I know they shot back, and yes it's horrible that these kids died for the price of oil - but that sorrow is a drop in the ocean to the outrage I feel at the mass atrocities committed by our government on the people of Iraq to this day, once again for the price of oil. If you want to count beans, that works out to be 1,000 Iraqis dead for every American killed. If you count those who have died as a direct result of our criminal economic sanctions, that number skyrockets to around 6000. (In vietnam, that number would be closer to 40.) (2) yes, I know Gulf War vets are real vets; would it shock you to know I've given public talks and been on demonstrations demanding that the government take Gulf War Syndrome seriously; (3) no, those 300 American dead did not shoot themselves (at least I would hope not). But a fair number of Americans did die from so-called "friendly fire." In fact, so did a fair number of the casualties in Viet Nam (the origin of the phrase), which is why "search and destroy" missions became "search and avoid," because American troops began to realize that the military management considered them little better than bait. One final point about how many military personnel you know: I don't give a rat's ass that you know more. I'm not trying to get into a pissing contest with you. I could easily counter that "oh yeah, I know even more than you!" (given that I'm technically what you'd call a military (navy) brat, how would you know otherwise?) In any case, fine, you know more than me. Big frikin deal. I know enough to have formed a pretty well founded point of view, both theoretically and personally. Furthermore, I don't think it's a prerequisite to know someone, anyone, in the military to form an opinion about the morality of our government intervening in other countries (just like you don't have to know that habitual wife-beaters are pretty much uniformly assholes; rational people can make generalizations - or leaps of logic (that's pretty much how logic works) based on evidence, history, and probabilities). One final point, you never said so, but it seemed to be a thought in the back of your head (forgive me if this doesn't apply to you, but it does apply to some). Real left-wingers don't blame soldiers for war (they blame politicians and generals and the corporations that they serve), any more than they blame bank workers for third-world debt or fast food workers for obesity. Yes I'm aware that there are some upper class would-be-liberalish posers out there who will go on and on about the hamburger you're eating or the leather shoes on your feet, while blithely eating organic vegetables picked by migrant farmworkers living on slave wages. But they are thankfully a small minority of those people grouped together as left (although I personally don't think there is anything remotely left-wing about being a vegetarian - it's a non-issue for me). In any case, there is a stereotype of left-wingers out there who just protest anything and everything just because. But I want you to know that it's a myth. Aa a small example, a book just came out titled "The Spittting Image." It's about the image of Anti-war protesters spitting on Viet Nam vets - the truth is, there is no recorded incident of such a thing happening. Even one of Jane Fonda's (classic example of an upper class would-be liberalish poser) movies gets it wrong, starting out with protesters demonstrating while vets are coming home from the war. This book shows that this movie got it backwards; protesters protested when soldiers went to war, they welcomed them with open arms into their demos and groups when they came back. I highly recommend it. True, the main anti-war organizations did get some things wrong (I have a series of criticisms of groups like SDS and whatnot), but they weren't the caricature they're made out to be today. -CG
-
Why don't you guys just e-mail each other if you're going to have an argument about something that has little or nothing to do with the film. Yeah great so your origial comments had something to do with Three Kings, but after that stick to e-mailing each other. That way, the rest of us don't have to scroll past your LONG postings to find talk backs about Three Kings.
As for this movie, I haven't seen it yet, and i don't really know much about it but i'm pretty stoked to see it b/c I usually enjoy war movies. Also it will be nice to see a Gulf War movie that goes beyond the Nintendo-game coverage we got from CNN and other forms of media back when everything was goin down. (Courage Under Fire was pretty cool for that reason - and others)
Readers Talkback
User Login
Top Talkbacks
- Whitney Houston 1963 - 2012 -- 419 total posts 209 posts
- WTF HOLLYWOOD: SOLARBABIES -- 131 total posts 129 posts
- Herc’s Seen Tonight’s Return Of THE WALKING DEAD!! Discuss Also DOWNTON ABBEY, FEAR FACTOR, PAN AM, ONCE, SIMPSONS, DYNAMITE, LUCK, SHAMELESS, BAIT CAR, THE GRAMMYS And More!! Sunday Is Sweeps Day 11!! -- 123 total posts 122 posts
- New JUDGE DREDD post production footage pops up -- 124 total posts 58 posts
- There's a STAR TREK video game that is going to lead into JJ's STAR TREK 2 apparently... -- 191 total posts 47 posts
- Avid Comic Reader Hercules Does Battle With Tedium During Kevin Smith’s COMIC BOOK MEN! -- 43 total posts 43 posts
- If the Behind the Scenes Pics of the Day drops her pen, pick it up, but don’t look at her legs or else it will be on your record. -- 60 total posts 42 posts
- I am The Behind the Scenes Pics of the Day! No, I’m the Behind the Scenes Pic of the Day! -- 27 total posts 27 posts
- To Commemorate The 3D Release Of STAR WARS EPISODE I: THE PHANTOM MENACE, George Lucas Wants You To Know...Greedo Shoots First!! -- 506 total posts 26 posts
- HANNA's Saoirse Ronan to boss around seven little people -- 77 total posts 24 posts