« Hey, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad: Iran Is Gay | Home | “In the Valley of Elah” Officially a Flop »
Review: “The Kingdom”
By Kyle | September 28, 2007
ROYALLY REFRESHING
The Kingdom review by Kyle Smith
 
1 hr 50/Rated R (violence, profanity)
“The Kingdom” is the anti-”Syriana”: yes, it says, the Middle East is very, very complicated–but Americans have solved tougher problems, thanks very much.
For a movie that has anything to do with that sandy oilgarden overseas to even suggest that Americans are the good guys amounts to a radical statement from director Peter Berg (”Friday Night Lights”). After a terrorist attack kills dozens of Americans living in Saudi Arabia, you keep waiting for anyone to suggest that we kinda deserve it, but no one ever does.
Jamie Foxx plays a tough FBI man who (this is the unlikeliest part of the movie) wangles a back-channel route to Saudi Arabia against the wishes of the State Department and the White House to investigate the bombing with his team of specialists (Jennifer Garner, Chris Cooper, Jason Bateman). One of the dead was a good friend to him and the Garner character, and near the beginning he whispers something to her that we can’t hear.
Saudi justice is not exactly a crusade for truth; their cops are shown grabbing the nearest bystander and beating him up until he tells them everything he knows, which is nothing. By the time the FBI arrives Saudi cops have already trampled the crime scene, but when a video of the bombing turns up on the Web the FBI team immediately suspects that a nearby high-rise must have been where it was shot. The Saudis offer to take them on a safari instead. “We’re here to collect evidence–we’re not f—ing tourists,” protests Bateman, in an alert and acerbic performance. Garner’s forensic examiner, while trying to figure out what kind of shrapnel was used in the bombing, isn’t even allowed to touch the Muslim corpses from whom she’s trying to remove pieces of junk. Allah wouldn’t approve.
The clues come together in a thoroughly satisfying police procedural. When we learn that every bombmaker “gets bitten by his own work,” it’s convincing and illuminating, and it provides the film with a superb visual shorthand for bomber. This isn’t just another episode of CSI, though, because the investigation carries the added heft of the headlines. The movie is a piece of entertainment but it matters more than most, even more than most supposedly serious films about the mideast, with their craven and calculated message of imperial American corruption.
The FBI gradually coaxes a friendly Saudi colonel into helping them dig up clues instead of building the usual stone wall; as it turns out, the colonel grew up wanting to fight crime because of an American TV show called “Green Beast”–the Arab name for “The Incredible Hulk.” “You know also Steve Austin?” he asks. Because such punchlines come up naturally instead of getting jammed in by too-clever screenwriting, they work perfectly. When the Saudis let the Foxx character interview a reformed terrorist, he replies, “Does he know where Bin Laden is? That’d be a real big promotion for me.”
There’s really only one action scene here, but it’s a big, brutal, Michael Mann-style bullet party. Jennifer Garner goes all Jason Bourne on one terrorist in a crackling fight, while a harsh and nightmarish sequence shows us what it’s like to be captured by Islamist thugs.
The climax, though rousing, is too neat, but after it, the movie turns back on itself for a thoughtful, surprising and thorny coda: “The Kingdom” is pro-America, yes. But it isn’t ”Rambo,” either.
Topics: Movies, News, Politics |
September 26th, 2007 at 1:13 am
“The Kingdom†is the anti-â€ÂSyrianaâ€Â: yes, it says, the Middle East is very, very complicated–but Americans have solved tougher problems, thanks very much.
UGHGHGHGHGH
September 26th, 2007 at 4:45 am
[...] Kyle Smith makes me want to go see The Kingdom in a theater, rather than waiting for it to become available through Netflix: [...]
September 27th, 2007 at 2:27 pm
“UGHGHGHGHGH”
Gay.
September 27th, 2007 at 5:26 pm
Holy weeble wobbles Batman! Something out of The People’s Republic of Hollywood that isn’t an anti-American festering turd. I’m there.
September 28th, 2007 at 9:59 am
“it says, the Middle East is very, very complicated–but Americans have solved tougher problems, thanks very much”
Yeah, like, say, Vietnam, finding Bin Laden, or rebuilding Iraq and Afghanistan, or New Orleans, for that matter. Nice job all round.
You managed to portray the movie as a feast of jingoistic nonsense in one sentence.
September 28th, 2007 at 10:16 am
P.S. Forgive me my acerbic tone; just following the advice of your Amis quote above.
September 28th, 2007 at 11:52 am
No, Fake Bob (apology accepted), solving “tougher problems” brings to mind our trips to the moon and back, the reconstruction of post WWII Germany and Japan, oh, you know, those kinds of things.
“Feast of jinoistic nonsense…”
Moron.
September 28th, 2007 at 12:32 pm
You might enjoy “the Kingdom” because its pro-American but the movie itself sucks. Jamie Foxx is a very overrated actor and don’t be fooled, he’s still part of “The People’s Republic of Hollywood”. Your dragging the X-men series into this as some liberal ploy was really desperate but then again, thats what you sell. But don’t fear, there will always be people looking to buy your brand of insecurity.
September 28th, 2007 at 12:59 pm
Bob (or “Fake Bob,” as your detractor would have it), do you see a difference between patriotism and jingoism? I fear you don’t. It’s okay to like your country. Maybe your friends will laugh at you, but you’ll get over it.
And John, the gay star of “X-Men,” Ian McKellen, has repeatedly stated in interviews that the X-Men, who face the prospect of being forcibly cured of mutancy by the government, provide a metaphor for the idea that homosexuality is not something that anyone should try to cure. I’ll happily provide a link if you like.
September 28th, 2007 at 3:02 pm
Oh, so pre-1969 American then, Real Bob? You’re pretty selective.
I am an American who is proud of some of what this country does; I just think it’s terribly ironic to talk about our solving any problems in the Middle East with any efficiency, when we’re currently waging the most mis-managed war in American history.
Yes, Kyle, I do see a difference between patriotism and jingoism. They’re not really even synonyms. There’s a difference between patriotism and nationalism, too. And I don’t know if the movie truly reflects either, as I haven’t seen it. I was just reacting to your description of it. Doesn’t pay to try to read people’s minds. Having said that, you may not have intended to paint Iraq as finely executed operation either. Nonetheless, the irony I describe above still stands.
September 28th, 2007 at 3:18 pm
Where do you mention X-Men???
September 28th, 2007 at 3:27 pm
Sorry, I see. In your WSJ essay.
I note that you’re able to point out the fact that this theme is running through the X-Men series (and I agree, it is), but you aren’t able to articulate what’s wrong with that.
Schindler’s List certainly emphasize humanistic themes, too, but I imagine you’re not as concerned about movies which emphasize human rights, so long as it’s in a broad and nebulous fashion … and doesn’t get to specific about defending people’s default sexual orientation? Don’t want to put words in your mouth or anything, but …
September 29th, 2007 at 12:01 pm
Great review. The Kingdom is one of the few movies I’ve seen on this topic that doesn’t try to schmooze the viewer into favoring one side or the other. It really told things how they are.
I’d love to see if they have a director’s or extended cut of this movie. The perception that I got was that there may have been content that was sacrificed in favor of time and battle sequences (as amazing as they were).
September 30th, 2007 at 6:13 pm
Liberal movie critics say they hate movies like this because they are too “simple”. That’s not the real reason. The real reason is because they portray the United States as “far from perfect” as Jamie Foxx said, but generally well-meaning.
Would you have preferred this movie to equivocate, show the mass murderers as basically good people, while making the American characters deeply personally flawed, just to show that we are as bad as them? Then it would be “intelligent”. The fact is that most Americans and most Arabs are good people, but those who use ambulances to murder hundreds of innocent people are just NOT good people. Equivocation or showing their “good side” isn’t deep. Everyone loves their family, but if you think it’s fine to murder someone else’s family then you don’t deserve to be treated with kid-gloves and made to seem “no different from us”.
The terrorist attack at the beginning of the movie didn’t do anything but show a typical large terrorist attack. It is jingoistic to show what is happening in real life all over the world? Is it jingoistic to have a Saudi man as the hero of the movie? Can you even tell me anything that still counts as patriotic anymore? Risking your life to defend others apparently isn’t.
Was the war mis-managed? Yes! But what does that have to do with displaying terrorists exactly as who they are? How does that mean that America isn’t saving lives in Iraq? Why is our country attacked for PEACE-KEEPING and counter-terrorism all of a sudden?
People who hate terrorism will love this movie. People who buy into conspiracies and think going to war to kill terrorists is as bad as the original act of terrorism will hate this movie.
October 1st, 2007 at 11:17 am
I saw this movie last night.
It was really, really nice to see Hollywood make a movie where (a) the USA is not responsible for all the problems in the Middle East (e.g., Syriana), (b)there was a realistic portrayal of terrorists as religious fanatics and vicious killers, (c)the terrorist acts are not justified by “Western” behavior or cultural relativism and (d) the terrorist victims are not to blame for being attacked.
I really do not get the “jingoism” complaints. This film does not make an attempt to overly “glorify” the U.S. , the U.S. ideals or otherwise use extreme patriotism to justify foreign policy at the expense of other nations. In fact, at times, the American characters come across more as “ugly Americans” than the Saudi’s come across as grossly incompetent religious zealots. Our government (the President and the State Department, specifically) come across as idiots….more interested in the flow of oil than fighting terrorism. I thought the film was very respectful to Islam, while, at the same time, recognizing that the terrorists have perverted Islam for their own means. It is o.k. to like your country or to be proud of its achievements (patriotism is not bad). It is o.k. to have American heroes (the film, of course, also had 2 other very important Saudi heroes as main characters).
It seems that too many of Hollywood’s current movies want us (film audiences) to feel bad about America or our place in the world (e.g., Elah, Syriana, Babel, Lions for Lambs, Rendition etc.). Sure, we are not perfect. We, as a country, have made mistakes. Our foreign policy is not perfect. This being said, we, as a general rule, go to films to be entertained - not for a sermon on why we should be ashamed of ourselves….
These anti-American films are doing poorly at the box office and will continue to do so.
We are fighting a very dangerious enemy. This film put a very realistic face on the religious fanatics that wish to kill us. The film accurately reflected the savagery of what is nothing more than a rather typical, although well coordinated terrorist act.
Whatever your politics (or your view on the Iraq War… ), this film is important. You do not have to support George Bush or the Iraq War (which I do not) to hate Islamic terrorism and to understand or, at least, to attempt to understand those who we fight.
October 3rd, 2007 at 12:18 pm
Must our opinions of all movies now be evaluated through a political filter? What, a liberal can’t like revenge flicks? A conservative can’t like anything critical of the US and A?
How tedious. How tiresomely the-personal-is-political.
Anyway, this lib saw “The Kingdom” last night and wanted very much to like it. I was actively rooting to like it. I even enjoyed parts of it. But the film is flat, flat, flat. The invesgation portion was dull. No twists, no surprise turns. And that lame “kill ‘em all” parallel at the end? Puh-leez. Spare me the Afterschool Special message. Gimme Jason Bourne or “Syriana” any day. Or bring back Harry Callahan to hunt down bin Laden.
October 3rd, 2007 at 12:31 pm
I don’t disagree that The Kingdom was flat compared to the bang-bangityness of “Bourne,” but Bourne is maybe the best action film in the last several years. “Kingdom” is still way above average in intelligence and believability. The kill ‘em all thing did pull the rug out a bit–it’s an ambivalent statement, but it gives you something to chew on.
I haven’t seen “Syriana” since it came out, but though it did strike me as pleasingly smart and complicated, it was not exactly a thrill ride. You can’t say that one grabbed you by the lapels…it kinda moved like Joe Torre when he’s about to make his third pitching change of the inning when he’s down a couple in the seventh and the Sox have the bases loaded and Papelbon warming up.
December 12th, 2007 at 4:20 pm
Remember that participant in your school/ college debate competition whose only point was to shout at the top of his voice. He would bang his fists on the rostrum and his arms would fly all over the place, all the time scarcely making a single point. A poor excuse for eloquence, he would still be interesting for he would bring a smile on us, occasionally making us laugh at his way over the top antics. The Kingdom is exactly that, the kind of film that sees the need to introduce Chris Cooper’s character by showing his name underlined by a flashy “Bomb expert†which might as well be the name of a motel; it doesn’t remotely matter if Cooper is reciting his lines in terms of C-4s and Syntex. A film that is so confident in its blissful ignorance that it pointless to criticize it.
Here is a B-grade gung-ho action film that is more along the lines of a Delta Force, a badly made visually incoherent installment I might add, and when it holds aspirations of making a statement it is better to sit back and laugh at it. I was all game for the unintentional laughs but the film is so dull it wouldn’t even give me one. The Kingdom uses the terrorism-jihad-middle east trump card to set a scenario where four super agents of the FBI land in Saudi Arabia to track down a terrorist cell responsible for bombing out a pro-US base.
Let me reiterate, it is futile to debate the film. It would be as pointless as arguing with barking dogs by barking back at them. And I mean no offence to dogs, none in the least. What I found particularly offensive is that the film didn’t even care to let me enjoy my 100 bucks worth of explosions. As critical I’m of my favorite punching bag (other than the one hanging in my kitchen) Michael Bay, I still immensely enjoy his nonsense. Bay at least has a fantastic talent of presenting nonsense; this film doesn’t even have the courtesy to blow up things in a presentable manner. I simply cannot understand the need of modern Hollywood films to shake the camera incessantly. Once again the twin dragons, shaky camera and faster-than-a-speeding-bullet editing, make the proceedings virtually incomprehensible. The cinematographer, the person I hold responsible for my headache, is Mauro Fiore. Remember those awful Stallone films which went by the name of Driven and Get Carter? Well, Fiore was part of the guilty party there too. Why, in the name of God, does he need to shake the camera? And why in the name of all heavens does the editing have to be so predictably fast, the cuts running doubly faster than the blink of an eye. Is the sense of a stable image lost in the land? Is it some holy writ to use the scissor and change the angle every second? The masters of this technique – Christopher Nolan, Paul Greengrass, Fernando Meirelless, Steven Soderbergh – know how to use it sparingly and are deadly effective. Here, it feels as if they have just laid their hands on a camera and just cannot stop being amused by this funny thing that captures images. Fiore is working on James Cameron’s next mega-project Avatar; I guess that ought to do a lot of good to him. As for Peter Berg, the director, it is pretty apparent that he is still under transition from an actor (Lions for Lambs, Collateral) to a director. Long way to go mate, long is that way. I had expressed great disappointment in Carnahan’s script for Lions for Lambs; here his work had roots for a nice little genre film. Alas, that dreaded epileptic camera. Show some light lord.
The performances aren’t much to bother about; Jamie Foxx has been part of an ensemble torture before which flew past us by the name of Stealth. He and Cooper and for that matter everyone, and that includes the guy assisting Cooper pumping the water out of the trench, are good. It is just that they barely manage to register one stable image on us, courtesy again the camerawork.
Many people are calling this the anti-Syriana. Of course, it is anti-Syriana. In fact, it could explode the very foundations on which films as Syriana stand on i.e. sense. I recently read an article that was basically looking into the failure of Middle-east films at the box office. It is a no-brainer, audiences aren’t foolish to pay for something that not only insults their intelligence but doesn’t even care to respect their monetary contribution for its survival. As for its arguments, all I would say is one thing. If this is the pro-war argument one could muster, I wouldn’t be worried too much about the opposing camp. In fact, I would laugh out loud, as its argument plays out like the very clichéd Jehadi rhetoric it so much hopes to criticize.