Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Movies' started by Phil Florian, Mar 30, 2003.
Yeah, bring on Three Kings and a Baby. I think Steve Guttenberg is available.
If they call the sequel Four Kings they need to add Joe Pesci as Leo Getz, always in the back seat of the Jeep.
I loved Three Kings so much when I saw it. Heck, I loved the trailer. Wasn't that one of the best trailers of the last decade?
Three Kings, Blow, Fight Club, Salton Sea, American Beauty, all had great trailers, but I felt that Three Kings was the only one that really captured the feeling of the film in just a three-minute sampling. Others were intentionally ambigious(Salton, Fight Club), while others seemed to create a feeling for the trailer that was different than the movie (like Blow, whose trailer was 3x better than the movie).
Well, I didn't like it. I went in expecteing an action/war movie, not a preachy anti-US political statement. [Political commentary deleted. See the HTF Rules and Ron Epstein's 3/19/03 announcement at the top of this forum.]
It was an action war movie. Just one that discussed some issues. I thought it was a funny commentary on the mixed up nature of that war. Like the current war, we had about a dozen reasons why we went in. Free Kuwait. Save the people. Free the oil. Stop a menace. Etc. They kind of make fun of it and get to the core of what was really at stake. I found it very PRO- something. Pro- soldier. Pro- citizen. In the end, everyone wins because they all work together and are willing to sacfice their lives and for the first time (now that the war was over) they realized why they were really there. It is like that recent news story where the American soldier saw first hand the Iraqi people and their situation and said "this is why we are here." That may be true or not (it wasn't in the original docket) but it is the reason THAT soldier is able to get up and go every day. Three Kings also deals with the imbedding of the media (or, in Clooney's case, just bedding) with troops and how that affects the war. It was the first real media spun war and the film deals with that as well. Cool stuff.
I have a friend who saw it and did not like it (most of my friends who have started making over $50K annual have become conservative old farts)...
I thought it was brilliant, but it took me about three years to getting around to renting it; I intend to purchase it tomorrow.
I do not think a sequel is necessary, and [Political commentary deleted. See the HTF Rules and Ron Epstein's 3/19/03 announcement at the top of this forum.]
...sorry about that. Lee-M
Please discuss the film, not current events. I'd really like to be able to leave this thread open.
A great film. Mark Wahlberg steals the film, especially in the torture scene.
I think the film's pro-individualist, among other things (which I won't go into here). The film has definitely taken on a new meaning, in light of recent events.
As for the film itself, it strongly reminds me of Fight Club. It has that same ballsy nerve to "discuss" "current" events- although 3K was made after Desert shield/storm, while FC was made in the thick of the consumerist age. High marks for scriptwriting (Russell spent 18 months on rewrites), truly amazing cinematography, acting (Cube? Wahlberg? Who would've thought?), music, and great action sequences to boot.
Whatever happened to David O'Russell, anyway?
I like O'Russell's interview on the DVD. He said after the fuss and stuff of such a large-scale production, he wanted to make a movie about two people in a room. Here is a blurb I found on the internet about his newest offering.
Looks like we are a way off for this one (looks like 2004, according to one site)
Regardless of what he makes next, I'll be lined up. I've been very impressed with all of his films thusfar.
I watched it myself, but no need for a sequel for one simple reason: there was little to no news coverage of the first war, where this war we are watching it as it unfolds.. no need for a movie to tell us how things are going along.
Being avidly pro-US I just have to ask: what about it did you find to be anti-US? The film simply pointed out that encouraging an uprising and then leaving the Iraqis on their own was a mistake, proceeded to show the result of that mistake, and made a very good case of the good we could've done had we not made that mistake. What's anti-US about that?