free counter with statistics Kingdom, The | Pajiba - Scathing Reviews for Bitchy People

kingdom4.jpg

War Is (Kind of) Hell

The Kingdom / Daniel Carlson

Film Reviews | September 30, 2007 | Comments (32)


The Kingdom begins with a rapid-fire timeline that covers the official formation of the kingdom of Saudi Arabia in 1932 to today, stopping along the way to highlight the discovery of oil in the 1930s, the nation’s rise to global power in the decades following, and eventually how Osama bin Laden — born in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia — would come to denounce the Saudi monarchy for turning to the U.S. for support instead of bin Laden’s forces when Iraq invaded Kuwait. The (very) brief tutorial is as much for the benefit of the viewer as it is director Peter Berg’s attempt to provide a historical context for the film, because in setting a film about a terrorist attack in modern-day Saudi Arabia, Berg automatically taps into both the American willingness to fight a foreign enemy and society’s general ignorance about the politics, religion, and history of the region. The reason World War II has become such a dependable backdrop for a war film is that we as a culture have been steeped in the mythos of the greatest generation and its conflict, and because that war provided Americans with an easily identifiable list of enemies: Germany. Japan. Italy. But the chaos of the Middle East makes for a much messier, complex battle, and one that’s that much harder to attempt to translate to film. Berg’s rushed civics lesson is his way of trying to set the larger scene, to illustrate the changes in Saudi Arabia over the past 75 years. It’s a noble goal, and he succeeds. The problem is that the film itself often eschews that wide-angle view of history for a narrower, if still compelling, kind of war-based morality tale. Berg’s film, from a script by Matthew Michael Carnahan, is a mix of action, suspense, and mildly provocative politics, as if somebody made a really solid “Law & Order” episode and set it in the Middle East. The Kingdom makes occasional nods in the direction of balance, or fairness, or even just asking a good question or two, but those moments are shouted down by the fiercer warriors in Berg’s army: explosions, car chases, and a sense of American might at the expense of our own humanity.

The film opens with a softball game at an American compound in Riyadh, complete with burgers sizzling on the grill and the strains of Dave Matthews Band’s “Stay” drifting over the field in the summer air. Everything seems as peaceful as it can be for Saudi Arabia, but soon enough, two militants in stolen police uniforms infiltrate the camp and begin to slaughter the civilians, mowing down families with sub-machine guns in the first of the film’s queasily realistic scenes of graphic violence. Amid the screaming crowd, one of the attackers raises his arms, whispers that there is no God but Allah and that Muhammad is his prophet, then blows himself apart, taking most of the crowd with him. But this is just the first attack: Once emergency responders arrive at the scene that night, including FBI representatives in the region, a much larger blast goes off at the scene, taking out most of the block and sending the body count soaring. Berg uses cinematographer Mauro Fiore to capture all this action with the shaky handheld aesthetic Berg’s been growing fonder of since Friday Night Lights, as if he wants the viewer not just to feel as if they are actually present and witnessing the action in person, but also rocking back and forth while doing so, and possibly punching themselves in the head to further muddle comprehension. Handheld cameras communicate an emotional urgency and lend the story a kind of freedom, transforming potential energy into kinetic, but Berg overdoes it and simply winds up with what often feels like something shot as if he were actually taking enemy fire while filming.

The pair of attacks falls under the purview of FBI Special Agent Ronald Fleury (Jamie Foxx) and his team of forensic and intelligence experts, including Grant Sykes (Chris Cooper), Janet Mayes (Jennifer Garner), and Adam Leavitt (Jason Bateman). After going a few rounds with the FBI director and pulling a few strings, Fleury secures access for himself and his crew to Saudi Arabia for five days to investigate the bomb site and attempt to catch the perpetrators. The introduction of the deadline — the team has just a few short days to work before being removed from the country — is a smart move from Carnahan that would have allowed for several more layers of tension: Will the team find the killer in time? Will they make it out in five days? What if they can’t make it out after the deadline? Unfortunately, Carnahan seemingly abandons that plot point; it’s never mentioned again after the FBI team lands in Saudi Arabia, which is indicative of the film’s larger problem, namely, that it winds up being as chaotic as the region it’s supposedly trying to understand.

Once Fleury’s team arrives, the film turns into a low-level procedural as they take apart the evidence and try to discover the killer. There are a few instances of culture clash, like the fact that Adam’s expletive-laden humor doesn’t sit well with his Saudi hosts, but for the most part, Berg passes up the opportunity for introspection in favor of a straightforward police story. Instead of deriving momentum from character depth or interaction, the script pigeonholes the FBI agents into roles seemingly carved out specifically for the actors in question: Fleury is arrogant, quick-witted, and willing to bully his way to his goal; Sykes is Southern, stubborn, and hard-working; Janet is strong, brave, and emotional; and Adam is sarcastic, wry, and likable. These stereotypes worked for other war movies, they might as well work for Berg. Only Bateman brings a spark of life to his scenes, adding levity and a level of humanity missing from the rest of the cold, calculating script.

Berg wants to make a political thriller, a smart action movie, and he almost gets there. But the series of escalating action sequences, including the climactic car chase through Riyadh that culminates in a street shootout, has a desensitizing effect, especially set to the heavy score from Danny Elfman. Berg doesn’t just show the bombers planning their attacks, but works the film into a righteous furor at the enemy, unleashing in the final battle a pent-up anger hinted at with the images of Sept. 11 in the opening credits. This gets even weirder when it buts up against the performance of Ashraf Barhoum as Col. Faris Al Ghazi, who acts as Fleury’s military liaison. A montage of the Saudi soldiers’ home lives about halfway through the film is apparently meant to humanize them, but’s unnerving to think of human beings as needing to be humanized. Of course Al Ghazi has a family and cares about them; that makes him a good man, but not an extraordinary one. There’s a pervasive sense of division throughout the film, and for every genuine moment between two characters, there’s one that reinforces old stereotypes (Muslims are twitchy, Americans kick ass, etc.). War is a nasty, brutish thing that breaks men’s hearts and souls, but Berg only seems to acknowledge that out of necessity, not belief. The Kingdom is meant to end on a note of ambiguity that warns of the self-defeating dangers of warfare and cautions that violence begets violence. And maybe Berg believes that, which is a good thing. But he sure doesn’t sell it.

Daniel Carlson is the managing editor of Pajiba and a low-level employee at a Hollywood industry magazine. You can visit his blog, Slowly Going Bald.


Feast of Love | Game Plan, The



Comments

Ah, yet another "crack FBI team" adventure. Two problems with this flick:

The premise of trying to pass Jamie Foxx as part of a "crack team" of anything.

The premise that an organization that amounts to nothing more than a gang of cheap suit wearing, jack-booted thugs HAS any "crack team," of anything.

Posted by: BarbadoSlim at September 28, 2007 8:11 PM

oooh...someone has some bad feelings towards the FBI. I wonder why?

Also: This actually sounds better than I thought it would be. Might have to rent this.

Posted by: the_Wakeful at September 28, 2007 8:57 PM

Theoretically, they'd have a crack team of cheap suit wearing, jack-booted thugs.

Posted by: depotoad at September 28, 2007 11:33 PM

I've heard good things about this one, but I live in Arizona, where they filmed it. Every time I see a commercial, and recognize the roads they used, I have to chuckle a little. I don't think that's the reaction the filmmakers wanted.

I doubt L.A. people have to go through that, since most stuff filmed there is supposed to take place there.

Posted by: Todd at September 28, 2007 11:50 PM

i grew up in riyadh, on an american compound... and i just saw the movie. i thought it was interesting. the movie is just as messy and conflicted as the reality of being an american in saudi. a lot rang true to the experience, but it's a tough line between humanizing and stereotyping. it's really hard to capture, but i don't think berg failed.

Posted by: Saucy McB at September 29, 2007 12:16 AM

An intelligently delivered review.

Posted by: daniel at September 29, 2007 12:28 AM

When I first saw the trailer to this film I had to suppress my instinctual eye-roll. I'm not really sure what offended me about it, but I think I took immediate offense to the idea that Americans had to come in to save the day on foreign soil.

But maybe this is what would happen even if they weren't Americans? Do you guys know whether this is Americana or actual behavior? Help! I feel guilty and annoyed at the same time! Yikes!

Posted by: Dana at September 29, 2007 1:21 AM

I love some many things about what this movie could be, but I have a feeling that if I see it, it won't deliver on any of them.

Posted by: Kevin Longrie at September 29, 2007 2:42 AM

I think this is the first pajiba review I have wholeheartedly disagreed with.

SaucyMcB's assessments are more on the mark.

Great movie, great acting (yes, even Jamie), great not-so-black-and-white ending.

Posted by: ciji at September 29, 2007 5:23 AM

Is it remotely possible that, 50 years from now, today's roster of "G-Men Mow Down Renegade Terrorists" thrillas will look as pathetically predictable and derivative as the B-movie gangster flicks of the '30's and the horse opera westerns of the '50's? Just asking.

Posted by: tomc at September 29, 2007 7:04 AM

just to clarify, because a few people have questioned this... when the opm-sang facility (american operation training saudi arabian national guardsmen) was bombed in riyadh in november 1995, the fbi DID send a team to saudi arabia to investigate. the team also included at least one woman. my mom's friend met them where she worked at the commissary. *shrug*

Posted by: Saucy McB at September 29, 2007 9:59 AM

This is the review I've been waiting for, as I've actually been wanting to see this. Thanks Daniel!

Posted by: Gabs at September 29, 2007 10:03 AM

When I first saw the trailer for this in the theatre, a LONG time ago (why did it take so long for this movie to come out anyway?) - I remember turning to my husband and saying,"Well, THAT looks awful." Maybe it was just the trailer, or maybe I still don't buy Jamie Foxx's acting skills...but something about it pretty much guaranteed that I'll never see this film. I think it's because I kept expecting Steven Segal to show up.

Posted by: Kolby at September 29, 2007 10:43 AM

When I saw the trailer for this film I thought: great, just what we need, a righteous American guns vs. evildoers of the Middle East film. Democracy, God (the Christian one, not Allah) and America will prevail! I was pretty horrified, because it appeared to not only feed this rhetoric but present it in blockbuster format. Upon reading this review, however, it seems that the trailer wasn't accurate (which is surprising given most trailers today give away the entire plot and any quippy dialog) and I'm relived. I won't spend my money to go see this, but at the very least it doesn't offer the simple "America good. Middle East Bad" conclusion.

Posted by: kelli at September 29, 2007 11:41 AM

I chose a controversial name... for this site.

The FBI are cheap, jack-booted thugs, eh? Do you realize the costs involved in introducing crack to the black community? Not so cheap, my friend.

kelll is right. We don't need any movies about heroic Americans. We need movies to show us as the imperialists that we are, until an ambitious, boyishly handsome suicide bomber shows us the error of our ways, and we retreat from the Middle East, blowing up Israel on the way out and giving directions to the North Koreans on their way to Syria. Produced by George Clooney and Danny Glover, and starring a guy that beat his wife for leaving the house. Coming this summer!

Posted by: I Hate Terrorism at September 29, 2007 1:18 PM

Saw it yesterday and I agree with the review. The movie had lots of opportunities to show the shades of gray in what is an increasingly complex situation and instead chose to go the way of typical action movie.

Also, on a slightly more petty note, the camera work drove me completely crazy. I understand that shaking the camera perhaps offers a more authentic feel to the movie, but I know that Jamie Foxx and Jennifer Garner aren't actually in the FBI, so it was just two hours worth of annoying.

Posted by: Morgan at September 29, 2007 1:32 PM

"I hate terrorism" (as opposed to others here loving it, I guess, 'cause: who? doesn't LOOOOVE terrorism?)

Yes, the same FBI, that allowed the Cosa Nostra to flourish wile a cross dressing freak kept tabs on people who weren't doing shit. The sma FBI that allowed many Saudi suspects to flee after 9/11, the same FBI who ran Cointelpro to harass and suppress civil rights etc.
Those are documented facts, friend. I, on the other hand, have no knowledge, or proof, that they brought controlled substances into black communities, YOU, brought that up.

Posted by: BarbadoSlim at September 29, 2007 4:28 PM

I don't think it's a petty note...it's damn annoying. Can filmmakers now dispense with the 'shaky-documentary' style camera work, please. It must piss off the actors and stunt men to see the work they've put into the film captured in such a poor fashion. I liked the film, but had to look away half the time to avoid eye strain.

Posted by: Doom70 at September 30, 2007 1:24 AM

Sounds like the terrorism dude should take his PURSE and go see that piece of shit movie with the ROCK.I guess its a dude ?what do you think slim? fucking rams, yuk!

Posted by: pasadenamike at September 30, 2007 7:54 PM

Hahahaha, his purse, hehehehehehehe, awesome.

Posted by: BarbadoSlim at September 30, 2007 10:08 PM

Saw this over the weekend. Amazing movie.

Posted by: Sammaji at October 1, 2007 11:00 AM

"I doubt L.A. people have to go through that, since most stuff filmed there is supposed to take place there."

Oh, we do. Because they mis-identify things all the time, and present them in a way that has no bearing on actual distance or geography. All the time.

My main problem with The Kingdom--and this is based only on previews--is that I feel like I've seen it before, many times. I don't get the feeling that there's much here that's genuinely new. (I feel the same way about American Gangster. No doubt the performances will be strong, but how is that movie different from the other organized crime movies/TV shows?) Also, I'm tired of Jennifer Garner's long hair. If she wants to move beyond Sydney Bristow, she might think about changing her look, even in a really minor way.

Posted by: Kate at October 1, 2007 11:58 AM

honestly, i can't take anything with jamie foxx that seriously. i know he did an awesome job with "ray" but something about him doesn't make me run out to see his flicks. on another note, is he just floating into denzel washington territory, where he fills the action-packed do-gooder cop/investigator/protector/military role?

Posted by: smash at October 1, 2007 12:18 PM

What, Todd - you don't think that the area around the 202 looks sufficiently Saudi Arabian???

Me either, which is why I giggled through the entire preview before Shoot 'Em Up.

Posted by: pinkcheese at October 1, 2007 1:38 PM

What, Todd - you don't think that the area around the 202 looks sufficiently Saudi Arabian???

Me either, which is why I giggled through the entire preview before Shoot 'Em Up.

Posted by: pinkcheese at October 1, 2007 1:38 PM

For Friday Night Lights fans, anybody else notice that Minka Kelly and Kyle Chandler are both in this?
(Minka is the teacher of the class Jamie Foxx is visiting right before coach Taylor blows up)
Made me laugh anyway.

Posted by: scott at October 1, 2007 3:55 PM

Doom, I wholeheartedly agree with you. Maybe I lost some of my inner ear stability or whatever, but ever since the Blair Witch Project, I can't go see a movie with lots of shaking in it without either throwing up or spending half the movie with my eyes closed. I hope some of you producers are reading this, because if I hear a movie is shaky, I won't go see it. I'm tired of throwing up in theaters because I feel like I'm getting motion sickness.

Posted by: Rowen at October 4, 2007 12:16 AM

The Christian God and Allah are the same God Kelli. Really. Your post made it sound like you might not have known that... Carry on.

Posted by: Bruce at October 6, 2007 6:35 PM

Bruce: I think that would be your belief that they are the same god. Some would believe otherwise. (Me personally, agnostic.)

Movie sucked. Another good guy bad guy story. It has its moments of actual depth only to be cut short by Hollywood's usual need for action packed sequences. This movie over simplifies the situations and behaviors. I can't believe that both cultures are being treated with such blatant disrespect. I think that our pride as a nation is waning due to these slick half assed films that work off terrible assumptions and little understanding of history.

I also laugh at the selling of this movie, by Universal, as anything other than an action movie making them money. Lame and silly.

Posted by: brad at October 15, 2007 12:45 PM

What's worse than watching two hours of shaky fake-documentary style camera work?

Defending your dislike of said camera work to someone who insists it's "so authentic" and "made you feel like you were really there." I'm sorry, enough is enough. Good cinematography is a lot more than shaking the camera around a bunch of times and hoping to disorient the watcher.

Posted by: Amanda at October 19, 2007 9:00 PM

Just watch it, thought it was fair,not the best piece of cinema iv ever seen but it had some good action sceens and a bit of a message. The guitar track by Danny Elfman was also quite cool

Posted by: mark at October 30, 2007 3:32 PM

I think there are many ways to view this movie. As a straight-up shoot-em up action flick, it succeeds. As a more deeply-involving politically-charged thriller it fails.

Unlike Syriana we never get to understand why Saudi Arabia is how it is. That a certain political context, certains mechanisms of the global economy (i.e. the complete dependence on oil) is responsible for this. No, all we see is this orientalized vision of this "Other" we fear so much.

Finally we are left with a really weird message. If "Kill'em all" is the reaction on both sides (as the ending shows) what was the point of all this? Why did we waste a perfectly good action movie with a semblance of substance?

Posted by: Jpguy13 at November 27, 2007 9:20 AM