MovieChat Forums > Three Kings (1999) Discussion > Tone of the film

Tone of the film

posted 16 years ago by jacobmarley233
25 replies | jump to latest

Is it just me or was the tone of this film off?

Don't get me wrong. It was a good film. But after watching Generation Kill, a down-to-earth gritty mini-series occurring against a similar backdrop, I felt that the tone of Three Kings was sort of schizophrenic or inconsistent or something. Anyone else get this vibe from it?

It felt infused with some strangely off-beat, dark humour; that quite frankly I didn't "get". It would focus on people's deaths unashamedly; at one point having a slow motion sequence of an officer getting his brains blown out and the soldiers under his command subsequently getting mown down, reminding me more of a video game than a film.

Most of the time it had the atmosphere of your usual run-of-the mill adventure flick; a bunch of unlikely heroes having a laugh on a comical escapade. While also there were times it took itself seriously, attempting to blend in some social commentary among the antics of the protagonists. But there is some gore in it that feels purposeless, from the filmmaker's standpoint. It wasn't there to galvanise anger in the audience, they weren't that satisfying the deaths. Some of these guys I really didn't feel any emotion towards, let alone anger; so their deaths felt pointless. This isn't a slasher film. I just didn't get why exaggerated sounds of flesh bursting from gunshot wounds was necessary. Cars exploding fine, it is an action adventure after all, but the gore felt strangley "off".

My problem with it is just felt a bit messy overall, both in the direction and in conscience. The camera zooms in on gunshot wounds displaying gory innards, focuses on dying soldiers as blood squirts out and they gasp for their last breaths, portrays soldiers running for their lives in a humorous fashion, and shows the civilian/rebels at times, with indifference to their suffering. The protagonists at times felt like they were inappropriately affected by what was going on around them; displaying both altruism, greedy self-centred-ness and plain apathy sporadically.

Now that sounds harsh. The characters' personalities weren't nearly as bad as I described them in the above paragraph. It's just the above description sort of slightly fits how they acted in this film. I didn't feel the flaws in their personalities were that obvious throughout, but rather I could just subtly detect that how the characters, and the camera, treated the situations was slightly "off". "Off" is the only way I can describe it as it wasn't that overt.

The film itself, just like the character's personalities, also felt sort of inconsistent throughout. It felt like it cared about serious commentary one moment; commentary on the motives for the First Gulf War, on the human tragedy that took place after America pulled out, etc. But then the next moment it was a feel good adventure flick. And then the next moment after that it was strangely obsessed with gore. The meaning behind the overly lengthy focus on deaths I was especially confused about. Did they focus on it in such a cold and distant manner to show the ambiguous morality of violence in a warzone; to try and show the deaths as coldly and detached as possible? If that was the reason I felt Generation Kill demonstrated the *beep* a warzone is, alot better. Generation Kill focused on deaths and dying and bodies as well, but it didn't attempt to mix them with a feel good comedy caper, and thus didn't end up feeling messy like this.

Don't get me wrong I loved the end, and also the interrogation scene was very poignant, but the start and middle of the film felt strange. This film wasn't what I expected at all. If it was indeed a black comedy, a sub-genre of which I'm not really too fond admittedly, it still didn't really feel right. Severance was a black comedy I enjoyed while this felt sort of strange.

So, did anyone else notice a sort of subtle inconsistency in the tone of Three Kings?

[–] hishmalon 16 years ago

I understood the film to be a 'feel good comedy caper' up til the point where it all went wrong. OK, there were deviations back to the comedy, but these seemed slight and merely a device to give an element of continuity to the theme. What gore are you referring to in particular - the cow? Other than that my attention was not really brought to gunshot wounds (apart from the troopers exaggerated recollection of the headshot at the start - but this was within context). In fact I noted at some point the lack of gore. Blood trickling down a leg, and Troy's injury late on.

The contrast in treatment at different points in the film was intended(I think) to exaggerate that difference. Between the light comedy of soldiers *beep* about and the seriousness of war and its implications on everyone involved. It did perhaps go a little too far - I did not 'believe' the sentimental scenes towards the end of the film, and felt they were perhaps lost in the comedy before.

Overall however, I think the film did well though - it got it's message across and I really enjoyed it. It was good - this was a surprise, especially for a film with Ice Cube in it ;)

[–] Ichabod_Fletchman 15 years ago

I watched this after watching Generation Kill too! But i surprisingly found the tones very similar. There are times when you laugh quite a bit and there are times when you're just sort of shocked into silence. I never felt that Three Kings was trying to force a laugh out of a bad situation. It was more that this is the place they were at and the comedy comes from them being human and going through it.

Those who believe in telekinesis, raise my hand.

[–] Deniro68 13 years ago

The tone to me was that of a dark comedy. Yes, there were funny moments mixed with dramatic moments. And that was precisely what (director) David O'Russell intended. It was a comedy yes. But it was one where the laughs don't come easy.

[–] 13 years ago

[deleted]

[–] ShangriLaDeeDa 12 years ago

Well said tyrexden!
Although, I don't know that I would say that this was "anti-comedy".

I do agree, I think, that this was "anti-action", or what I would call "anti-gun".

In Rockstar We Trust

[–] xenomorph8472 12 years ago

Tyreden's post finally allows me to understand this film. I too wondered why this movie makes desert storm look like such a screw-up, when I thought it was resounding victory? He's right, I too would have disliked it had I watched it in the 90's when it came out.

[–] kb01 12 years ago

Desert Storm was a military victory (all of Powell's criteria were met) but it was a political failure in the sense that Saddam was a continual thorn in the side of US foreign policy, ethnic cleansing campaigns continued, and in a way, it solidified Saddam's power. There were assumptions that the overwhelming military victory would have encouraged a western-backed, *beep* and Kurdish revolt. Uprisings did occur but the end result was Saddam's opposition being massacred whey they surfaced.

I served most of my enlistment in the 90's as an infantryman and always thought that Three Kings and Buffalo Soldiers captured the feel of being in the military during that time. There's something about the sarcasm, dark comedy, and FUBAR situations that rang true to me.

[–] xenomorph8472 12 years ago

Interesting. Appreciate your insight...I was post 9/11 so it's kind hard to relate. I feel I relate more to vietnam era films, as much of the "4 star clowns giving the whole circus away" was my war experience.

Glad I now have some perspective on what serving in the 90's could have been like.

[–] kb01 12 years ago

It was a strange time to be in the military. We had a very aggressive/high OPTEMPO but it was all deployments that the civilian world couldn't care less about. At the same time, there was a lot of change going on (DADT, female fighter pilots, UN deployments, etc.), whole divisions disappearing, and massive budget cuts.

There was a constant shortage of spare parts (at one point, 2/3rds of my company's Bradleys were red-tagged), limited ammunition for training, barracks that were falling apart, and gutted MWR facilities.

It's why much of the sarcasm, bitterness, and resentment resonates with me. A lot of us were just counting down to our ETS dates.

[–] xenomorph8472 12 years ago

I can't imagine. As messed up as our engagements were in Afghanistan, years later, I'm proud of being there. We did what we could, did the best with the top notch equipment we were given, etc. Thanks!

[–] ribby45 11 years ago

Kb01 -

Good to read a post from a soldier.

Yes, the tone is all over the place but I feel it was supposed to mess with your head.
A memorable film about accidental heroes.

[–] Lunchbox-3 12 years ago

I think what you're saying is just what the film is trying to get across. Wars hadn't been popular in America since Vietnam. Along came a righteous cause and we had the technology to win the war without losing too many U.S. soldiers. It was a war that America could feel good about again. Which is kind of a strange notion if you think about it, you shouldn't feel good about war. It's not a nice thing. It may be a necessary thing but it is never nice. But the Gulf War, at least in the States, was pure entertainment. It gave rise to the 24 hour news channels. We sat around talking about how cool it was that you could target a missle right through the window of a building, and capture it on tape for the whole world to see. There was a definite apathy to the horrors of war. Oh, people are being killed? Well, they're not ours, they're just bad guys. They turned Desert Storm into a trading card series, a set of action figures. Cheering for U.S. soldiers on the news held no more moral consequence than cheering for your favorite sports team. I think people over here forgot that over there, in the Middle East, it was not all fun and games, it was life and death. This movie starts with a bunch of troops who never saw action partying in the desert and then going on a heist in the middle of a war zone like they're running down to the local convenience store for a snack. When they get there, they find out there's an actual war going on and they have to take a role in it. That's supposed to wake up the audience to what was actually going on over there at that time.

http://snltranscripts.jt.org/90/90kwaynesworld.phtml
http://www.cultureblues.com/2009/10/look-what-i-found-desert-storm-tra ding-cards/
http://www.ebay.com/itm/GENERAL-BEAR-GENERAL-H-NORMAN-SCHWARZKOPF-/271 052446797?pt=US_Action_Figures&hash=item3f1bfc1c4d

[–] GoMangoMan 11 years ago

well said

==================
astrolupine: even with makeup, you can't make an actor's face look like a chair

[–] MidnightThud 11 years ago

Check out the Clint Eastwood film Kelly's Heroes from the late 60's for the answer.

this is basically an updated version.

[–] spookyrat1 10 years ago

Check out the Clint Eastwood film Kelly's Heroes from the late 60's for the answer.

I love Three Kings. It's kind of ironic however that in the legal wrangle that went down over screenplay credits, Kelly's Heroes was never mentioned. This is kind of funny since Three Kings essentially lifts and reboots the KH storyline AND general satiric tone into an updated setting, whilst playing down the action elements a little.

[–] petrtomkevich 10 years ago

If you watch David Russell's earlier work like Flirting With Disaster, you will find a similar tone but even more obvious. The overall work is smart and has a decent blueprint but the pacing of the moments is awkward. It's like the pacing of the structure, which is infused with bits of social commentary, is what drives the script forward with the expense of making the pace natural. I think he was still a blossoming screenwriter when he did these films but got better with The Fighter and then Silver Linings Playbook was his directorial masterpiece, even if it is an adaptation. I don't think American Hustle can even top Silver Linings Playbook.

[–] go-yankees 10 years ago

Absolutely. The tone was all over the place.