MovieChat Forums > The Kingdom (2007) Discussion > Kill Them All

Kill Them All

posted 13 years ago by themadride
15 replies | jump to latest

The flaw in this movie can be summed up by the final scene. It equates the "western response" to radical Islam as the same thing as radical Islamic terrorism.

The message is "we are thinking the same thing....we ARE THE SAME"

The problem, the undeniable truth, is that when the American said, "we are going to kill them all", he was referencing "THOSE RESPONSIBLE".

When the terrorist said, "we are going to kill them all" he was referencing every single infidel in the west. The terrorist insures his grandson that every last person not Islamic will die.

War is bad, innocent people dying is sad, the fact that fighting terrorism sometimes inspires terrorism is very troubling....but this movie sucked as a political commentary because the message that "we are the same" is a joke.

The action isn't bad, but the commentary is a joke.

[–] 13 years ago

[deleted]

[–] dream-catcher-2 13 years ago

I have lived in Saudi Arabia most of my life ..and trust me when I tell you that those crazy ass terrorists are just that, crazy ass people !

nobody really gets them

as for the ending of this movie ..you can clearly tell by the expression on Foxx's character at the end that what he meant at the beginning of the movie was TO KILL THEM ALL ...not just those responsible, he wanted to cap as many Muslims as he could just for the sake of revenge, his expression at the end says that isn't the case anymore.. mostly because of the relationship he had with Col. Faris Alghazi and the mutual respect they developed for each other.

TBH the last line was sort of pointless me thinks ..

I hurt people, thats my job !

[–] galluslass 9 years ago

"as for the ending of this movie ..you can clearly tell by the expression on Foxx's character at the end that what he meant at the beginning of the movie was TO KILL THEM ALL ...not just those responsible, he wanted to cap as many Muslims as he could just for the sake of revenge, his expression at the end says that isn't the case anymore.. mostly because of the relationship he had with Col. Faris Alghazi and the mutual respect they developed for each other. "

Well exactly

[–] subase 13 years ago

No the films ending was basically, revenge begets revenge, or violence begets violence.

The west will forever be killing terrorists it never will stop. The only way to reduce it is to change the middle east from the dictator and elite playgrounds they now are.

That requires more than just shooting people. The actions of the film are seen as futile as they didn't tackle the deeper underlying issues, and in 10-15 years the same thing will happen again.

[–] netrek 13 years ago

I agree that ruined the movie for me. This type of moral equivalence is popular with liberals.

><> <><

[–] classicmaterial 13 years ago

First of all it's speculation that Jamie Foxx actually meant "those responsible", he never said that, he just said "we're going to kill them all". I think since 9/11 we've heard a lot of americans become weary of all Muslims thus meaning that perhaps Jamie Foxx was reacting like many americans have in the last 10 years with the "kill them all" mentality.

As for the point about liberals, I loved that final scene and I'm the furthest thing from a liberal, can't stand liberals in fact, they're whiny, don't understand economics at all, and are huge fans of passing legislation without actually thinking about what will happened beyond the first step. What was so great about that ending was not just the on the surface statement but it showed how this conflict, this Middle East vs. the West conflict, has been going on for so long, and it will continue to be a problem because both sides basically hate each other, so even when deals are made and smiles are on faces, neither side will ever truly trust the other and that's what makes this a never-ending problem.

@classicmaterial

"I'd rather die enormous than live dormant" - S. Carter

[–] Ro-bust 13 years ago

I think your simplfiying the terrorist motivation behind kill them all. Im pretty sure there are some hard line activist out there who simply want to kill the infidels, but im sure that there are much more that simply want to kill people as they too have had family members killed at the hands of some other group. Why do you think the events in isreal cause so much problems, how many muslims have been killed over so called promised land, with the support of the west? You kill my brother ill kill urs, thats how i see the last line of that film, not that they are simply killing to follow their religious beliefs

[–] themadride 13 years ago

Polls that showed that 24% (if I remember correctly) of Muslims in Great Britain support suicide bombings would seem to disagree with you. One can only imagine what that number would be in the Middle East.

Based on your comments on Israel, which indicate a lack of historical knowledge, I'm not at all surprised by your view of the movie and that line.

[–] paveld78 11 years ago

I live in a country with "serious" gypsy problem. I bet that if you'd run a poll asking how the "gypsy" problem should be treated, at least 25% would suggest violent solutions (at best internment camps like the Nazis did for jews, at worst non-trial executions).

50% of people anywhere are stupid, so if only 24% agree with suicide bombings, then that's actually a good number. If I asked in post-9/11 USA what to do with Muslims, "Nuke them all" would be a very popular response.

But just as saying "Nuke them all!" does not automatically mean any of them would press the red button if given the choice, so doesn't 24% approval for suicide bombings mean that these people are willing to take suicide bomb costumes and go blow themselves up. As "12 angry men" showed us, shouting "I'll kill you" doesn't mean you are going to.

====

There is only one way to reduce the threat of terrorism: Strengthening the middle class. The middle class is "The glue of the world". The top 1% do not necessarily need to be on good terms with other cultures - their wealth remains just as great if they opt for isolationism or xenophobic rhetoric. The poor ones consider everyone foreign to be a threat to their income. But the middle class prospers when allowed to deal with other cultures. "We give them wine, they give us silk" style. So, having 33% of people in the middle class would stabilize the world -- Arabs would not want to blow *beep* up in America, because that could disrupt their trade routes, and Americans would not want to blow *beep* up in Arabia, because that could disrupt their trade routes.

Unfortunately, politicians around the globe seem to almost fanatically do everything they can to weaken the middle class with extra byrocracy, extra taxes, extra requirements. In my country, the middle class has now shrunk to about 15%, which is alarmingly low.

[–] Cleulow 13 years ago

I didn’t take it to be equating religious fundamentalist attacks with revenge killings. I took it to be (as subase said) to mean that violence begets more violence, and that acts of revenge simply perpetuate such situations as those depicted.

I saw exactly the same thing in Northern Ireland during the Troubles. So long as all each side wanted was killing and revenge without any possibility of compromise, there could be no progress.

[–] JrnlofEddieDeezenStudies 13 years ago

It wouldn't be a flaw with the film that you feel that a particular interpretation of something isn't the case in the actual world. A flaw with a film should be something that results in the film not working with respect to itself.

http://www.rateyourmusic.com/~JrnlofEddieDeezenStudies

[–] fnj-07126 8 years ago

All of you guys are completely missing the point. When both sides swear independently to "kill them all", the film is not drawing a moral or cultural equivalence, nor is it really pointing out the blindingly obvious and trite "eye for an eye is bad" moral. It is making the point that in such a struggle, no matter which side you get drawn into, you dehumanize and write off the enemy.

Simple as that. The insight is simple, yet incisive

[–] arvid00013 8 years ago

Many people have mention that the line actually represents the cyclic violence.

What no one points out, the 2 Arab heroes who died were many ways the worse characters to have died. They were the ones most likely to effective agents against terrorist.

A couple of FBI agents are unlikely to make the difference in international terrorism.

A couple of Saudi LE who have worked with FBI and fought against terrorist could make a greater difference.

'Go get an education, learn to talk you first language, lerarn to spell countries names' nidii-76417