Skip to main content

25 years ago, the angriest war movie ever made was released

Spike Jonze in Three Kings.
Warner Bros.

The year 1999 was, quite famously, a good one for movies. Even the best blockbusters felt political, and more importantly, their themes and ideas felt particularly urgent. Three Kings was one such movie that was beloved at the time, and its stature has only grown in the years since it was first released.

The film, which stars George Clooney, Mark Wahlberg, and Ice Cube, follows four soldiers at the conclusion of the Gulf War who decide to attempt a heist before leaving the Middle East for good. Directed by David O. Russell, the movie is an angry political war cry, but one that mixes comedy, action, and sincere drama to great effect. Here are five reasons you should make time for it.

Recommended Videos

The movie is a metaphor for the entire Gulf War

Three Kings 1999 Trailer | George Clooney | Mark Wahlberg | Ice Cube

This story, which follows a group of soldiers who decide to rob Saddam Hussein’s gold reserves and ultimately get roped into helping the local population fend off a group of raiders, is fairly easy to read as the story of the Gulf War in miniature. The way many see it, the U.S. invaded Kuwait only to preserve its own oil interests, and stopped well short of actually taking down Saddam Hussein.

Of course, actually taking down Hussein proved to be a mess of an entirely different magnitude, but Three Kings remains fascinating in part because it seems to understand that its central characters are not acting out of any sort of moral purpose, but only out of their own instincts for survival.

George Clooney has rarely been better

Warner Bros.

George Clooney is one of the great movie stars of his era, and Three Kings features one of his very best performances. Here, he’s playing Archie Gates, a career soldier on the verge of retirement who is disillusioned with the war and with notions of American greatness more generally. Clooney has always been good as the competent cynic, and that’s exactly the role he gets to play here.

He may not have gotten along with Russell while they were making this movie, but it’s undeniably one of his best performances. Clooney also elevates everyone around him, including Wahlberg and Ice Cube, who are both doing career-best work as well.

It’s directed with genuine invention

The cast of Three Kings.
Warner Bros.

Russell’s career has taken many twists and turns in the decades since Three Kings, but this remains the movie in which he seemed most interested in stylistic invention. The movie’s action sequences feature slow-motion, and the camera is often focused on elements that would be ignored in a typical sequence.

What’s more, the entire film has strange, slightly surreal color-grading largely because of the way it was shot and processed, and all of that makes the movie feel remarkable, even by the standards of the era. Not every choice Russell made here works, but it’s hard to deny that he was always trying something new.

It’s angry and ambiguous

The cast of Three Kings
Warner Bros.

Three Kings is an action movie, a comedy, and a drama, but behind each of those elements is an underlying rage. The movie seems to reflect the views of Clooney’s main character, who is utterly exhausted by America’s interventionalist streak and furious that we had claimed victory while leaving a mess in our wake.

What’s more, Three Kings seems to understand that, while America’s politicians may justify war with lofty rhetoric, America’s soldiers are mostly just grunts working jobs. This is a movie that rails against the reasons we make war as much as it rages against this war in particular, and its acerbic sense of humor is a huge part of its central argument.

It manages to be genuinely funny

Three soldiers prepare for battle in Three Kings.
Warner Bros.

You might not expect a movie that is mostly about how stupid the Gulf War was to also be funny, but Russell manages to balance the movie’s tones beautifully. Whereas the anger of the movie comes from how it’s told, the comedy comes from the interpersonal dynamics between its central characters.

Clooney’s cynical major often finds himself at odds with his less educated, less experienced soldiers, and their desperate attempts to improvise their way out of a situation they should not be in are a huge part of why the movie doesn’t feel like a total bummer.

Three Kings can be rented or purchased on Amazon Prime Video.

Topics
Joe Allen
Joe Allen is a freelance writer at Digital Trends, where he covers Movies and TV. He frequently writes streaming…
15 years ago, this modern masterpiece changed the war movie genre forever
A man smokes in front of a pile of celluloid in Inglourious Basterds.

Quentin Tarantino is a bona fide genre aficionado. Over the course of his 30-year career, the former video store clerk turned world-renowned filmmaker has used his infectious passion for cinema at its most stylized and kooky to reinvent the gangster, crime, samurai, revenge, slasher, Western, and bounty hunter genres. Having spent his first 17 years as a writer-director making genre-bending hits like Reservoir Dogs, Kill Bill, Pulp Fiction, and Jackie Brown, it didn't come as much of a surprise when it was announced that his follow-up to 2007's Death Proof was going to be a World War II thriller in the same vein as classics like The Dirty Dozen, The Great Escape, and The Guns of Navarone. Few could have ever imagined, though, just how thoroughly Tarantino would go on to reinvent the traditional Hollywood war epic.

The resulting film, 2009's Inglourious Basterds, is -- like all of Tarantino's films -- simultaneously a cluster of references and homages to a wide range of 20th-century thrillers both widely esteemed and not and a singular piece of work. It is a thriller of slick style and rock-and-roll verve, and it oozes with the same unbridled, shameless confidence that has long defined Tarantino's work and persona. That confidence burns particularly bright in Inglourious Basterds' stunning finale, in which Tarantino does something that neither he nor anyone else had ever had the guts to do before: He rewrites history and, consequently, ensures that Inglourious Basterds' magic can never be touched or replicated. Fifteen years later, no film has managed to do either.
Setting the stage

Read more
35 years ago, Hollywood’s biggest director made his most underrated blockbuster
A man checks machinery in The Abyss.

Very few filmmakers have found as much consistent blockbuster success in Hollywood as James Cameron. The writer-director has been a marquee name for the past 40 years, and he's directed some of the biggest and most beloved genre films of all time. He's become so highly regarded that he can return from a 13-year break with a sequel that most casual moviegoers had forgotten was even in development and still be enough of a draw to make sure it rakes in some of the most impressive box office numbers in Hollywood history. On top of all of his commercial successes, the general critical appreciation for Cameron has only continued to grow at a steady rate in recent years.

Despite his popularity, though, even Cameron has at least one underrated title in his filmography. In his case, that honor belongs to 1989's The Abyss. Released in between 1986's Aliens and 1991's Terminator 2: Judgment Day, The Abyss is an underwater sci-fi thriller that has consistently flown under the radar for the past 35 years. While it has its fair share of fans, the movie has never received as much attention as all of Cameron's other efforts (barring, say, 1982's Piranha II: The Spawning). That isn't, however, a reflection of The Abyss' quality. On the contrary, it ranks high as one of the most technically astonishing and movingly earnest films that Cameron has ever made.
Close encounters under the sea

Read more
25 years ago, one of the best horror movies ever made became a box office sensation
Three people hang from nooses in The Sixth Sense.

M. Night Shyamalan is best known among moviegoers now as a maker of high-concept, trashy (non-derogatory) genre thrillers, but his reputation has evolved quite a lot throughout his career. For a long time, he was seen as a gimmicky filmmaker — one who relied too much on the kind of third-act, eye-opening twists that had become the biggest talking points of his earliest movies. Viewers began to see him as a one-trick pony and — due to the failures of The Happening, The Last Airbender, and After Earth — not even a particularly good one.

In recent years, however, capably made, uncomfortably gripping films like Trap, Old, Knock at the Cabin, and Split have elevated and deepened his reputation. Now, it seems as though more viewers and critics are willing to recognize him, despite his consistent flaws as a writer, for the high-level, genre-driven visual artist and craftsman that he is. To this day, though, even Shyamalan's biggest defenders don't often tout him as a revolutionary or particularly forward-thinking filmmaker.

Read more