DarkWaters Posted September 15, 2007 Report Share Posted September 15, 2007 I am confused as to why we do not have a thread discussing how AWESOME The Kingdom looks. It is about Jamie Foxx, Chris Cooper and Jennifer Garner hunting down an infamous Islamic terrorist in Saudia Arabia. I recommend viewing at least one of the trailers! I cannot wait for this movie to hit theaters. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheEgoist Posted September 15, 2007 Report Share Posted September 15, 2007 It didn't look like much to me. Just another terribly done action movie. Who knows. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DarkWaters Posted September 30, 2007 Author Report Share Posted September 30, 2007 I saw The Kingdom with a large group of friends this afternoon. With the exception of the last thirty seconds of the movie, I think this was the one of the best movies I have seen since V for Vendetta. I perceived the insinuated message underlying the last thirty seconds of the movie to be so disgusting, so appalling, so horrific that it almost ruined the entire movie for me. Nevertheless, I decided that in spite of that repulsive final segment, the movie can still be thoroughly enjoyed by a rational individual. My praise below will leave all discussion of the offensive final segment aside as if it was not in the movie. I am not arguing that this segment should be ignored. If anyone asks me if I liked the movie, I will state that I loved it but was disgusted by the last commentary. My comments below contain a vague description of the movie and its characters. If you are worried about possible spoilers, please read at your own risk. The Kingdom is a movie about a small FBI team dispatched to Saudia Arabia to hunt down an infamous Islamic terrorist leader who is of the stature of Osama Bin Laden. This movie seemed to be romantic realist in many respects where the heroes are very good and the villains are monstrous. The heroes do not have drinking problems, gambling addictions, shattered personal lives, self-esteem issues or serious personality problems. Instead Jamie Foxx, Chris Cooper, Jennifer Garner and the other guy are courageous, morally certain, quick thinking and great at what they do. Analogously, the villains are portrayed as evil as Islamic extremists are in reality. They are brutal, unrelenting ideologues who will resort to anything to inflict terror in the name of Islam. It is refreshing to see a film that accurately portrays radical Islamists as the bad guys. I also liked how the movie portrayed the current Administration to be obstacles to combating Islamic extremism. When Jamie Foxx's character wanted to immediately respond to the brutal attacks on American civilians, he was labeled as a hothead or an extremist. He was also chided for not letting the Saudi government handle the situation. In addition, he was also encouraged to give in to appeasement. One of the representatives (of I think the State department) argued that the extremists were already furious that there were Westerners in Saudia Arabia. Surely the extremists would, the official continued, just get even angrier if more Americans were dispatched into their homeland. (!) Lastly, I also liked how the movie shown that the Saudi response was, despite taking some aggressive action in response to the attacks, inept and sometimes unnecessarily brutal. Specifically, this unwarranted brutality was evinced when the relative of an extremist who was in the Saudia Arabia guard was being tortured without sufficient reason to believe that he was involved in the attacks. In summary, I whole-heartedly recommend this movie to those of you who like action thrillers especially in the realm of combating radical Islamists. The action is good, the characters are well developed, the plot is exciting and the movie is very suspenseful. Unlike many other movies today (e.g. Eastern Promises or 3:10 to Yuma) the ending is also very satisfying. You just might wish to leave the movie theater right before the last thirty seconds of the film. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheEgoist Posted October 3, 2007 Report Share Posted October 3, 2007 (edited) I enjoyed it thoroughly. But, what was so evil about the last segment? I don't remember being too pissed off. Though I have a better ending for the movie... The Saudi Royals are enjoying dinner, laughing and mocking America, and then, bombers fly by and take out their palaces. The screen goes blank, and " ROck The Casbah " begins Edited October 3, 2007 by TheEgoist Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DarkWaters Posted October 3, 2007 Author Report Share Posted October 3, 2007 Though I have a better ending for the movie... The Saudi Royals are enjoying dinner, laughing and mocking America, and then, bombers fly by and take out their palaces. The screen goes blank, and " Rock The Casbah " begins haha! Despite being amused, I would emphatically oppose a tactical strike on the Saudi Royal family. They are not militant Islamists, they are on good terms with the United States and they allocate a large amount of their resources to keep militant Islamists out of power. Of course, to my understanding, a large amount of the funding for Islamic terror comes from Saudia Arabia. Some action should be taken. I am not sure what. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DarkWaters Posted October 3, 2007 Author Report Share Posted October 3, 2007 (edited) [W]hat was so evil about the last segment? I did not like the juxtaposition with the two final quotes. Jamie Foxx's character was asked what he said to calm Jennifer Garner's character down. Simultaneously, Abu Hamsa's grandson was asked what his grandfather (the infamous terrorist leader) whispered to him as he was dying. They both said "Do not worry, we are going to kill them all." The timing, scripting and effects during this sequence suggested a hint of moral equivalence between Jamie Foxx's character and the terrorist leader. On the one hand, Jamie Foxx's character went through such heroic lengths to seek and destroy the villains responsible for the slaughter of hundreds of U.S. personnel. On the other hand, Abu Hamsa was responsible for organizing the slaughter of the civilian participants in a softball game, the gunning down of pedestrians walking there dogs and the incineration of emergency response technicians. Any innuendo that there is some moral equivalence between these two characters is not only inappropriate but also vile and reprehensible. The segment really bothered me, but I did not let it ruin an otherwise amazing movie. Edited October 3, 2007 by DarkWaters Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomas M. Miovas Jr. Posted October 8, 2007 Report Share Posted October 8, 2007 I thought the movie The Kingdom was interesting, and it held my attention throughout. The problem I have with it is the manner in which terrorism is handled -- tracking the terrorist down one at a time after a terrorist attack occurs. One reason these attacks escalated -- as illustrated at the beginning of the movie -- is that we (the USA or the West) did not go to war with the countries sponsoring or tolerating the terrorist mentality. If we are only going to track them down one at a time, an implication of the current "War on Terror," then the Islamic Fundamentalists have a chance to regroup after each attack. In other words, we need to declare war on Iran and possibly Saudi Arabia to wipe the Islamicists out, so long as they continue to pose a threat against Americans or Westerners anywhere in the world (and especially in those counties). There wasn't much said in the movie of how Islamic Fundamentalists are given a haven by the local authorities not doing much against them (though some of that is implied); nor that it is an ideology behind their movement, and that the ideology of surrendering to God (irrationalism versus reason) is the root cause of this form of terrorism and their hatred of the West and Westerners (especially Americans) out enjoying the day. I think the intent of the movie makers was good, but I don't see this movie reviving the desire to go out and destroy Islamic Fundamentalism (or countries that sponsor terrorism) that was prevalent in this country shortly after 911. I don't even think it will revive a hatred for Osama bin Laden. I don't think it did this because it focused on terrorism without going into the suffering of the victims nor the hatred of the terrorists for reason and civilization; plus, it was shown simply as a terrorist attack and not an ideological struggle. In other words, it was a typical good guy versus bad guy movie, without going much into what made the good guys good or the bad guys bad. The movie didn't make me want to go out and destroy Iran nor Islamic Fundamentalism because it was too specifically focused on that one bad guy who wasn't really portrayed as an idealist representing Islamic Fundamentalism qua movie character. I mean, it was presented as a guy who decided to blow up some people qua terrorist instead as qua irrational idealist. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
softwareNerd Posted March 3, 2008 Report Share Posted March 3, 2008 (edited) Just saw the movie, and liked it. The segment really bothered me, but I did not let it ruin an otherwise amazing movie.The way I read that final segment is that it showed the two sides as having equal moral certainity, rather than equal morality. Edited March 3, 2008 by softwareNerd Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.