Review: The Kingdom -- James' Review
Filed under: Action, New Releases, Universal, Theatrical Reviews

Director Peter Berg is trying for something very different in The Kingdom, and the end result is fascinating to watch on-screen, and well worth thinking about after. Berg's other films have all been spins on familiar genres, some more successful than others. Very Bad Things was a stab at bleak black comedy; The Rundown put fresh energy and effort into the tired buddy film; Friday Night Lights turned standard-issue sports film themes and scenes into a brisk, bracing portrait of small-town America. Now, with The Kingdom, he's taking the suspense and structure of a forensic police procedural and putting it on the world stage. After a terrorist attack on a Western oil-company compound in Saudi Arabia -- perfectly structured by Berg as a cascading series of nightmares that go from bad to worse to awful -- that leaves hundreds dead, FBI agent Ronald Fleury (Jamie Foxx) is insistent that the FBI be allowed to put boots on the ground in Saudi Arabia, despite the insistence of the Saudi and American governments that any such deployment would be politically untenable for both parties.
These are not the concerns of your standard action-flick, but from the jump The Kingdom makes a different class of ambitions and aspirations strikingly clear: The opening credit sequence covers historical highpoints from 1932 (the founding of modern Saudi Arabia) to 1974 (the OPEC oil embargo) to 2001 (the 9-11 attacks, where 15 of the 19 hijackers were Saudi citizens). There's a difference between background and backdrop, though, and I was glad to see that The Kingdom's Saudi setting isn't just left as a concern for the production design and costuming teams; it's woven into every moment of the film. It would have been easy to have The Kingdom take place in some fictional nation-state, and Berg and screenwriter Matthew Carnahan deserve credit for guts as opposed to taking the easy way out; when The Kingdom does feel thinly-drawn, perhaps that just confirms that the complex nature of Saudi society and our co-dependent relationship with it can't be fit onto the screen within a two-hour span.
And if The Kingdom does offer bitter pills to swallow, it's also smart enough to offer a little action-flick sugar to help them go down. Fleury's team includes a forensic expert (Jennifer Garner), a bomb expert (Chris Cooper) and an intelligence analyst (Jason Bateman). Bateman's Adam Leavitt provides unforced comedic relief throughout, often with nothing more than his casual-yet-stressed demeanor. Early on, Leavitt's not crazy about being on the plane to Riyadh, prompting Fleury to question his earlier desire to get the FBI in on the investigation. Leavitt makes it clear that while he wanted to see the Bureau involved, he may not have necessarily meant himself: "I didn't say 'I,' I said 'FBI.'" In Riyadh, the team are escorted -- coddled and confounded and baby-sat, mostly - by Colonel Al Ghazi (Ashraf Barhom), a local cop who's losing sight of why he does what he does.
I've always been of the opinion that crime movies function as sociology, whether deliberately or not -- what better way to understand a society than by watching what happens when it's broken? And Matthew Carnahan's script isn't afraid to criticize both Saudi Arabia and the U.S.A. Fleury's team is blocked and baffled at every turn -- they're told they can't even touch the bodies of any Muslim dead, for example, which makes fingerprinting the dead perpetrators tough. The Saudis don't want them there, despite the hospitality and platitudes of the ruling class; the State Department doesn't want the FBI team there, personified by Jeremy Piven as a diplomat who, apparently, does not know the meaning of the word 'diplomatic.' Before the Prince visits the FBI team, Piven takes one look at Garner's t-shirt-clad form and scrambles for a shawl so he can sanitize the grip-and-grin photo op: "We need to cover these situations."
And so it goes for the whole film: Our heroes are caught between the traditions and theology of a medieval monarchy and the bloodlust and barbarism of pious psychopaths. Desperate to be allowed to do something, anything, Fleury has to beg his local minders for free reign: "America's not perfect; not at all. I'm the first to admit it. But we are good at this." It's nice to hear this kind of humility spoken out loud from a Hollywood film (actually, it would be nice to hear that kind of humility spoken out loud from the White House, too). Fleury and Al Ghazi are soon united as kindred spirits -- there's a great moment late in the film, almost like something torn from a Western, where Fleury and Al Ghazi both turn on an armed assailant and -- despite their cultural differences and philosophical disagreements -- their guns speak as one.
And that split -- between cross-cultural drama full of subtitles and subtexts and action that speaks in the universal language of ballistics and bullets -- both makes and mars The Kingdom. Without the cat-and-mouse police procedural material, The Kingdom would be Syriana-lite; without the facts and figures and vignettes about life in Saudi Arabia, The Kingdom would be CSI in a slightly warmer climate. Still, the two halves of The Kingdom have an uneasy relationship -- much like Saudi Arabia and The United States, come to think of it. And the constant barrage of concepts, ideas, snapshots of life in Saudi Arabia and glimpses of geopolitical and economic concerns mean you can't simply sit back and let the stunt work wash over you. As The Kingdom came to a close, I was torn between two possible future courses of action: Part of me was contemplating buying a ticket to see The Kingdom again and part of me was contemplating selling my car -- both options giving me the opportunity to vote with my dollar in more ways than one. Berg has a handle on the muscular action stuff -- the film's final showdown/throwdown makes it clear that Berg has studied producer Michael Mann's Heat fairly avidly -- and as cliché (or, more charitably, classic) some of The Kingdom's plot points can be, the climactic action sequence also has a frantic sense of grim possibility, where you can sense the rough shape of events without necessarily knowing precisely what will happen next.
And when the shooting's done, in the scene where a conventional action film would set up the sequel or seal the film, The Kingdom does something completely unexpected: It surprises you, wrapping the quiet after the bomb blasts and gunshots with grim whispers that, uttered worlds apart, echo each other as quiet, accursed prophecy. The Kingdom doesn't work as a pure drama -- but it'll have a much better audience than any pure drama could; The Kingdom's too ambitious and sprawling to just be an action film -- but that ambition elevates it above the majority of cookie-cutter action flicks. From bloody opening to bleak coda, The Kingdom pulls off something unexpected and unsettling: It's a popcorn movie that leaves the taste of ashes in your mouth.
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
10-01-2007 @ 11:16AM
colby said...
The Kingdom -- my review:
Saw an advanced screening a month ago. I won’t go into the details (James already covered that). But I will offer some insight as to other aspects of the film.
First and foremost, I’m a HUGE fan of Pete Berg ... have been since the days of Shocker and Aspen Extreme. But as much as I enjoyed his acting, I’ve been far more impressed with his work as a director. So much in fact, that had his name not been attached to this project, I would have likely passed on it and simply added it to my Blockbuster queue.
First, it’s definitely a Peter Berg film ... By that I mean if you’re familiar at all with Friday Night Lights, you’ll see a lot of similarities in the color palette, shot coverage, even some score Explosions-in-the-Sky-type score (which I absolutely LOVED). Kyle Chandler even shows up for a bit. Minka “Lyla Garrity” Kelly has a cameo as well. Heck, after a while I was wondering if Landry was going to show up in a Crucifictorious shirt.
Second, the movie basically plays like CSI: Kabul (which I hate to say because it seems nowadays ANYTHING regarding forensics gets the CSI label attached to it -- which I find sad because the public now perceives that’s how it is really done). In the third act, it does go Clear and Present Danger/Black Hawk Down on you. This worked for me, though, because the action really cranked up the tension. It kinda got my heart racing in the same way Bourne did this summer. (Speaking of which ... Ultimatum was easily the best movie I’ve seen all year. This flick finishes a close second.)
Third, I LOVED the casting. Nobody really reached for a character they haven’t played before ... and that’s a good thing.
- Jamie Foxx played the role as team-lead and hero as he typically does.
- Jen Garner was great. I never really watched Alias, but you could see some Sydney Bristow in her character. Actions scenes featuring her turning the table on the bad guys had the audience cheering loudly.
- Chris Cooper was fantastic ... nice to see him play a good guy after I’ve been seeing him in so many villain roles as of late. He got to chew up some scenery.
- Bateman played his part to perfection ... often the source of the funnier moments of the movie, which (strangely) there were many — more than I was expecting.
- Piven channeled some Ari as a smarmy U.S./Saudi liaison. Glad Berg could cast him ... probably easy to do given their history with Very Bad Things.
- Berg had a cameo as well, which was nice.
Fourth, I didn’t find the movie “preachy” as SEVERAL reviewers have mentioned. Some people say they can't distance themselves from real-life events when in the theater. I'm the exact opposite: I go to the movies to escape for that 2 hour period and live in the world the director has created. I didn’t see it as “rah-rah”/Rambo/U.S. rules ... I saw it more as strangers in a strange land, having to overcome the culture they are put in. The flick does kinda turn Munich on you in the last 5 minutes, alliterating to the fact that the war on terror won’t be over any time soon (i.e. never). Berg has said he wanted the movie to be about 98% action, 2% message — and I think he’s done exactly that.
The only thing I found that “took me out” of the movie is the prowess of the characters’ proficiency with a fire-arm. I realize they're all FBI agents, and that requires training, but they were bordering on Jack Bauer’s skill level when it came down to battles. Needless to say, I was willing to let that slide given that I was so engrossed up to that point anyway. I understand it’s a movie and I have a suspension of disbelief.
I’ll end with this ... If you’re looking for a dramatic flick that will make you think about the what’s going on in the Middle East today, go find No End in Sight, War Tapes or Gunner Palace — that will suit you just fine. But if you’re wanting a polished action flick that amps you up, keeps you on your toes, has you laughing, all while tugging at your heart strings — look no further than The Kingdom.
Reply
9-28-2007 @ 12:33PM
YouFaceTheTick said...
Nice review. We're anxious to see it tonight.
Reply
10-07-2007 @ 3:46AM
SaL-LoM said...
Hi everyone,
I just watched the movie… I think that the movie writer wrote the story based on little information that he hared or read about the compound terrorist attack, which is fine. But he didn’t do his job to learn more about Saudi society!! Actually I’m sure he has never been in Saudi Arabia!! And since the movie name is “The Kingdome” I think it should provide some information about the Saudi society.
To be honest, the movie provided a correct picture about the terrorists in Saudi Arabia, and also it provided a true story about the compound terrorist attack.
But other than that, it provided false and misleading information about how the Saudi government reacted, and how the Saudi princes dealt with the attack.
And what make it worse is that it only shows three partakers in the horrible terrorist attack:
1- Terrorists
2- Saudi government and police.
3- FBI
And it ignores the fourth and most important partaker which is the whole Saudi society and how they react… so for any one who watches the movie he will think all Saudi society are terrorists!!
Moreover, they give a picture of Saudi Arabia as only a wide area of desert and old buildings!!, Actually the movie shooting are taken in UAE not in Saudi Arabia. And in the worst place in UAE… I know UAE is much better then how it appear in the movie.
Reply
10-04-2007 @ 9:02PM
BilAzin said...
For entertainment value, I liked this movie. It is a true action movie with a little bit of drama and real world in it. I wouldn't go so far as to call the world that Peter Berg created as fictional, but he certainly stretched some truths that will inevitably form some people's viewpoints on US-Saudi relations.
I did have two major problem with the film, apart from the "why the hell did i watch this movie"-factor that I got when the end of the movie basically said that fighting terrorism is pointless.
[1] The movie is about the FBI shoving itself into a foreign country. On the premise that the US gov't wouldn't allow Jamie Foxx to go, he manipulates international relations and goes and kills the bad guy.
As much as the whole time the audience is cheering for justice in a strange land, I can't help but think, the gov't, who is made to look like the bad guy for not letting Foxx go get justice, is the only group we see making the decision to not fight terrorism.
So the gov't is the group who understands the end-game!? and how is the audience supposed to take this? should we just think that the gov't is always right because of this movie? Obviously not, BUT, it is funny that Hollywood is pushing an ultimately pro government movie, when the current gov't would have done just like Jamie Foxx, and said "we're gonna kill 'em all"
[2] My second qualm with the movie is the media. The irony/paradox that it was the media doing a good thing by helping allow the Foxx's character to coerce a Saudi diplomat to into allowing the FBI into Saudi Arabia.
Ultimately, this movie takes the role of the media in dispersing info to the general U.S. populus about US-Saudi relations. The quality of this movie as more than a piece of cinema hinges on a kind of economic balance: Did this movie do more good than bad in its efforts?
Reply
10-04-2007 @ 9:36PM
BilAzin said...
For entertainment value, I liked this movie. It is a true action-movie with a little bit of drama and real world in it. I wouldn't go so far as to call the world that Peter Berg created as fictional, but he certainly stretched some truths that will inevitably form some people's viewpoints on US-Saudi relations.
I did have two major problems with the film, apart from the "why the hell did i watch this movie"-factor that I got when the end of the movie basically said that fighting terrorism is pointless.[1] The movie is about the FBI shoving itself into a foreign country. On the premise that the US gov't wouldn't allow Jamie Foxx to go, he manipulates international relations and goes and kills the bad guy. As much as the whole time the audience is cheering for justice in a strange land, I can't help but think, the gov't, who is made to look like the bad guy for not letting Foxx go get justice, is the only group we see making the decision to not fight terrorism, and instead attempt to be diplomatic. So the gov't is the group who understands the end-game!? and how is the audience supposed to take this? should we just think that the gov't is always right because ofthis movie? Obviously not, BUT, it is funny that Hollywood is pushing an ultimately pro government movie, when the current gov't would have done just like Jamie Foxx, and said "we're gonna kill 'em all", and then actually tired
[2] My second qualm with the movie is the media. The irony/paradox that it was the media doing a good thing by helping allow the Foxx's character to coerce a Saudi diplomat to into allowing the FBI into Saudi Arabia.
Ultimately, this movie takes the role of the media in dispersing info to the general U.S. populus about US-Saudi relations, a pretty difficult topic. The quality of this movie as more than a piece of cinema hinges on a kind of economic balance: Did this movie do more good than bad in its efforts? I could make arguments for both sides, but one thing is certain, this movie will drag in a boat-load of cash.
Reply