Critics’ reviews

Three Kings (1999)

10 reviews from 10 publications. Critics’ score 76: 7 positive, 1 mixed, 0 negative.

Back to our review of Three Kings

76
Positive
7
Mixed
1
Negative
0

Most critics welcome Three Kings as an inventive, politically pointed blend of action, black comedy and anti-war satire. The praise clusters around Russell’s direction, the force of the images and a cast that keeps the soldiers engaging amid abrupt shifts in tone. Clooney draws particular praise, while the ensemble is widely credited with grounding the film’s more unruly impulses. The reviews also value its attacks on American foreign policy and the treatment of war as television spectacle.

The reservations concern how securely those ingredients hold together. Several critics find the sentiment less convincing than the satire, or the tonal shifts uneven, though outright dismissal is absent. The New York Times is more guarded about Russell’s achievement, finding the film less effective than his earlier work. Sight and Sound, by contrast, sees his distinctive approach surviving intact and praises the film’s humane politics without sanctimony.

Empire
1 January 2000 · Ian Nathan
80*

The film is a violent, blackly comic anti-war satire that mixes influences from Catch-22, Tarantino and others into a visceral, genre-defying event movie. It dismantles American foreign policy with brio and strong performances but stumbles with a clumsy moral redemption at the close.

Read the full review →
Radio Times
★★★★ · Joanna Berry
80

This superb though violent mix of comedy, drama and action is set at the end of the Gulf War. Wittily scripted with terrific performances, especially Clooney, it takes well-aimed stabs at war waged on television; reckless, gripping and unmissable.

Read the full review →
Variety
22 September 1999 · Todd McCarthy
80*

Russell delivers a stylistically bold and thoughtful studio debut that mixes black humor, action, and sharp political commentary on the cynical nature of war and U.S. foreign policy. The contrarian approach and narrative may limit mainstream appeal but make for an engaging, non-dull film.

Read the full review →
The Guardian
3 March 2000
75*

The critic finds Three Kings an unexpectedly entertaining and intelligent action film about the Gulf War, with a strange flavour that mixes wised-up anti-war elements and sentimental admiration for the American fighting man. They praise its stylish cinematography, adroit handling of military set-pieces and internal group tensions, and its conflation of generic approaches from films like Apocalypse Now and MAS*H.

Read the full review →
Time Out
10 September 2012 · NB
70*

Russell applies his subversive sensibility to the mercenary motivations and human impact of the Gulf War aftermath. Some searing visions stand out, though the tone is shaky and the ending muddled; overall defiant and provocative cinema.

Read the full review →
The New York Times
1 October 1999 · Janet Maslin
65*

The film is an ambitious absurdist take on the Gulf War but falls short as a showcase for Russell's talents compared to his earlier work. It effectively highlights moral paradoxes faced by the soldiers and critiques U.S. policy toward Iraqi civilians.

Read the full review →
Sight and Sound
· John Wrathall

Russell's idiosyncratic vision survives the transition to big-budget filmmaking intact. The film offers a satirical yet humane indictment of the Gulf War's conduct and US policy, conveyed through strong visuals and without sanctimony.

Read the full review →
The Hollywood Reporter
22 September 1999 · Kirk Honeycutt

The critic calls the film hugely ambitious and says Russell largely succeeds in blending action-adventure with humor and explorations of race, politics, war, media, and U.S. diplomacy in the Middle East. Clooney, Ice Cube, Wahlberg, and Jonze are singled out for strong performances that anchor the story.

Read the full review →
Collider
21 October 2010 · Andre Dellamorte
80*

The film is a precarious balancing act of tone that mixes comedy, action, and seriousness in a loose, shaggy MAS*H-style, expertly directed with a panache that announced Russell as a great director. It singles out the crude oil-drinking metaphor for America's involvement in the country as a pointed element amid the fun and throwaway gags.

Read the full review →
Eye for Film
19 January 2001 · Angus Wolfe Murray
80*

The critic finds the film a subversive and inventive mix of zany action and serious commentary on American foreign policy, rather than a standard war buddy picture. Its originality, visual style and commitment from the cast are singled out as strengths.

Read the full review →

Ordered by the weight we give each publication, then by score. Scores are normalised to 100; * means inferred from an unrated review. Summaries are ours, not quotations; follow the links for the reviews themselves. How we rate