VS.
Recently
in my “War Movie Lovers Group” on Facebook, we had a discussion about whether
these two movies are war movies. I will
weigh in on that later, but I thought I would do a comparative review on the
two after viewing them (again). This will
be my first reviewing of the two because up until recently I had not considered
either to be a war movie. It makes sense
to pair them because both are set in the war on terrorism
“The
Kingdom” was directed by Peter Berg, who went on to do “Lone Survivor”. (In fact, he got Marcus Lutrell to agree to him
making that film by encouraging him to watch this one.) He was inspired by the 2003 bombings of
several western compounds in Riyadh and the 2004 Khobar Massacre. The movie had a budget of $70 million and it
made $87 million.
The
film leads off with an informative time-line of Saudi Arabian history with special
emphasis on the role of oil. This tutorial
goes all the way up to and beyond 9/11. What
follows is fictional, but it helps to know the background of the conflict. The movie leads with a softball game at a supposedly
secure base for oil workers and their families.
This typical American pastime is shattered by a terrorist attack that is
brutal cinematically and clearly establishes the jihadists as the
villains. An FBI investigative team led
by Ronal Fleury (Jamie Foxx) schemes to get around the State Department’s
reluctance to put American sleuths on the ground in Saudi Arabia. The implication is the Saudis are too stupid
or corrupt to bring justice for the deaths of Americans. Fleury is aided by a sympathetic Saudi police
officer named Al-Ghazi (Ashraf Barhom).
Al-Ghazi is contrasted with a torture-minded Saudi general. A Saudi prince agrees to let the team off
their leash a bit and the story develops into three arcs. Fleury and Al-Ghazi follow leads, Sykes (Chris
Cooper) and Leavitt (Jason Bateman) inspect the crime scene, and Mayes
(Jennifer Garner) does the autopsies. They
come back together for the final set piece that involves rescuing one of them from
captivity and the hunt for the jihadi leader.
“The
Kingdom” benefits from a strong cast. Foxx
anchors, but the others are given chances to shine. It could have used more character development
and Berg’s original cut was quite a bit longer than what the studio released. The inclusion of Garner was wise and she gets
the big fight scene. Bateman adds comic
relief in the form of geek grousing. The
best performance is probably by Barhom as the “good Muslim”. It’s clear his character was designed to dilute
criticism in Arab quarters, but it works.
The movie is clearly anti-jihad, but it is fairly balanced and is not
jingoistic. It is actually more
anti-politician than anti-Saudi. With that
said, there is no mustache-twirling. The
Saudi prince is meant to show that not all of the royal family were corrupt. Our FBI heroes have to deal with gutless pols
in America and in the Kingdom. All of
this is just an excuse to get to the set piece that shows Berg’s proficiency in
staging kick-ass action. This starts
with an ambush on a highway (try to count the number of flips cars do) and ends
up in a hostile neighborhood. It’s the
usual high kill ratio for our side.
Terrorist pawns sure are easy to kill.
The ending is marred by a desire to tie things up in a neat bow, but it
is satisfying.
“Green
Zone” was directed by Paul Greenglass, who was reunited with his Bourne star
Matt Damon. He was inspired by the book “Imperial
Life in the Emerald City” by journalist Rajiv Chadrasekaran, but it is not an
adaptation of the book. The script was
culled from research of articles on the situation in Iraq after the Persian Gulf
War. Several of the characters are
loosely based on real people. The movie
cost $140 million (some of went to a reshooting of the too-tame ending). It was a major bomb as it made only $95 million.
The
movie leads with the bombing of Baghdad that started the war. An Iraqi Gen. Al-Wadi (the “Jack of Clubs”
among the most-wanted) goes into hiding.
Four weeks later, the country is a mess with looting and lack of
government. Army chief warrant officer
Miller (Damon) is head of a WMD-finding team.
He becomes frustrated with the poor intelligence that keeps sending him
to dry holes. It turns out that the
whole idea that Hussein had WMDs came from a false source named “Magellan”. Miller goes rogue to find out the truth. He is aided by a CIA officer (Brendan Gleeson)
who butts heads with the Department of Defense official Poundstone(Greg
Kinnear) whose job is to push the WMD narrative. When both sides determine that Al-Wadi is the
key to the truth about WMDs, it’s a race between Miller and Poundstone’s special
forces operative Briggs (Jason Isaac). One
of them wants him to talk and the other wants him silenced. The movie builds to a big set-piece that starts
as a chase scene and ends as a race scene.
The cinematography is the new style special forces variety with hand-held
and quick cuts. Much like “Green Zone”. There is plenty of ammo expenditure and the
ammo discriminates very much in favor of entering non-American bodies. But the bad guys do get to shoot down a Black
Hawk.
“Green
Zone” is an action movie wrapped around a political whodunnit. It clearly has an agenda. The movie was not aimed at Fox News viewers. However, if you are willing to read up on the
WMDs story, you will find that the script is on solid ground. It’s not like you can argue the movie made up
the fact that no WMDs were found. It is
a bit shaky in accusing the government of corruption rather than incompetence
and the desire to justify an invasion. “Magellan”
is based on the infamous “Curveball” who gave false information about the WMDs. Poundstone stands in for all the government flacks
(like Paul Bremer) who insisted there were WMDs. The fourth estate’s collusion with the Bush
government is personified by Amy Ryan as a reporter named Lawrie Dayne, meant
to conjure up Judith Miller.
Unfortunately, Dayne gets the redemption that Miller did not
deserve. Similar to “The Kingdom”, there
is a sympathetic Muslim character who aids Miller. He balances Al-Wadi. Miller is based on Richard “Monty” Gonzalez,
who served as a technical adviser. He
was interested in making sure the soldier experience in Iraq was authentic, not
to vet the unrealistic action the characters get into
Which
one is better? I would give the edge to “The
Kingdom” as the better action film. However,
“Green Zone” is more balanced with action blended with an historical
perspective. Since I agree with the criticism
of our handling of the WMD issue, I enjoyed watching Jason Bourne fight for the
truth, but not everyone will buy into that.
At least it is clear what Greenglass is trying to do, although including
the Bush “Mission Accomplished” speech was jumping the shark a bit. Contrast Greenglass’ history lesson with the
fictional “The Kingdom” which makes up a story of the American cavalry riding
to the rescue and getting revenge for terrorist bombings. In reality, the FBI did not solve the compound
bombings or take out the perpetrators. A
female forensic examiner did not kill a terrorist in a fight. Do falsely happy endings to frustrating events
bother you?
Are
they war movies? My general rule on movies
like this is “are there men in uniforms killing someone?” “Green Zone” fits this qualification, although
it belongs more in the action genre. It
is possible to be both a war movie and an action movie. On the other hand, the protagonists in “The
Kingdom” are FBI agents. I would not classify
it as a war movie, although some would argue it is because it is set in the War
on Terrorism. I do consider the War on
Terrorism to be a war that can be included in the war movie genre, but I would
leave this movie out. In comparison to “Zero
Dark Thirty”, which has a similar story, ZDT concludes with a special forces mission
that stamps it as a war movie.
The Kingdom = B
Green Zone = B-
