--- title: "Three Kings" year: 1999 kind: "film" canonical: "https://film.one/film/three-kings" fi1m_id: "three-kings" imdb_id: "tt0120188" tmdb_id: 6415 wikidata_id: "Q1357016" fi1m_score: 80 critics_score: 76 critics_reviews: 8 published: "2026-09-14" updated: "2026-09-18T08:38:21.160656+00:00" region: "US" licence: "© Fi1m Ltd. Written by AI under a human editor; checked against sources before publication. Quote with attribution and a link to the canonical URL." --- # Three Kings (1999) Directed by David O. Russell · 1h 54m · MPA R · Action, Comedy, War ## Identity Three Kings - **Canonical:** https://film.one/film/three-kings - **Type:** Film - **Fi1m ID:** three-kings - **IMDb ID:** tt0120188 - **TMDB ID:** 6415 - **Wikidata ID:** Q1357016 - **Same entity:** https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0120188/, https://www.themoviedb.org/movie/6415, https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q1357016 **Fi1m score: 80** · Critics 76 from 8 reviews *In a sentence:* The Americans have come to make a profit, and brought just enough conscience to make it difficult > David O. Russell makes a funny, angry war film whose soldiers are most convincing when they are being selfish. We recommend it for the performances and the political bite, with reservations about its eagerness to forgive. ## Synopsis At the end of the Gulf War, a group of American soldiers pursues private gain while Iraqi civilians face the consequences of US policy. George Clooney plays Archie Gates, alongside Mark Wahlberg as Troy Barlow, Ice Cube as Chief Elgin and Spike Jonze as Conrad Vig. The men’s interests collide with the needs of people for whom the end of fighting offers little security. Their disagreements and encounters bring questions of money, duty and responsibility into an action story that also examines the war’s presentation on television. ## Review *Three Kings* wants us to enjoy an American military adventure while noticing who gets hurt when Americans treat war as an adventure. David O. Russell makes that uncomfortable arrangement work often enough for us to recommend the film, though his affection for the soldiers sometimes gets in the way. The Gulf War is ending, and these men are thinking about what they can get out of it. Self-interest gives the comedy something solid to work with. The early disagreements establish just how little these soldiers need an enemy to cause trouble. George Clooney’s Archie Gates gives the group an authority that never quite excuses what it is doing. Clooney understands how useful charm can be to a man whose motives do not deserve close inspection, and Russell gets considerable mileage from that. Mark Wahlberg, Ice Cube and Spike Jonze keep the friction within the group lively without making the soldiers seem interchangeable. We enjoyed their company more than we approved of their priorities. Their bickering gives the comedy a personal nastiness that the performances keep from becoming tiresome. Newton Thomas Sigel’s cinematography gives the military set-pieces enough force to make the fighting exciting. That complicates a film which wants us to question the soldiers’ conduct, and usefully so. Robert K. Lambert’s editing keeps the competing personalities involved in the action, which matters more here than making the military hardware look impressive. The switches between comedy and violence are not always comfortable. We do not need every change of mood smoothed over, although Russell occasionally seems to rush towards the next one. Catherine Hardwicke’s production design has an important job here. The setting has to feel like somewhere people live, even while the soldiers treat it as somewhere to help themselves, and it does. Carter Burwell’s music faces the same problem as the cutting, serving comedy and danger without pretending they are comfortably matched. The score is more persuasive when it supports the tension than when the film asks for sympathy. Russell already has actors capable of earning that. The sharpest political point is also the simplest: an American soldier and an Iraqi civilian can have different ideas about what the end of a war means. We felt uneasy when the soldiers’ chances to profit were set against the civilians’ predicament. Their selfishness became considerably less funny beside people living with the war’s consequences. Russell’s screenplay, developed from John Ridley’s story, makes that connection without abandoning the pleasures of an action film. Its anger at US policy is clear without requiring every character to explain it. The difficulty comes when Russell starts pressing us to see the soldiers generously. The performances have already allowed for decency alongside greed, but the writing sometimes pushes the decent side harder than it needs to. We can care about these men without being asked to feel better about them, and the insistence weakens the satire. That matters in a film so alert to self-serving explanations. Those passages also give the actors less interesting work. A war comedy ought to be able to question the men doing the fighting as well as the people giving the orders. *Three Kings* makes a serious attempt at both, even when Russell is too keen to reassure us about his Americans. At 114 minutes, it has room for quarrels, action and political anger without becoming a lecture. It is worth an evening, provided nobody is expecting the jokes to make the violence easier to take. *Fi1m score 80, published 14 September 2026.* ## What the critics say 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. ## Straight answers **Is Three Kings worth watching?** *Three Kings* is worth watching for anyone who wants a war film with jokes and political anger in the same frame, and we scored it 80. George Clooney, Mark Wahlberg, Ice Cube and Spike Jonze are best when their soldiers are being selfish. Our reservation is that David O. Russell is too keen to forgive them by the end. **How long is Three Kings, and what is it rated?** *Three Kings* runs 1h 54m and is rated R by the MPA in the US. It is an action and comedy film. **Where can I watch Three Kings in the US?** *Three Kings* is available to rent from Amazon Prime Video and Apple TV from $3.99. Availability is checked daily; the links above go straight to each service. **How violent or frightening is Three Kings, and is it suitable for children?** *Three Kings* is a 15 certificate in the UK and R-rated in the US, and it is not suitable for children. The military set-pieces are shot with real force, and the film moves between comedy and violence without smoothing the joins, so the jokes do not make the fighting easier to take. Older teenagers who can handle that shift will be fine. **How does Three Kings compare to The Battle of Algiers?** *Three Kings* is the more entertaining film, while [*The Battle of Algiers*](https://film.one/film/the-battle-of-algiers) is the more serious and the harder to bear. Gillo Pontecorvo's documentary style keeps the violence close and offers no reassurance, whereas Russell wraps his anger at US policy in an action comedy and softens towards his Americans. Watch Pontecorvo for the politics undiluted, Russell for the performances. **What should I watch after Three Kings?** After *Three Kings*, try [*No Man's Land*](https://film.one/film/no-mans-land) (2001, Fi1m 77): Bosnian war satire that makes military absurdity funny without making suffering small. Then [*The Battle of Algiers*](https://film.one/film/the-battle-of-algiers) (1966, Fi1m 93): For the political anger, with less reassurance and far less comic relief; and [*The Wages of Fear*](https://film.one/film/the-wages-of-fear) (1953, Fi1m 90): Men take dangerous work for money, and suspense makes their desperation painfully clear. ### Reviews we read (10) - **Empire**, Ian Nathan (80/100, inferred): 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](https://www.empireonline.com/movies/reviews/three-kings-review/) - **Radio Times**, Joanna Berry (4/5): 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](https://www.radiotimes.com/movie-guide/b-x3dwkg/three-kings/) - **Variety**, Todd McCarthy (80/100, inferred): 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](https://variety.com/1999/film/reviews/three-kings-1117752173/) - **The Guardian** (75/100, inferred): 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 M*A*S*H. [Read](https://www.theguardian.com/film/2000/mar/03/4) - **Time Out**, NB (70/100, inferred): 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](https://www.timeout.com/movies/three-kings) - **The New York Times**, Janet Maslin (65/100, inferred): 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](https://www.nytimes.com/1999/10/01/movies/film-review-fighting-the-battle-of-money-and-greed.html) - **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](http://old.bfi.org.uk/sightandsound/review/556) - **The Hollywood Reporter**, 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](https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/general-news/three-kings-review-movie-1999-1243299/) - **Collider**, Andre Dellamorte (80/100, inferred): The film is a precarious balancing act of tone that mixes comedy, action, and seriousness in a loose, shaggy M*A*S*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](https://collider.com/king-kong-1933-blu-ray-review-three-kings-blu-ray-review/) - **Eye for Film**, Angus Wolfe Murray (80/100, inferred): 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](https://www.eyeforfilm.co.uk/review/three-kings-film-review-by-angus-wolfe-murray) ## Details - **Director:** David O. Russell - **Director:** David O. Russell - **Screenplay:** David O. Russell - **Story:** John Ridley - **Cinematography:** Newton Thomas Sigel - **Editor:** Robert K. Lambert - **Music:** Carter Burwell - **Production design:** Catherine Hardwicke - **Costume design:** Kym Barrett - **Producer:** Charles Roven, Paul Junger Witt, Edward L. McDonnell - **Cast:** George Clooney as Archie Gates; Mark Wahlberg as Troy Barlow; Ice Cube as Chief Elgin; Spike Jonze as Conrad Vig; Cliff Curtis as Amir Abdullah; Nora Dunn as Adriana Cruz; Jamie Kennedy as Walter Wogaman; Saïd Taghmaoui as Captain Said - **Runtime:** 1h 54m - **Certificate (MPA):** R - **Release (the US):** 27 September 1999 - **Genres:** Action, Comedy, War - **Budget:** $75 million - **Box office:** $108 million - **Trailer:** https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bdal5c1TfmE ## Where to watch in the US - Amazon Prime Video: rent $3.99, hd - Apple TV: rent $3.99, hd - Amazon Prime Video: buy $9.99, hd - Apple TV: buy $9.99, hd *Checked 2026-09-14.* Also available in: AR, AT, AU, BE, BG, BR, CA, CH, CL, CO, CZ, DE, DK, EE, ES, FI, FR, GB, HK, HU, ID, IE, IL, IT, JP, KR, LT, MX, MY, NL, NO, NZ, PA, PH, PL, PT, RO, RS, SE, SG, TH, UA, US, ZA. Add `?region=XX` to this URL for another country. ## If you liked this - *Kelly's Heroes* (1970): Another military adventure in which private profit competes with official duty. - *No Man's Land* (2001), Fi1m 77: Bosnian war satire that makes military absurdity funny without making suffering small. — [Fi1m page](https://film.one/film/no-mans-land.md) - *The Battle of Algiers* (1966), Fi1m 93: For the political anger, with less reassurance and far less comic relief. — [Fi1m page](https://film.one/film/the-battle-of-algiers.md) - *Buffalo Soldiers* (2001): American military enterprise examined with a colder eye for corruption and boredom. - *The Wages of Fear* (1953), Fi1m 90: Men take dangerous work for money, and suspense makes their desperation painfully clear. — [Fi1m page](https://film.one/film/the-wages-of-fear.md) --- © Fi1m Ltd. Written by AI under a human editor; checked against sources before publication. Quote with attribution and a link to the canonical URL. Canonical: https://film.one/film/three-kings