Le royaume

When a devastating terrorist attack occurs in Saudi Arabia resulting in the death of an American federal agent and several civilians, the FBI is reluctant to conduct their own investigation from fear of severing international relations with an uncooperative Saudi government. Foxx is the head of the bureau's Rapid Action team; accompanied by fellow agents Cooper (an explosives expert), and Garner (a forensic specialist), he leads an "unofficial" expedition to the site to try and seek out the guilty party. Political thriller has a realistic setup and three capable leads, but unfortunately the film rambles, and reduces itself to a revenge flick on its way to an action-packed climax that feels desperately contrived. The story is interesting but never convincing, especially the ending which is hollow and sentimental. **

The plot is twisting and the movie overall spectacular, although this Jason Bourne style story cannot be taken too seriously, in my opinion. The director, just to make the product more real and grab the attention, tries to add complexity and depth but the level reminds somehow the one of episodic TV. There are a few surprises, some forensic elements and the flick bears some resemblance to Syriana, that was a well done film. Action is undeniably spectacular but Jennifer Garner is not that believable and conceptual flaws are present in the plot. The finale is tear jerker but makes sense eventually, since it's not so far from reality..

Ronald Fleury (Jamie Foxx) leads an FBI team to investigate an attack on an American base in Saudi Arabia. The team is played by Chris Cooper, Jennifer Garner, and Jason Bateman.

Peter Berg has made a simple police procedural. There isn't anything too complicated or twisty. The bad guys are bad. The good guys get their men. The locations are well used. It has the feel of the middle east. Obviously nobody could ever film in Saudi Arabia, but it has good use of UAE.

What he does give us is an insight into the this world. It's a world where Americans do not blend, and the natives are suspicious. The action is fast and furious. It's something that Berg has become proficient in. Yet the action isn't so big that it becomes cartoonish. It is exciting to the final conclusion. It's simplicity is both its strength and its weakness. I can't really complain about its clarity, but it does make it feel more pedestrian.

There is much to like in The Kingdom. Nice performances, a slightly-new take on the buddy-cop story, Jennifer Garner's upper lip, and some excellent action set pieces. However, halfway through watching it, it occurred to me that it would in fact have been a much more interesting film if none of the stars were in it. Which was little odd, because I am very fond indeed of Jennifer Garner's upper lip.

The plot is this: There is a big terrorist attack in Saudi Arabia. Some FBI agents led by Jamie Foxx, fast talk and bamboozle their way into the country to investigate, where they team up with two Saudi cops. There then follows a small amount of detective work, some interesting political manoeuvring and two really rather well-done shoot outs.

Now, I like Jamie Foxx, Chris Cooper and Jennifer Garner('s upper lip) who play the FBI agents, and although all three do the best they can with the material they are given, no effort is made to make their characters interesting. What's worse, although they aren't interesting, they are nevertheless vastly superior to everyone else. Thus nearly every single advance in the case is made by these three. They are the ones who solve everything.

The two Saudi cops, on the other hand, are interesting characters. Two good cops working in a corrupt, brutal system. Trying to solve a horrific crime whilst faced with hostility from their fellow officers and political interference from above. What's more, they're human. They have weaknesses and fears. They make mistakes.

And that's what occurred to me. I thought to myself that this film would almost certainly be more interesting and entertaining if the whole idea about the FBI agents had been removed, and instead, we'd just been following the wily but unfailingly polite Colonel Al Ghazi and his loyal sidekick Sergeant Haytham as they tried to solve the crime. Instead, once the FBI turn up, these two get relegated to standing to one side and looking suitably impressed every time one of the names-above-the-title stars does something brilliant.

Right at the start of the film, Jennifer Garner's character (ably assisted by her upper lip) makes a comment about how if the Saudi's allowed the FBI into the country to investigate the crime, it could prove to be enormously destructive. If only the film makers had listened to her.

It's not that the Kingdom is a bad film. In fact, it's actually a rather good film. I just think that if they'd dropped the stars, it could have been much better.

Peter Berg's "The Kingdom" is a thrilling movie, that's out of the question. The problem is that it doesn't really know whether it primarily wants to be an action movie or a political comment.

It starts out well enough. The gripping opening montage documents the connection between the U.S.A. and Saudi Arabia and sucks you right into the story. The first act plays out as a very good depiction of terror in the middle east. In the second act the movie loses some of its pace and we get to know the characters a bit more. What's really off-putting is that the Americans come across as constantly joking, relaxed, but at the same time totally competent people. It's the old "cowboy"-image Hollywood has always tried to convey in its war movies from the 80's, that should really have been left behind by now. It's not a fatal flaw, but it definitely prevents the movie from becoming more than just an action flick set in the middle east.

This becomes more apparent in the final act, which starts with a car crash and continues with countless shootouts. The movie goes way over the top from this moment on and turns into something Jerry Bruckheimer might have thought up. Technically the action scenes are developed pretty well (I don't share the common criticism of other reviewers that the shaky cam distracted too much. I'm not a fan of it usually, but here it was alright). In its best moments the action looks like something out of "The Bourne Ultimatum", in its worst the movie could be "Shooter".

What separates "The Kingdom" from "Shooter" is its message, though. The final lines spoken in the movie redeem Berg of a lot of the mindless action that preceded them. After all, the makers apparently did want to make some kind of statement and this last comment really hits home. Other than that you don't find much of a message in "The Kingdom". Just because the movie doesn't glorify the U.S.A. at any point, doesn't exactly make it critical. It's merely neutral, which is more than can be said about most American action movies dealing with terrorism. There is one questionable scene, in which a police man from the middle east and the main character, an FBI agent played by Jamie Foxx, seem to agree that it would be best to simply execute the masterminds behind terroristic acts without asking any further questions. On the other hand, this can just be seen as the realistic depiction of what those characters would feel, because I don't think that either would be a big defender of a terrorist's rights.

In the end "The Kingdom" is a straightforward action flick with enough critical undertones to not be propaganda. It's a very exciting thriller to watch, but except for the final scene there's nothing really thought-provoking here.