American saves the day . . . again!
Kingdom tries diplomacy, revels in a bloodbath
WILLIAM O’DONNELL, STAFF
I open this review with a major spoiler: the very ending of the film features
a parallel use of the line “we’re going to kill them all,”
as said by both Americans and Saudis in reference to the other group. This
sort of knee-jerk promise for genocidal action, as a reaction to violence,
sets the tone for much of the political side of the film that precedes it,
along with the action portions.
This film focuses more on the aesthetics of being an action film; more so
than on the politics that drive the plot. Thankfully, the “Americans
vs. foreign baddies” dynamic in this film is not as stereotypical or
jaded as, say, “Chuck Norris vs. nameless foreign baddies” (a
specific Norris film need not be cited here), though it steers close it towards
the end. The significance of Saudi Arabia is not downplayed, but certainly
overshadowed by America and its super-troops.
The crack-squad, made up of pretty typical character types, is sent on assignment
to Saudi Arabia to investigate a series of bombings that resulted in the deaths
of many Americans. (Yes, the deaths of Americans in this film are deemed far
more important than the Saudis . . . but that could be assumed by anyone who
has witnessed a preview.) Said team includes the wise-cracking tech guy, the
knowing elder, the underestimated woman, and the cool leader -— who
also doubles as the token black guy . . . which only makes him more badass
in the plot. Like most action films, the moments of violence are highlighted
as the most significant. Though they are notable as being genuinely exciting
at times, it should also be noted that they are horribly graphic and visceral
at times (such as witnessing a knife enter a man numerous times before death).
There is something to be said about seeing the faces and knowing (in some fashion)
those that are getting killed, so that they all don’t simply become collateral
damage for the sake of the audience’s amusement. The cultural clashes
that are bound to arise in a film such as this are mostly converted into a pissing
contest of sorts, which always ends with America (or just the FBI) on top. Even
a superfluous sub-plot of the FBI director being in danger of firing is played
out as such. I suppose machismo is a necessary evil in the action genre . .
. even when the filmmakers like to convince themselves that they’re making
a political thriller. At one point, Jamie Foxx (who plays the aforementioned
badass leader) leans towards a Saudi prince and says, “We’re very
good at this,” in reference to his team’s proposed investigation.
During this moment, I felt he might have well said, “We (Americans) are
better at most things than Saudis.” In each of their duties, the Americans
seem to be able to solve problems 10 times faster than the Saudis, who were
only holding them back; just another typical Hollywood-ism that slipped in.
Granted, nothing in the story could be done until the prince gave his word;
until then, things were heavily congested for the Americans. I was reminded
of Under Fire (1983) in the way that the Americans had to abide by completely
new rules in a foreign land. That is, until the Americans were given a proverbial
thumbs up, which kick-started the whole “we do things better” bits
I referred to before. I offered a major spoiler at the beginning because I wanted
to draw a comparison (thin or otherwise) to the way that this movie made a beeline
for violence in a way that some might actually do in real life. This film’s
violence was Hollywood grade, but helped paint a portrait of what happens when
decisions are made for the wrong reasons . . . or at least for angry ones. I
would have enjoyed the movie less had those lines not been said, for they helped
me recognize an attempt to get across some sort of message amidst the gore and
screaming. Violence both inspired and made this movie; but when, if ever, is
violence (in cinema or life) the right decision?
