posteropolis-com
With an interesting premise (in the conflicts between Europeans and indigenous peoples sometimes the battle lines were not so clear), this should have been a good film. But the story is sabotaged by the director's overriding infatuation with his own cleverness twinned with a very poor script.Yes, the natural setting is beautiful and, yes, the movie is authentic to its 19th century historical setting. But the filmmaker keeps gilding the lily over and over again, adding layer upon layer of over-the-top musical accompaniment, not to mention a completely unnecessary voice-over, to the soundtrack, that ultimately overwhelm the viewer and, by calling attention to themselves, take away from the story.To me, it was clear the director, with his microscopic closeups and the endless recurrence of the musical motif of "Danny Boy" (of all things!) was trying to make a New Zealand version of an epic Sergio Leone film, something on the order of Once Upon A Time In The West. But given the earnestness of the story (most of Leone's westerns were tongue-in-cheek), not to mention that it's no longer 1968, he succeeds in making a parody of one.Too bad.
maorisamoan
This movie played 2 nights ago on TV and I must say, I thoroughly enjoyed it. I remember back when it first hit the Silver Screen and all the negative reviews and bad luck during the making of the film, and couldn't see what all the fuss was about.The War scenes could have been better, yes. Otherwise it was good to see how our Ancestral history was portrayed on a screen. That said, the negative reviews I see on here tells me that you (whoever you's are) know nothing at all about NZ History. Yes the English wiped out a lot of the Maori people, and the Maori the same to the English (Trench Warfare started from the Maori People) and in the end the Crown won with a Treaty, but still the fighting carried on. Not all tribes signed.... but anyways, all I want to say about one of the comments I read was, the Pakeha (White Man) were Brutal, and spread their Disease - And the Maori's were Cannibals. They used to eat the heads of the Tribes which they fought against before the Pakeha came here. The Pa was beautiful also, I see them in the backdrop of Charles Goldie's Paintings, and once again was good to see on the screen, as no more exist here in NZ.
phillipa komene
This film was great as i'm still buzzing about the movie weeks later recommending it to heaps of others. For a New Zealand film it was wonderful, it really showed how beautiful New Zealand is and identifies how Our Maori people are unique and watching it makes me feel even more proud to be Maori. Boy (Rawiri Pene) was cool as thats exactly how i would say our Maori boys are like, he really did us all proud and has a big future a head of him. I liked the way they showed how smart, cunning and clued on the Maoris were during the war. All the critics need to remember how little New Zealand is compared to other Countries and at least the most important people believe in the movie and thats all that matters.
Tim Johnson
Peter Thompson, on this morning's Sunday show, gave River Queen a very favorable review; the review's timing was perfect because last evening Diane and I watched this new Kiwi film and drove home with mixed feelings about what we had just seen.Thompson's reviews are usually spot-on for us but in this instance we are still not sure. Yes, Vincent Ward's story was superb: huge amounts of recognizable human drama, multidimensional characters, a gigantic historical background and everything framed by New Zealand's natural beauty. Vincent's direction accentuated each of these elements; he made great use of the land's physical beauty as well as the beauty and uniqueness of the individual Maori people. This last comment will take on meaning with the watching of the film because certain Maori characteristics play a huge visual as well as plot role in the film-perhaps unexpectedly for some viewers more than others. Alun Bollinger's cinematography beautifully captures Ward's shot selection; it is impossible to leave the theater and not have been captivated by the physical beauty of the New Zealand landscape.I think the question must be asked: If I thought the film was so good, why did I only give it a rating of eight? The answer goes to the heart of why Diane and I were both uncomfortable with this superficially great film and that lies in the script, the third leg of Vincent's stool. We both thought the script was overly choppy; there were too many small pieces of story stitched together. I thought the film was too jumpy and that resulted in my concentration moving too quickly from one scene to another. I suppose that is just a matter of cinematic taste particular to one person and should not be used to paint an entire film.River Queen is definitely worth seeing. The subject matter alone is worth the effort, with excellent acting by all concerned and magnificent scenery beautifully captured in thee film. The film must indeed be judged highly.
AD
