viv-1435
I watched this movie many years after it was released - having heard about it from so many people. I also thought that there was a fair bit of media buzz created when this movie was released. Although Forest Whitaker's performance was good, it was kind of overdone at times and wasn't too much to write home about. Having read so much about Uganda and Idi Amin, it is laughable how historically inaccurate this movie is. Most people would brush this off by saying "hey its just a movie". But its more than that, its a piece of history that was conveniently altered by Hollywood to create sensationalism. This movie will in no way help the millions of people around the world who have no clue about the history of Idi Amin. There is a lot of unnecessary drama in the movie that takes the focus away from the main historical events. Idi Amin was a psychotic monster in real life, but in the movie he appeared remarkably sane. Whitaker failed to communicate the fear and bone-chilling aura of one of the most brutal African dictators in modern times. The performances of the other actors were mediocre at best. The character of Nicholas Garrigan is totally fictional. There was no white doctor who Amin was ever so close to, and no white man ever had an affair with his wife and got her pregnant. In fact, in real life Amin divorced his wife on national radio and later had her killed and her body dismembered. However, in this movie there is a made-up Hollywood romanticism that is all to familiar now - white guy leaves his cozy life to go to a third world country, has crazy adventures, gets laid all the time, penetrates into power circles with ease, several locals die, but the white man comes back home and lives to tell the tale! Towards the end of the movie, when the Air France plane is hijacked, the movie drags slowly to the point where Garrigan escapes on a plane full of refugees. They could have instead shown how the hostages were actually rescued by the Israeli Armed Forces in what was one of the finest rescue missions in history. I think the script sort of ruined this movie. You can watch it for entertainment, but please do not confuse this for being actual history.
McEwansExported
Forest steals the show. Compelling performance, utterly believable.McAvoy is typically weak when in the company of better actors and this film was no different as he came across as immature and a bit of a ham. Also, Anderson's role was a bit confusing, not sure what she was doing in the film. typically she is quite a strong actor but her character was so limited she did not get a chance to shine.McBurney was also very good along with Washington. Both embraced their characters perfectly and it was good the later part of the movie featured more of them to offset McAvoy.The story was great and the cinematography outstanding. Pace was spot on as was the sense of imminent menace.If you have the opportunity to watch this on a home cinema projector sized screen, you will be thoroughly rewarded.Visually stunning film with sense of peril supported by outstanding acting, except for McAvoy. Robert Carlyle would have been better choice.
Kirpianuscus
it seems easy to talk about dictatorship. to criticize, to give explanations and verdicts, to analyze and to define. it is not easy to understand a dictatorship. its roots, its power of fascination, its rules, its central character traits. and this detail does The Lst King of Scotland one of the most useful cinematographic history lesson. because Idi Amin is no Hitler, Stalin or Pol Pot. because his biography seems be bizarre. but, using a book and the magnificent talent of Forest Whitaker, Kevin MacDonald presents a story. terrible, fascinating, brutal, real. and the clash between two different cultures, the science of James McAvoy to be the best partner for build the portrait of the Uganda leader , the love story as reflection of the profound drama are the solid pillars for a delicate and massive project. must see it. first, for understand the past in the right manner.
Michael Morrison
Idi Amin was an interesting, even intriguing, real-life character, but whether this movie portrays him well, I don't know.But the focus was too much on a fictional character, a weak and uninteresting character, the, as I said, fictional Dr. Nicholas Garrigan.Garrigan actually distracted and detracted from the story, which involved world-shaking upheaval in Uganda, revolution and murder and cross-border turmoil.Sorry, but even the portrayal was uninteresting. I could see nothing attractive about the actor or the character.What really damaged the movie, though, was the wobbly camera work. "Law and Order" on TV might be the source of so much hand-held motion picture photography, but it became a cliché there and also there distracted from the story.In "Last King," the camera often simply lost the subject, as if the camera operator fell asleep, or his fingers got slippery from sweat.The director and camera operator really should be ashamed.And I guess I disliked the movie more because of the ugliness of the subject and the way it was presented. And I had been wanting for years to watch it. What a disappointment.
AD
