A solid movie and well worth watching.
Added 10/2/2009
I know little about Idi Amin and don't pretend to know whether this movie was accurate or not. I can only say two things about the movie.
One, I enjoyed quite a bit about it. I found myself interested nearly the entire movie through and never was I disinterested with any of the characters.
Two, at a certain point the movie becomes disjointed and difficult to understand. That's when I started to dislike the movie - because I couldn't understand what had just happened. One moment Amin was a beloved leader, revered by the people, looked up to and hearalded, the next he's off killing people as traitors. There is no real transition to this event; it's never 100% clear exactly what his motives are. It's like he just snapped one day and became paranoid after something happens (can't say exactly...would spoil it), but that's not realistic at all. I know from what I've read that people regarded Amin as constantly thinking everyone was out to get him, and maybe that was true...maybe it wasn't. But at least portray a possible motive in the movie, and let the people watching decide for themselves.
0 out of 0 people found this helpful.
|
Okay, not completely accurate regarding portrayal
Added 8/17/2009
I like Forest, and that's the best thing about the film, not his performance, but just the fact that he was in it. I personally thought they could have picked a better candidate to play Idi Amin. There are many great African actors in Uganda, Nigeria and Ghana who could have played the part well and given it more authenticity. But commercialization...the film was fairly accurate (Barbara Schroeder's documentary had some loopholes). For a better, raw depiction of Idi Amin watch "The Rise and Fall of Idi Amin" (1981). Ugandan actor Joseph Olita gave a hardcore portrayal of the dictator, and while some of the acts were debatable (e.g was he really a cannibal), the film has some actual people who interacted with Amin in it (e.g. UK reporter Denis Hills who was sentenced to death by Amin then released),gives more background with the Israeli/American/Libyan involvement and is/was not commercialized for American viewers. Last King of Scotland is an entertaining film, but I did not feel they gave an accurate portrayal of the ruthless Idi Amin. He was a bit soft in this film.
0 out of 0 people found this helpful.
|
lacking in continuity
Added 8/16/2009
Overall I enjoyed the film, and kudos to Forest Whitaker for his portrayal of Idi Amin. I had two problems with this film: First, the story is more about Dr. Garrigan that it is about Idi Amin, so I question the awarding of Best Actor to Forest Whitaker. However, Idi Amin is so central to the story that it would be implausible to award Best Supporting Actor instead. The second problem I have is in the transition of Dr. Garrigan from spoiled right hand man to his realization of the horrors committed by Amin against his own people. This took place in one scene, when the man from the British Consulate showed Dr. Garrigan the photos of the murdered citizens. Until this point, the audience only saw mild imperfections in Amin, as opposed to gradually being introduced to his brutality through the eyes of Dr. Garrigan. I believe the script to be lacking in continuity in the way it told us the story. On another note, the excellent cinematography and music both painted a realistic picture of life in Uganda.
0 out of 0 people found this helpful.
|
viewer beware
Added 5/27/2009
The beginning of the film states that it is "inspired by" true events, etc. The film makers sure have a loose interpretation of "inspired by." the main character, Dr. Garrigan, Amin's physician, is nearly completely fictional. At the end of the movie, there are statements on screen stating what happens to Amin, but there was nothing about Dr. Garrigan. My husband and I were curious, so we googled. He's a fictious character! Loosely based on an British advisor Amin had, who served 5 years imprisonment for his part in Amin's regime. We felt dooped! It is one thing to watch a movie knowing it is fictionalized, it is another to be made to believe what you are watching are real events.
True, the movie is well acted. And the atrocities Amin commited were a background to the main story, but anything that tells the "inside story" is called into question in my mind because it all revolves around this fictional character...that you are lead to believe is true.
0 out of 2 people found this helpful.
|
It's THAT good!
Added 4/23/2009
It's one of the movies that is getting better every time you watch. Forest Whitaker is great (well, he won the Oscar finally). James McAvoy, in my opinion, steals the show. Let's be honest, the role of Idi Amin is made for the Oscar. The role of Nicholas Garrigan would have been easily shadowed and overpowered by Idi Amin without the great acting. James McAvoy hold himself well and equally against Forest Whitaker. There is certain danger, or bias, when an outsider portrays the so-called third world, even if s/he claims that s/he tried to tell the story from "their" perspective. This movie is not exception although with a lesser degree. It is a very emotional and sometimes violent movie that touches your heart. Enjoy.
0 out of 1 people found this helpful.
|
A solid movie and well worth watching.
Added 10/2/2009
I know little about Idi Amin and don't pretend to know whether this movie was accurate or not. I can only say two things about the movie.
One, I enjoyed quite a bit about it. I found myself interested nearly the entire movie through and never was I disinterested with any of the characters.
Two, at a certain point the movie becomes disjointed and difficult to understand. That's when I started to dislike the movie - because I couldn't understand what had just happened. One moment Amin was a beloved leader, revered by the people, looked up to and hearalded, the next he's off killing people as traitors. There is no real transition to this event; it's never 100% clear exactly what his motives are. It's like he just snapped one day and became paranoid after something happens (can't say exactly...would spoil it), but that's not realistic at all. I know from what I've read that people regarded Amin as constantly thinking everyone was out to get him, and maybe that was true...maybe it wasn't. But at least portray a possible motive in the movie, and let the people watching decide for themselves.
0 out of 0 people found this helpful.
|
Okay, not completely accurate regarding portrayal
Added 8/17/2009
I like Forest, and that's the best thing about the film, not his performance, but just the fact that he was in it. I personally thought they could have picked a better candidate to play Idi Amin. There are many great African actors in Uganda, Nigeria and Ghana who could have played the part well and given it more authenticity. But commercialization...the film was fairly accurate (Barbara Schroeder's documentary had some loopholes). For a better, raw depiction of Idi Amin watch "The Rise and Fall of Idi Amin" (1981). Ugandan actor Joseph Olita gave a hardcore portrayal of the dictator, and while some of the acts were debatable (e.g was he really a cannibal), the film has some actual people who interacted with Amin in it (e.g. UK reporter Denis Hills who was sentenced to death by Amin then released),gives more background with the Israeli/American/Libyan involvement and is/was not commercialized for American viewers. Last King of Scotland is an entertaining film, but I did not feel they gave an accurate portrayal of the ruthless Idi Amin. He was a bit soft in this film.
0 out of 0 people found this helpful.
|
lacking in continuity
Added 8/16/2009
Overall I enjoyed the film, and kudos to Forest Whitaker for his portrayal of Idi Amin. I had two problems with this film: First, the story is more about Dr. Garrigan that it is about Idi Amin, so I question the awarding of Best Actor to Forest Whitaker. However, Idi Amin is so central to the story that it would be implausible to award Best Supporting Actor instead. The second problem I have is in the transition of Dr. Garrigan from spoiled right hand man to his realization of the horrors committed by Amin against his own people. This took place in one scene, when the man from the British Consulate showed Dr. Garrigan the photos of the murdered citizens. Until this point, the audience only saw mild imperfections in Amin, as opposed to gradually being introduced to his brutality through the eyes of Dr. Garrigan. I believe the script to be lacking in continuity in the way it told us the story. On another note, the excellent cinematography and music both painted a realistic picture of life in Uganda.
0 out of 0 people found this helpful.
|
