The Last King Of Scotland

[chinton]

A good movie that gets a significant boost thanks to the excelelnt dual performances by McVoy and Whitacker. The relationship makes for a lot of interesting scenes and the gruesome climax is aprticuraly powerful. Sadly it's not eprfect the story itself while interesting is also a bit simple, its overlong, and the main character McVoy who befriends Amin is kind of a complete idiot. Still it's well made, interesting, and has great acting.


8/10

[ilovemovies]

I just found out that Gillian Anderson is in this. Cool.

Even before I've wanted to see this, but knowing that she's in it is awsome and makes me want to see it even more.

Does anyone know if this movie will open wide? And if so then when?

[Lazy Boy]

I can't wait to see this, mostly for Whitaker's performance.

Probably should pick up the book and read it, but not until after I see the movie.

[chinton]

Gillian is good but not in it enough, but then again I adore Anderson

[dreamcurls]

i can't wait to see it! I only saw one trailer for it, before Idelwild awhile ago, I don't remember when it said it was to be released

[dman476]

Hey chinton,

hate to disagree with you and most of the critics, but...this film just isn't for me, but do take what I'm about to say with a stint of caution because I hated the Constant Gardener and Lord of War.
So, where does my critcism begin?
Well, first, there is no story. The movie elevates to nowhere, and the first hour is just dead on arrival. Amin is never that EVIL in the film.
You don't like him, but sheesh, he could have been more unsympathetic. Though Whitaker was great.
McVoy's character is a flat-out idiot. The film is just...come on, the guy is a doctor. The movie is also incredibly boring and un-stimulating.
Some of the editing near the end is really choppy and seems to go on forever. The wife side story really seems to go nowhere (it could have easily been done without; there's another reason for Whitaker's mistrust toward him near the end...you'll see).
And the movie was just so bland...the Israeli conflict was so important, and they barely paid attention to that. But the story isn't about that, so it doesn't technically matter. In all, I was pretty disappointed, although I liked it a little in the second half...at least it resembled something of a thriller. :o

5/10

[ilovemovies]

That's a shame you didn't like it. It looks great, I've always been a huge fan of Whitaker's and I've read this movie compared to Hotel Rwanda, which was a very good movie of coarse.

[dman476]

Ah, that's okay ilovemovies.
I hope you, at the very least, like it.
Whitaker was amazing by the way.
I would compare it to Rwanda but I've never seen that.

[Lazy Boy]

So, is Whitaker a lead or supporting role? Most Oscar buzz sites have been throwing out his name in the lead category, but people like Kevin Smith and others have mentioned supporting.

I guess it's another Anthony Hopkins situation, where the role is small in comparison to the true lead, but the performance is so indelible and fierce that a lot of voters tend to go lead.

[Brando @$$ Fat]

Originally posted by Lazy Boy
So, is Whitaker a lead or supporting role? Most Oscar buzz sites have been throwing out his name in the lead category, but people like Kevin Smith and others have mentioned supporting.

I guess it's another Anthony Hopkins situation, where the role is small in comparison to the true lead, but the performance is so indelible and fierce that a lot of voters tend to go lead.


I've mentioned this before, but it's more of a Denzel Washington/Michael Douglas situation. There is more than one lead, but the villain who gets less screentime gets the Oscar.

[dman476]

Originally posted by Lazy Boy
So, is Whitaker a lead or supporting role? Most Oscar buzz sites have been throwing out his name in the lead category, but people like Kevin Smith and others have mentioned supporting.

I guess it's another Anthony Hopkins situation, where the role is small in comparison to the true lead, but the performance is so indelible and fierce that a lot of voters tend to go lead.
It could go either way, lead or supporting, and generally villains do get nods in the supporting area, but this really could go either way.
My best bet would be supporting because: a) McAvoy is the main character and has a lot more screen time; b) villain alert.

[MadsenOMC]

Whitaker is a lead.

http://www.moviecitynews.com/awards/2007/gurus_060929.html

[ChemicalRomance]

Whittaker is not the anchor of this film.

Good, but I hold the same complaints as just about everyone else.

Whittakers performance was not earth shattering, it was simply pretty good.

8/10

[anakinsrise]

I will post my full review later,but i didnt view McVoy's character as a complete idiot.I viewed him as being naive,and wide eyed to the experience of a new culture ,and as being caught up in Amins charm and prestige.

[dman476]

What did you all who saw the film think of the big fart concieved by Whitaker in the film?

[ChemicalRomance]

I felt really awkward cause I was in a theater full of old people.

[anakinsrise]

Originally posted by ChemicalRomance
I felt really awkward cause I was in a theater full of old people.

LOL Same here 70% of the people in the audience were senior citizens

[anakinsrise]

Forest Whitaker gives a haunting,charming,intimidating performance as Ugandan dictator Idi Amin in The Last King of Scotland.
As a child i remember another film about Amin in which he was portrayed by Yaphet Kotto and becoming interested in who he was.
So i was looking forward to this film.
James McAvoy as young doctor Nicholas Garrigan chooses Uganda
as a place to make a difference and to have some "fun"
Not to long after arriving he comes to the aid of Amin who welcomes the young scotsman with open arms,offering him a position as his personal physician and top advisor.
As the relationship goes along it seems there is nothing the two wont do for each other,and everything is right as rain.
But soon Garrigan finds himself defending Amin as he is tipped off here and there about how detached Amin really is.

Garrigan finally sees the light but by then its to late and the relationship begins to spiral out of control,and he further complicates things by becoming involved with Amin's third wife (Kerry Washington as Kay Amin).What follows is brutal,and not for the faint of heart.

The film becomes a bit choppy near the end and drawn out,but i was very intrigued by the story and the performances by the leads are top notch.And i wanted to see more of what lead to Amin being so paranoid.

Scale of 1-10 an 8

Oh and Kerry Washington has one of the greatest bottoms i have ever seen.

[dman476]

Originally posted by ChemicalRomance
I felt really awkward cause I was in a theater full of old people.
Heh, I was just laughing at how inappropriate it was for this film.
I'm sure there was nothing of the sort in the Departed. :)

[tlc3377]

I saw this movie and found it thought provoking if nothing else. Granted, Amin could have been a little less sympathetic, but did you read the facts after the movie ended. The man was responsible for over 300,000 deaths. Thats not alot of sympathy.
Mc Avoy is so in character here. He is supposed to be naive, and under Amin's spell if you will. Thats where the character is based. A complete turnaround for him from playing a fake psychic on USA's "psych."

[jaw2929]

I look forward to seeing this one... Hopin' it's out soon!

[Lazy Boy]

The Last King of Scotland - 3/10

Another story of how a white man must save a nation from its evil flopping and sweating dictator...except for the fact that he doesn't do squat except fuck Idi Amin's mistress and cause a whole lot shit, which I guess is the filmmakers excuse for blaming him. The problem is, Garrigan is meant to be our eyes and ears, so by proxy he's our main point of sympathy. Funny how so much time can be spent in, say, Downfall, into making Adolf Hitler a monster with humanity, but Idi Amin is seen in glimpses as an awfully ugly "ooga booga" stereotype, a manic Kurtz in the heart of darkness. Oh, but he sure can fart with the best of them! And, he has a soft spot for knowledge about the location of a women's clitoris in regards to her throat (what better education than a Linda Lovelace porno, huh?). Nonsensical, dull junk that tries to speed up the proceedings with a few fillets and "race against time" sequences, but it all winds up back at the same: white Garrigan, in a Christ-like pose, crucified for our sins, but still getting off relatively scott free. Utter crap.

Oh, and Whitaker is certainly good, once you wipe away all that sweat...but it's a frickin' SUPPORTING performance, and no matter how much I hate to say it, Garrigan's story is more prominent. So, why is Whitaker getting buzzed about for a lead Oscar? He doesn't carry the film on his shoulders, although he does escape from it once the documentary footage at the end is shown. If you want to see a more fascinating portrait of the Ugandan cannibal, find Barbet Schroder's documentary about him.

[dman476]

Originally posted by Lazy Boy
The Last King of Scotland - 3/10

OH MY GOD! There is hope on this planet. :D
I would never say this, but I am extremely glad you hated as I did. I gave it a 5/10, but later realized there was nothing good about the film. So, I'd give it a 3/10 too.
You know that the same guy wrote both this and the Queen?

[Lazy Boy]

Originally posted by dman476
OH MY GOD! There is hope on this planet. :D
I would never say this, but I am extremely glad you hated as I did. I gave it a 5/10, but later realized there was nothing good about the film. So, I'd give it a 3/10 too.
You know that the same guy wrote both this and the Queen?

Peter Morgan, yeah...this script has none of the wit and charm of The Queen, although I could see the connection by making Amin a charismatic guy, luring people in with a false sense of entitlement.

tsk tsk, a shame. I really wanted to like this.

Oh, and I could live another day without seeing a slow motion, side angle shot of African children running alongside, waving and smiling happily. It seems that every film about colonial exploits in the continent (yes, even The Constant Gardener) use that shot, which feels false, as opposed to something honest and heartfelt like Hotel Rwanda, a film that deals with genocide more explicitly and earns our sympathy as a result.

[dman476]

Originally posted by Lazy Boy
Peter Morgan, yeah...this script has none of the wit and charm of The Queen, although I could see the connection by making Amin a charismatic guy, luring people in with a false sense of entitlement.

tsk tsk, a shame. I really wanted to like this.

Oh, and I could live another day without seeing a slow motion, side angle shot of African children running alongside, waving and smiling happily. It seems that every film about colonial exploits in the continent (yes, even The Constant Gardener) use that shot, which feels false, as opposed to something honest and heartfelt like Hotel Rwanda, a film that deals with genocide more explicitly and earns our sympathy as a result.
Well, I sincerely hope I like the Queen more than this.
I wanted to leave 'Scotland' after 15 minutes.

And yeah, WTF is up with that shot of children running?
Goddamn, it's ridiculous. I'm sick of films like this, the Constant Gardener, and yes, even Lord of War.
Hotel Rwanda (arguably the best of the bunch, at least judging from what you said) I have not seen.

[Alkemist]

Edit:

Thanks for the heads up Lazy Boy. I still might go see it. I don't know...

You may have saved me 8 bucks though.....

[jaw2929]

The Last King of Scotland wasn't a bad movie in my mind... It wasn't a terrificly great cinematic achievement either.... Rather, it gave me an idea of how fucked up things around the world are, outside this fucking country.... Basically a Scottish Doctor Garrigan goes to Africa (Uganda) to practice and is charmed by savage dictator-like Idi Amin played by Forrest Whittaker...

I DO believe Whittaker did a helluva job portraying Amin... He's good natured and gives Garrigan a false sense of trust, as he takes him in, to be his closest advisor, as well as his family's physician....

Soon Garrigan realizes what an asshole Amin really is, and pretty much fears for his life, and has to find some way to get the FUCK outta Uganda, before he gets killed....

I will say this movie followed a very over-used and basic formula, in that the white man is trying to be the "hero" to save a poor African country... Nothing really new in that respect... But I enjoyed Whittaker's performance in this one, and I also believe he should at LEAST be nominated for an Oscar....

Other than that, it was a sad movie... But it would've been no big deal if I hadn't bothered seeing it, as a movie more like "Hotel Rwanda" gets sorta this same message across in a much more effective way, I think.... Save it for a rental at best, but it's not something I would go out of my way to see, if I hadn't before.

[Bourne101]

Now this is one movie that is not playing near me, that I have to see. The performances look great and the story is great.

[bigred760]

The main (and for the most part - only) reason to watch this movie is Forest Whitaker. He delivers a great performance as real life African dictator, Idi Amin, who's a charming and good leader on the surface, but a rather maniacal and dangerous man. While his performance is great, unfortunately he is not the central figure in the movie. Instead, we're following the dictator's physician, and main advisor - Dr. Garrigan, played by James McAvoy. We follow this guy as he goes to Africa, becomes Amin's physician and advisor, and then learns of Amin's true nature and regrets ever meeting the guy. There's not a scene where McAvoy is not involved.

The movie suffers a lot from the fact that you never see Amin's atrocities being committed. Instead, you follow the Dr.'s life as at first he admires the guy for his ambitions and leadership, and then learns through pictures and newspapers that this guy is no different from other dictators. The movie basically puts the audience in the Dr.'s place throughout and this "point of view" aspect is well done, mostly because of Whitaker's performance - because he is likeable to begin with, while scary to finish - but the movie probably could've been better if it had been done through Amin's POV.

The movie does benefit through some intense moments: There's an assassination attempt on Amin's life, with the doc in tow of course. The ending is pretty gruesome and intense as well, when Amin turns on his former friend, the good doctor. But ultimately, I would've like to have seen more Whitaker being Amin, and less of the doctor - who's not exactly a saint to care about, hitting on any woman - married or not - who's around.

6/10

[Strider]

The Last King of Scotland - 5/10 or **1/2/***** stars

What I thought to be a drama about the charismatic, yet vicious Ugandan dictator Idi Amin and his rise to power and ultimate downfall is, instead, a mediocre, forgettable drama which devotes itself to an unlikable, foolish, stale doctor, Nicholas Garrigan (James McAvoy), who never existed in real life and is a purely fictional character. Despite delivering a terrific performance worthy of an Oscar nomination, no one will ever be able to convince me that Forrest Whitaker is the lead actor of The Last King of Scotland. Unfortunately, the lead role belongs to McAvoy, not Whitaker, and the main character is Nicholas, not Amin. Whitaker's performance has "Best Supporting Actor" written all over it, and if the Academy nominates him in the Best Actor category, I do not believe such a nomination can be justified. The Last King of Scotland commits a serious error in hardly paying attention to Amin and not allowing Whitaker to take full control of the film.

Strider

[Catherine]

Originally posted by anakinsrise
I will post my full review later,but i didnt view McVoy's character as a complete idiot.I viewed him as being naive,and wide eyed to the experience of a new culture ,and as being caught up in Amins charm and prestige.


Yes, I agree with this take on the young doctor. He was just a callow youth. It was only near the end of the film when the true horror of Amin was brought home to him that he started to think things through. I found the film spellbinding and a thoroughly convincing portrayal of a psychopath.

[Tweek]

Forest Whitaker=the shit

[porkchopexpress]

I haven't yet seen this film but I am looking forward to it. Personally I still think Whittaker is under-rated. It's wierd to see James McAvoy do so well as, living in Glasgow, I've seen him in town so many times. This could be the huge kick start to his career, alot of the schmoes outside the UK probably won't have seen Shameless which is a TV series based on the working class people of Manchester, England. If not, I recommend it, although some of you may not understand what they are saying half of the time hehe.
Whittaker deserves an Oscar, especially for Bird which goes un-noticed half the time

[Catherine]

I'll second Forrest Whitaker for an Oscar - it was a fantastic performance.

[Catherine]

Originally posted by ChemicalRomance
I felt really awkward cause I was in a theater full of old people.

Grow up.

[Monotreme]

Kevin Macdonald, 2006) - Most of this film works. Some of it doesn’t. Most of it is fascinatingly engaging. Some of it is contrived and slightly cliché. But all together it’s a fascinating and ultimately frightening ride into the mind of a madman. The film probably delivers one of the best portrayals of an evil dictator, only slightly behind The Downfall’s amazing depiction of Hitler’s last days. Amin is lovable. He’s charming, funny, even sort of sweet. His devotion to his friendship with Nicholas is impressive. And yet, we learn only from disconnected dialogue that he is actually an evil paranoid dictator who slaughters his own countrymen by the masses. By looking at him, you wouldn’t even tell. The man who carries this character to these levels is Forest Whitaker. Saying that his portrayal isn’t phenomenal would be a downright lie. It’s just amazing. He combines nuances, little quirks and quips, with a real portrayal of emotion to craft this living, breathing character – not an imitation, a three-dimensional being. It’s a combination of the blocking and his costume, but Forest takes these elements and makes his character truly, honestly menacing. Just absolutely, spine-chillingly frightening. Even when he’s all nice and buddy with Nicholas it looks like any moment he could just get up and shoot him in the head. Forest emits this perpetual fear from the character, and we really understand how Nicholas must feel every waking moment he spends with this man. The film starts out excellently, with the young, enthusiastic doctor wanting to help only to be shocked when exposed to the true horrors of Africa. But the film isn’t without its flaws, with two major ones. The first is that while James McAvoy does a good job acting, his character is just not that interesting. He has a few traits and not many characteristics at all; no nuances, nothing that defines him. He just is. Also, the film seems a little disjointed in terms of tone. First it’s a frightful discovery of the true nature of a dictator. It soon becomes almost a buddy film, with Amin and Nicholas driving around in cars and getting in capers and adventures. Then it becomes a thriller, and then it’s thrown in a completely other direction with the whole Kay plot, and the list goes on. Still, the good outweighs the bad, the film works as a whole, and Forest’s performance is truly worth the whole experience. Still, I have a little more appreciation for Ryan Gosling’s work in Half Nelson, which I still think is the best male performance of the year, if only because Gosling constructed his character from complete scratch, while Whitaker based some of it on imitating Amin’s actions, tone, nuances and behavior on footage of the real man. Still, it is a noble effort, particularly well directed, and a film that leaves a lasting affect.

RATING: 8/10.

p.s. I was in a theatre of old people too, and there was this one grandma behind me that kept gasping. Like, Amin says "I know about you and Kay..." and the grandma squeaks like "Oy vey!". Ridiculous but hilarious, really.

[Brando @$$ Fat]

Whitaker can be one scary motherfucker. He deserves the Oscar.

[therealjohng]

Saw this today and loved it.


8/10



If O'Toole beats Whitaker someone ain't making it back to merry ole' England.

[Cronos]

loved this film, Whitaker was excellent as Amin and definitely deserves to win the oscar. mostly great acting and very engaging plot. this was much better than i thought it would be

9/10

[Badbird]

Is Forrest Whitaker's performance really that good... or is it just really good compaired to the typical Forrest Whitaker performance?

I mean, yeah, he was good. But it didn't blow my mind.

And yes he can be a lead actor. Who says you can't have two lead actors? If Anthony Hopkins can get Best Actor for the fifteen freakin minutes he was in Silence of the Lambs, then Whitaker can sure as hell get a Best Actor nod for this.

I thought it was a pretty good movie, but like others have said, nothing groundbreaking that we haven't seen before. I didn't care for the director's version of shakey cam, where he seemed to just move it and point at random things. It got a little chaotic towards the end, but also really suspenseful.

Not a standard biopic, but I won't complain about them trying something different.

[cletus66]

The Last King of Scotland is a very good movie but most of the talk is about Forest Whitaker's performance which is a huge favorite to take the best actor statur at the acadamey awards. To me though the performance while very good is definitely not dramatically better than any of the other nominees. I also think it is really a supporting role since James McAvoy's character is the lead in this film. Overall i tought The Last King of Scotland was a good but flawed portrayl of Idi Amin. Whitaker definitely steals the show here but I would not say it was the performance of the year.


8/10

[HannibalGuy]

Saw it last night and loved it. Whitaker rules whenever he's on the screen. I knew about Amin before seeing the film, and knew what he was all about, but Whitaker (in the beginning) makes him, dare I say likable? That is, until we find out whats really been going on.

[Le_Big_Mac]

I liked it. I thought Whittaker was pretty good but I was actually more impressed by the guy who plays the doctor.

I thought the direction was too stylish for its own good. This is supposed to be one of those intelligent "Oscar" movies where the shots are fairly basic in set-up, which I prefer anyway. But some of the direction in here was a bit too over the top.

I give it a 7.5/10.

[Bourne101]

I have 10 bucks for the first Fox associate that puts this in more theatres.