MovieChat Forums > The Last King of Scotland (2007) Discussion > I was really disappointed with this film...

I was really disappointed with this film!

posted 16 years ago by Valkyrist
35 replies | jump to latest

Considering the amount of public praise and critical aclaim this film recieved, I felt it was a pretty mediocre experience. The best aspect of the movie, by far, is Whitaker's performance, and that isn't saying much. His portrayal of the psychotic military dictator Idi Amin was strong, but not Oscar worthy; not the brillaint spectacle it had been built up to be. I thought his character was intesting, but was not explored enough throughout the film; divided mainly into a series of strange conversations with Nicholas. Instead, we are forced to spend most our time in the company of the boring and narcissistic Dr. Garrigan, who I felt was explored too much, as I found him to be a very unlikable person. He doesn't come to Uganda for any humanitarian reasons, but for the adventure; and he ends up chasing women more than treating patients. I just can't believe that anyone, less still a doctor, could be so oblivious to the events around them, or so passive in the company of such evil circustances. The fact that we are supposed to sympathise (or rather tolerate) this selfish individual for the duration of the movie, and then feel triumphant when he escapes his fate didn't sit well with me. The overuse of the films worse character, and underuse of its best, left a sour taste in my mouth, and besides these two, there are no other real people to speak of in the storyline.

The movies main problem is that it presents a very shallow depiction of its characters and setting. It has a potentially fascinating subject matter--the mass killings of Uganda and political corruption under Amin--but refuses to examine them on anything beyond a superficial level. Comparing this film to Hotel Rowanda or Munich (two far better films which recieved far less attention) is an insult. Maybe it was the mass acclaim the film recieved that made it seem much worse than it really was, but to me, it was a very superficial look at a very fascinating issue, and without Whitaker's impressive, but short and overrated performance, it was a very mediocre and dissapointing film.

[–] somecutemoniker 16 years ago

The movie is based on the novel "The Last King of Scotland" which centers around the fictional character of Dr. GArrigan. That being said, of course the movie is not going to explore more in depth the mass killings and political corruption-it is not a bio pic nor a film soley about Uganda under Amin's regime.

The whole premise of the film and book is to show how easily westerners (or anyone who has grown up with better fortunes) are distracted by wealth, postion and comfort that we ignore what is going on in the world around us. Nicholas was right there in the middle of what was going on and yet he remained ignorant because he was comfortable. So, I disagree with you-I think the amount of exposure we see of Amin and Uganda are appropriate because we are seeing it through Nicholas' eyes as he slowly begins to realize what is going on.

"I just can't believe that anyone, less still a doctor, could be so oblivious to the events around them, or so passive in the company of such evil circustances."
I disagree with you here too. I think Nicholas portrays mankind quite well. First, he is driven by the want for adventure, comfort, lusts, wealth, position, etc and then he is driven by fear and self-preservation. Sounds like humans to me. Not to mention that this is what we do everyday, especially in the US, UK, Canada, and other wealthy western nations. We fill our lives with aesthetic pleasures so we can numb ourselves to the reality of life and what is going on in the world.

[–] xreesex 16 years ago

Excellent response, aprilshowers!

[–] ellespencer7 16 years ago

Agreed xreesex, it couldn't have been said better. Garrigan was not concerned with the truth of what was happening in the surroundings until he was forced to see/live it. These "semi-historical" movies have to be taken with a grain of salt but I was impressed in how well the movie portrayed Garrigan's seduction into the sense of adventure and wealth/power.

"The older you do get, the more rules they'll try to get you to follow." - Wooderson

[–] MrAleisterCrowley 15 years ago

Yes, well-stated. OP argues that it is impossible to believe that a doctor, for example, could ignore the atrocities being committed around him, yet average German doctors, not even rabid members of the SS, administered lethal injections to those deemed unworthy to live by the Reich. The film isn't concerned with every historical detail of Amin's regime but with the way in which ordinary people can become caught up in terrible historical events beyond their control or foresight.

[–] Pavluke 16 years ago

We fill our lives with aesthetic pleasures so we can numb ourselves to the reality of life and what is going on in the world.

And yet millions of people go to see films like this one...

[–] stuart-193 14 years ago

Eh? - So whats your point? That we all go and see films? Can't you see the irony in the entertainment industry?

The filmmakers have enough money to be able to spend many millions pointing out atrocities which we in the west have turned a blind eye to, either as a result of the media playing it down for political reasons or the public largely ignoring the facts because they don't want to think about it or don't care.

We, the public, then pay many millions to line the pockets of the filmmakers and their financiers, feel moved by the points being pushed, then go home and forget about it ... its a real NIMBY experience and we are ALL like Nicholas Garrigan in that way. Worst of all, we ARE entertained by these films. And some people are even so depressed that real life isn't like, say, Avatar, they throw themselves off buildings ... Unbelievable !!!

The only way to get the world to stand up and say NO is for a westerner of standing to experience it and then come back and actually do something about it - which was the point of the film and the book. The OP is way off mark and the responder was about as close to bullseye as you can get

----------------------------------------
I don't know what it is, but its weird and pissed off!

[–] rmanuel123 16 years ago

Forrest Whittaker was perfect in this role because his left eye lid was a metaphor for the entire film. Lazy, indecisive, and down right ugly.

[–] Kanliadubai 16 years ago

Yep..Do agree what an excellent response!

Young guy (human) think everything is challenging, fun and advanture. And I think everybody deserves a secound change to put thing right.. we all learn from our (sometime horrible) mistakes.

I do agree with Aprilshower26 :-)

[–] Valkyrist 16 years ago

bump

-- Exeunt the Wolfe --

[–] elcabio 16 years ago

Forrest's screen time was not dominant but his performance was. He portrayed a character that was totally different from his own character, unlike some actors who basically only re-portray themselves. He also showed good range from frightening to charming to confused to confident, very effectively. When he was on the screen, he overpowered everyone else. So yes, I agree with his winning the award though his screen time wasn't more lengthy.

[–] stargazer1701-1 15 years ago

I agree with the original poster Wolf. I learned nothing from this film.

Smoke me a kipper. I’ll be back for breakfast

[–] lingmeister 15 years ago

If the premise of the film was to show the downside of westerners, then they obviously didn't show it very well. It portrayed westerners in good light, such as the his escape from Uganda was deemed a final uplifting closure of the movie, with our hero saved. There was the White savior of the British showing the light to Dr Garrigan by exposing to him the atrocities that was taking place, without the view that a dictator that isn't following the rules their puppet handler dictates will soon have his days. Garrigan's attempt at assassinating Amin is also portrayed as an act of a desperate man, but in fact he was colluding with the Brits in their sinister plot to silence a puppet that did not want to dance on their commands.

[–] stewartymac-1 16 years ago

Considering the amount of public praise and critical aclaim this film recieved, I felt it was a pretty mediocre experience. The best aspect of the movie, by far, is Whitaker's performance, and that isn't saying much. His portrayal of the psychotic military dictator Idi Amin was strong, but not Oscar worthy; not the brillaint spectacle it had been built up to be.

That's the problem with listening to high levels of hyperbole before watching a movie. Your expectations are raised to ridiculous levels, and only a film which is of the equal of your favourites will be viewed remotely impartially.

You come across in that post as someone who had a negative opinion of the film before you watched it, in which case it's almost impossible to view rationally.

Apologies in advance if I'm wrong.

[–] moviemaniac75 16 years ago

I agree, Forest Whitaker performance was good but nothing special.

[–] hertzdem 16 years ago

Good,but nothing special.What special qualities would you have brought to the performance,that Mr. Whitaker failed to portray?-Birdbrains like you have no reason writing about anything other than your grocery list,IDIOT!

[–] Valkyrist 16 years ago

"What special qualities would you have brought to the performance,that Mr. Whitaker failed to portray?"

Well, for one thing, it was to short a performance. I resented the fact that he was such an interesting character, but was given so little screentime in favour of Garrison's miserable character. Secondly, I felt Whitaker's progression from power to corruption was superficially documented. Amin didn't begin his riegn as a monster, he become one over time. That is what the novel was about -- Amin's moral degredation through the eyes of Dr. Garrison, but the film just glazes over this tranformation with boring dialogue and montage. Another point of criticism is that I felt his portrayal was too reserved, to held back. I never believed he was this great military dictator, because he was unable to show the passion and charisma that his character was supposed to hold. Also, Whitaker wasn't fierce enough for me. He's mostly this playful, cheerful bear, but when he finally does reveal his true evil nature to the protagonist, it didn't properly explore his psychotic demeanor; he was angry, but not the fierce monster his character was supposed to examine. Finally, Whitaker's performance had been praised by critics, and the academy had awarded him the highest acting honour. So that when I did finally see it, it only compounded my disappointment for his lackluster portrayal.

[–] prbt 16 years ago

^^^ What you said, DarkWolf, I agree wholeheartedly with every word. I really couldn't see the point in the film, and Hotel Rwanda is in a completely different league.

[–] Prutnumse 16 years ago

Very well put. I agree completely.

[–] cheerleading998 16 years ago

i personally loved this move the acting was amazing the plot ans story were great and JameMcavoy was HOT!!!!

Juno MacGuff: I think I'm, like, in love with you.

[–] themigoo 16 years ago

I completely agree. I was taken in by the amount of praise the film received. I chose to read the book first and found it to be one of the most boring books I’ve read and to be honest the film didn't really hit the mark either. At the start of the book, and the film, I felt the subject matter to be a really interesting pivotal hook but unfortunately both film and book seemed to never take a firm grasp of things. A couple of hours I will never get back lol

[–] Tubular_Bell 16 years ago

Who the heck told you we were supposed to sympathise with the doctor? Heck, his attitude through pretty much the entire film was questionable.

"I just can't believe that anyone, less still a doctor, could be so oblivious to the events around them, or so passive in the company of such evil circustances."

If you can't believe it, you need to open your eyes. People like that are EVERYWHERE.