I've been trying since Tuesday to see, and been very much looking forward to seeing, The Last King of Scotland. Having finally seen it tonight, I feel quite disappointed. Kevin MacDonald has filmed an interesting story (as is his background), but he has not made a film out of it. The only really compelling element is Forest Whitaker's performance, and the real-life character of Idi Amin that he portrays. I asked myself afterwards what I would think if it had been a film about entirely fictional characters. The answer was: disappointed. That can be the only review. This is not a movie; it's a film of an extraordinary story. There's a difference, I think. There should be throughout a terribly sinister mood and tone, but there isn't. The music selection is terrible. The atmosphere is inconsistent and badly developed, the pace of the movie not maintained and any kind of plot arc distinctly lacking. Nothing is learned or not learned, discovered or recovered. No ideas are presented or challenged. Yes, it's about a naive doctor who selfishly gets involved with Amin and then finds himself in too deep. But, if this wasn't a real story, would it have any power? I don't think so. I don't want to ruin the ending for you, but the thing that almost happens should have happened. I'll say no more.
Incidentally, I was completely wrong about Kevin MacDonald being at the Curzon yesterday. He will be there on Friday, I think. I like the cinema, but it is very busy. Also, how windy was it today? I saw a man have his lunch blown away - his polystyrene takeaway box flew out of his hands and off down the street.
2 comments:
I don't know if you know this but apparently the doctors character didn't exist but is in fact an algamation of three different people.
If you didn't know this and I've just told you. Does that change the way you view the film? It seems to me in your review that you were saying that there hadn't been enough adaptation, but clearly some major reworking had occurred. Of course it still might not have been enough.
I did know this before I went to see the film, but forgot from then until now. Perhaps it does make a bit of a difference, but I guess my problem was that it felt like 'a life' rather than 'a film'. Even if my criticism was misdirected, I still think it was correct.
It would've been really interesting to have more hint of those three characters. Maybe the amalgamation into one is what ruins it? I haven't read the book so I'm not sure.
Post a Comment