keysersoze13
Joined Sep 2006
Welcome to the new profile
We're still working on updating some profile features. To see the badges, ratings breakdowns, and polls for this profile, please go to the previous version.
Reviews10
keysersoze13's rating
'The Last King of Scotland' is intelligent and thrilling drama created with flawless acting, writing and direction. Directed by Kevin McDonald, making his fiction debut after acclaimed documentaries 'One Day in September' and 'Touching the Void', brings Giles Foden's novel to the screen with flair and creates a haunting and entertaining cinematic experience.
The film is based on Foden's fictional book, which constructs a fictional story from true events surrounding Idi Amin, Ugandan dictator and self-proclaimed 'Last King of Scotland'. Amin ruled Uganda as a tyrant, responsible for the deaths of, as the film explains, at least 300,000 of his people. The film mixes fact and fiction to follow the fictional character of Nicholas Garrigan - who is inspired by real people - a young Scottish doctor, as he spontaneously travels to Uganda, determined to do what he can to improve the nation. There he meets, by chance, Amin and is soon appointed his personal physician. Nicholas gradually becomes a greater part of Amin's life, as Amin does in his and slowly becomes aware of the dangerous position that he is in, one where he cannot escape.
The film's script comes from Jeremy Brock (writer/director of 'Driving Lessons') and Peter Morgan, currently earning acclaim for his script for the award-winning 'The Queen' and his hit West End play 'Frost/Nixon'. Their screenplay blends humour, tragedy and emotional human drama with two complex lead characters to tremendous effect. The two men are fascinating and captivating characters.
The direction is excellent. The film is well-paced, with breathtaking locations and urgent, often hand-held cinematography that give gritty realism that doesn't glorify the story in gloss as could have happened if left in the hands of Hollywood. But this production is in good hands, with a Scottish director and English screenwriters.
The film really comes alive with the outstanding performances of the talented cast, in particular Forest Whitaker as Amin and James McAvoy as Garrigan. Whitaker thoroughly deserves the Best Actor Oscar for his blistering and intense portrayal as the dictator, searing across the screen alternately charming and terrifying. McAvoy does not allow himself to be upstaged by Whitaker's powerful screen presence, and his performance will at least gain him an Oscar nomination for Best Supporting Actor. His performance is every bit as compelling as Whitaker's, as he creates a character whose actions render him difficult to like, but crucially we can sympathise with in the climactic scenes. Great support comes from Kerry Washington as one of Amin's wives, David Oyelowo as McAvoy's predecessor as personal physician and Simon McBurney as a sleazy, manipulative Englishman.
'The Last King of Scotland' is a thoroughly deserving Oscar contender and a truly great piece of film.
The film is based on Foden's fictional book, which constructs a fictional story from true events surrounding Idi Amin, Ugandan dictator and self-proclaimed 'Last King of Scotland'. Amin ruled Uganda as a tyrant, responsible for the deaths of, as the film explains, at least 300,000 of his people. The film mixes fact and fiction to follow the fictional character of Nicholas Garrigan - who is inspired by real people - a young Scottish doctor, as he spontaneously travels to Uganda, determined to do what he can to improve the nation. There he meets, by chance, Amin and is soon appointed his personal physician. Nicholas gradually becomes a greater part of Amin's life, as Amin does in his and slowly becomes aware of the dangerous position that he is in, one where he cannot escape.
The film's script comes from Jeremy Brock (writer/director of 'Driving Lessons') and Peter Morgan, currently earning acclaim for his script for the award-winning 'The Queen' and his hit West End play 'Frost/Nixon'. Their screenplay blends humour, tragedy and emotional human drama with two complex lead characters to tremendous effect. The two men are fascinating and captivating characters.
The direction is excellent. The film is well-paced, with breathtaking locations and urgent, often hand-held cinematography that give gritty realism that doesn't glorify the story in gloss as could have happened if left in the hands of Hollywood. But this production is in good hands, with a Scottish director and English screenwriters.
The film really comes alive with the outstanding performances of the talented cast, in particular Forest Whitaker as Amin and James McAvoy as Garrigan. Whitaker thoroughly deserves the Best Actor Oscar for his blistering and intense portrayal as the dictator, searing across the screen alternately charming and terrifying. McAvoy does not allow himself to be upstaged by Whitaker's powerful screen presence, and his performance will at least gain him an Oscar nomination for Best Supporting Actor. His performance is every bit as compelling as Whitaker's, as he creates a character whose actions render him difficult to like, but crucially we can sympathise with in the climactic scenes. Great support comes from Kerry Washington as one of Amin's wives, David Oyelowo as McAvoy's predecessor as personal physician and Simon McBurney as a sleazy, manipulative Englishman.
'The Last King of Scotland' is a thoroughly deserving Oscar contender and a truly great piece of film.
BBC Four continue their excellent form in drama with an adaptation of this MR James short story. This was a Christmas treat that perhaps continues a new tradition for the channel's Christmas output, after last year's MR James adaptation 'View From A Hill'.
'Number 13' was simple, pleasurable entertainment; delivered in 40 minutes of suspenseful storytelling. The story was simple, with he mystery coming from the fact that room 13 does not exist, but can be heard by Greg Wise, in the lead role.
There was very little to 'Number 13'. It was a short and enjoyable Victorian ghost story, something that should be welcome as an annual fixture for BBC Four.
'Number 13' was simple, pleasurable entertainment; delivered in 40 minutes of suspenseful storytelling. The story was simple, with he mystery coming from the fact that room 13 does not exist, but can be heard by Greg Wise, in the lead role.
There was very little to 'Number 13'. It was a short and enjoyable Victorian ghost story, something that should be welcome as an annual fixture for BBC Four.
The new BBC adaptation of Bram Stoker's Dracula is flawed but makes for enjoyable viewing. It seemed so promising, with a great cast and the aim to create an exciting new take on the old tale. Also, the BBC rarely produce a bad piece of TV drama.
So where did it all go wrong? I think the sometimes drastic changes from the source material were poorly constructed. The writing was competent but the plot dragged and never really flowed. Characters were underwritten and, despite the efforts of the talented cast, remained unconvincing throughout. The character of Jonathan Harker was reduced to a couple of scenes, then disappeared, leaving Lord Holmwood to become the main character. The changes were supposed to bring freshness to an often told story but paled in comparison to the original story; which, told well, is an exhilarating experience.
The casting was perhaps the production's strongest point, though the script never did justice to the characters. Talented young actors Rafe Spall, Dan Stevens and Sophia Myles were wasted in their roles, but Stevens in particular did well to convincingly portray Holmwood despite the dodgy dialogue he had to contend with. Marc Warren made a decent attempt at the Count but his was the most severely underwritten role, and because of this Dracula is never menacing, just some foreign bloke who likes blood. The standout performance came from David Suchet, as Abraham Van Helsing, who stole the limited screen time he was given.
This telling of Stoker's tale was competent but largely dull, benefiting from some interesting acting and a decent ending.
So where did it all go wrong? I think the sometimes drastic changes from the source material were poorly constructed. The writing was competent but the plot dragged and never really flowed. Characters were underwritten and, despite the efforts of the talented cast, remained unconvincing throughout. The character of Jonathan Harker was reduced to a couple of scenes, then disappeared, leaving Lord Holmwood to become the main character. The changes were supposed to bring freshness to an often told story but paled in comparison to the original story; which, told well, is an exhilarating experience.
The casting was perhaps the production's strongest point, though the script never did justice to the characters. Talented young actors Rafe Spall, Dan Stevens and Sophia Myles were wasted in their roles, but Stevens in particular did well to convincingly portray Holmwood despite the dodgy dialogue he had to contend with. Marc Warren made a decent attempt at the Count but his was the most severely underwritten role, and because of this Dracula is never menacing, just some foreign bloke who likes blood. The standout performance came from David Suchet, as Abraham Van Helsing, who stole the limited screen time he was given.
This telling of Stoker's tale was competent but largely dull, benefiting from some interesting acting and a decent ending.