Fox Searchlight Pictures | Release Date: September 27, 2006
8.1
USER SCORE
Universal acclaim based on 145 Ratings
USER RATING DISTRIBUTION
Positive:
121
Mixed:
20
Negative:
4
WATCH NOW
Stream On
Stream On
Review this movie
VOTE NOW
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Check box if your review contains spoilers 0 characters (5000 max)
6
TimMOct 23, 2006
This movie is good, but its not great. I wish there was more focus upon the actual events and genocide occurring in Uganda, rather than upon the relationship between Amin and the Scot. [***SPOILERS***] There were random unnecessary parties This movie is good, but its not great. I wish there was more focus upon the actual events and genocide occurring in Uganda, rather than upon the relationship between Amin and the Scot. [***SPOILERS***] There were random unnecessary parties and sex scenes which did not add to the picture, but rather detracted from the director's credibility. Also, there was random rock guitar music during some tense moments which was completely off. The best part of this movie was Whitaker Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
6
MauraCOct 24, 2006
My initial reaction to this movie was that I hated it. But once I got over the fact that Forest Whitaker is not the main character (despite all evidence in the previews), I decided it was actually a fairly powerful movie with some great My initial reaction to this movie was that I hated it. But once I got over the fact that Forest Whitaker is not the main character (despite all evidence in the previews), I decided it was actually a fairly powerful movie with some great acting. Whitaker was brilliant as always, though it was disappointing that he once again was cheated out of being the main character. The main character was a bit too much of a Romeo for my taste, and his quick ascension to "bosom buddy" status with a violent dictator was a bit hard to swallow. But the movie did present an interesting journey through McAvoy's character's mental/emotional struggles as he realized what Idi Amin was really all about. Worth seeing, just don't expect it to focus on Whitaker/Amin and you might enjoy it. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
4
leirisNov 19, 2006
Whitaker was amazing in this...but the movie overall seems to be just another movie about Africa made for white people. After it was over I found no real point in the film
0 of 0 users found this helpful
5
TrueA.Mar 1, 2007
My main gripe with this film is that the true events it is inspired by are so few and far between that this story may as well have just been a complete work of fiction. I do not dispute that Africa has an ugly history, but I object to the My main gripe with this film is that the true events it is inspired by are so few and far between that this story may as well have just been a complete work of fiction. I do not dispute that Africa has an ugly history, but I object to the fact that the TRUE history is not shown... so many people base their opinions on world events on movies, so surely it makes sense to allow people to base their opinions on the truth, particularly if a movie is going to claim it is "based on true events"? Beyond that, the acting was of a high quality - apart from the accents of the American actors purporting to be African. Personally, I found Blood Diamond more memorable. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
4
SpongeeeMar 19, 2007
As stated by others, this is a film about Africa made by white people for white people. The story is about the emotional and personal issues of a white protagonist. Whitaker does a great job with badly written script that has no character As stated by others, this is a film about Africa made by white people for white people. The story is about the emotional and personal issues of a white protagonist. Whitaker does a great job with badly written script that has no character development. Besides, none of the true historical tragedies of Uganda are shown. They are touched upon with photos within the 'story' and a factoid before the credits. Just as the movie shows, white people really know how to mess stuff up. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
4
JoeAverageApr 17, 2007
Unfortunately, the film reminds me of Blood Diamond. As with that film, the makers of Last King let an seemly interesting story get overshadowed by the 'token' Caucasian protagonist and his story. That the Scottish doctor never Unfortunately, the film reminds me of Blood Diamond. As with that film, the makers of Last King let an seemly interesting story get overshadowed by the 'token' Caucasian protagonist and his story. That the Scottish doctor never historically existed is even more galling. The film teases you with hints at Idi Amin's colorful past and motivation, but never lets Forest Whitaker deviate the character from the cliche of the 'charismatic dictator' . Despite the constraints of the film, Whitaker gives a performance that rightly deserved the Oscar (which he gives in Ghost Dog and practically every other film he's been in). A wasted opportunity. Makes Hotel Rwanda look practically revolutionary. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
6
HalB.Apr 28, 2007
A very flawed movie, as other "user reviews" have noted here. Not sure if it wants to be a docu-drama, a character study or just more Hollywood drivel. I actually feel badly for McAvoy -- a strong actor thrown into a pretty unsympathetic A very flawed movie, as other "user reviews" have noted here. Not sure if it wants to be a docu-drama, a character study or just more Hollywood drivel. I actually feel badly for McAvoy -- a strong actor thrown into a pretty unsympathetic role; he serves mainly as a plot device, the white do-gooder thrust into another culture, which tests him and finds him very lacking. Saved primarily by Whittaker's strong performance and some excellent scenes & accompanying sountrack. This movie could have been so much more, so much better. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful