The Last King of Scotland

A film I had been eagerly anticipating, and one that I believed in as much as only a handful of other films even before seeing it. I think the film's potential was fully realized here—when you take such a gripping real-life history with actual characters and pair it with an experienced director, there’s little chance the final result would fall flat. Forest Whitaker is hands down the best part of the film; his portrayal of the general was unpredictable, and when you add the undeniable charisma this actor possesses, it’s clear that the Oscar was already in his pocket that year. And the casting nailed the physical resemblance! At first glance, it might seem like James McAvoy was playing in his shadow, but don’t be fooled, as he also delivers a performance worthy of a full ten out of ten (though he might have been even more convincing in Split). The film boasts captivating locations where it was shot. When you combine those with the actors and a story full of tense moments and twists, you’re guaranteed an excellent two-hour experience. I give it 86%. (01/09/2017)

I expected it to mainly focus on Forest Whitaker's performance, which is partly true, but the film has a story that actually surprised me. I didn't expect anything from it, but it's not that bad. At least at first. It seems like several interesting storylines are unfolding here, but in the end, attention almost blindly focuses only on the insane dictator portrayed excellently by Whitaker. It's a shame because story-wise, it's a missed opportunity. Surprisingly, the film isn't even as gritty as I expected. Or am I really that numb to it by now? (02/04/2014)

A decent film from an exotic setting with a young James McAvoy as a doctor and Forest Whitaker as a dictator in Kampala. I was expecting something grittier and more intense due to the theme and the harsh setting, but thankfully I didn't slip into boredom. Still, the film left me somewhat cold. 65% (16/11/2017)

The five-star Forest Whitaker in an otherwise average three-star film. This film shows how advanced Euro-American cinema approaches developing countries, where the main character of a film set in central Africa must necessarily be a white European to cater to the audience in economically advanced countries. Thus, the story of a British guy who comes to Africa to have fun and gain some life experience is attached to the drama of a dictator from Central Africa. However, the script failed to convincingly justify the existence of the main character, because the clear standout and magnet of the film is the self-proclaimed president Idi Amin, whom Forest Whitaker undoubtedly gave more charisma than the dictator had in reality. In my opinion, the main character should have been a black African who, for some reason, got close to the new leader of the country and was forced to witness all the madness and face Amin's sudden mood swings and chronic suspicion. It may not have been possible to completely ruin such a promising character as Amin, with long rows of corpses and countless crimes behind him, but Whitaker seized the opportunity and made the most of it, winning an Oscar. I wouldn't say it's his best performance on the big screen, but it is these socially critical roles that are awarded film prizes. Overall impression: 60%. (01/01/2012)

A great Forest Whitaker, an underused James McAvoy (shame on the writers for ditching the main character like that!), a nice African setting, an even nicer Gillian Anderson... But the promised drama was where, exactly? Not that I was downright disappointed, but the film is completely lacking anything that should have shocked me or made me think "Wow, that Amin, what a monster..." Of course, I have no desire to see hundreds of thousands of people murdered, but what was it about The Last King of Scotland that was supposed to impress me? The final half hour or so? Yes, it was impressive. Explanatory captions with the number of victims of Amin's atrocity? Nope. (07/12/2012)