The Last King of Scotland

The newly qualified Dr Nicholas Garrigan travels to Uganda to take up a post with a village mission. He arrives just after a coup puts Idi Amin in power of the country. During a visit by Amim to the village, Garrigan captures the President's attention by tending to a small injury to his hand and showing himself decisive and strong-willed. It is not long before the young Garrigan finds himself appointed as physician to the President and ensconced as one of his "closest advisors". However the initial charm shown by Amin gives way to a darker violent streak as Garrigan finds the superficial stability of the country and its leader is nothing of the sort.

Famous now for the performance that will deservedly win an Oscar in a few weeks time, this film actually doesn't have Amin as the "main" character despite him being the draw and the title character. Instead we actually spend a lot of time with Garrigan, his experiences and his problems. Of course I understand why this was the way because Garrigan is out narrative device – a composite character who acts as our way into the inner circle of Amin and allows the audience to experience him as outsiders as well. This works well in doing this but it does also introduce problems, or at least one problem. This is the fact that, as the story goes on, we find ourselves more and more focused on Garrigan (who doesn't actually exist) rather than Amin or Uganda (who did and does exist respectively). I found this a bit irritating as it got worse because I had come to the film for Amin – as, I suspect, many will have done.

Even with this though the film still works well and makes for an engaging piece. Macdonald's direction is good and his moving camera does give it the air of a documentary while still very much being a drama. Of course the thing that makes the film work is the central performance from Whitaker. The character of Amin allows him to play to his strengths and he delivers a convincingly unhinged turn, constantly menacing but also managing to have a child-like sense of fun at times and a terrifying tendency towards ruthlessness and violence. I have said before, he was brilliant in The Shield (making the whole season his own) and he is equally brilliant here. Alongside this it is no surprise that McAvoy is a bit weak by comparison. His character is not so convincing (a side effect of being a composite) and some of the narrative turns ask a lot of him – he is still good and it is not his fault that he is in Whitaker's shadow. Washington has a small role but was pretty good in it even if her presence made me wonder why they felt they had to cast an American actress, likewise Anderson but I assume that they helped get funding so fair enough. McBurney is a bit too slimy and sinister and I wasn't sure what the film was trying to say. Audiences may also recognise Oyelowo from his recent high-profile roles in HBO's Five Days and BBC's controversial Shoot The Messenger.

Overall then not a perfect film but a pretty good one. The use of Garrigan is good at getting us into the story but it is a weakness that we stick with him as the focus. The performances are roundly good but of course it is another terrific turn from Whitaker that makes every scene he is in worth seeing.

There have been so few pictures this year that are standouts. This movie is one of them. Much of what you will see is true, and did occur in Uganda's history. Amin's doctor, played by James Macavoy, is the main fiction in the movie, but one would think they are watching a historical event. Macavoy's character is so real. The doctor grows from a free thinking, adventure loving, womanizer, to a scared, concerned, and enlightened person. The viewer watches through Macavoys eyes as he witnesses the horrors of Amin's (Forest Whitaker's) presidency and regime.

Forest Whitaker, IS Amin in this feature. Whitaker is not the silent sometimes brooding character you remember in other films he has been in. His accent,his face, and his emotions seem to no longer be Whitaker's but Amin's. This movie will scare the viewer because of its realism, and how it builds up to a tension that is hard to endure. The visuals are not for the squeamish. Go ahead and hide your eyes during the "tough" scenes. It is still worth seeing this movie for the fast paced story, realistic drama, fascinating tale, and for the unbelievable acting. By the end of the movie the audience is exhausted, but satisfied that they saw a worthy flick.

With "The Last King of Scotland," Kevin MacDonald has created a bracing, exciting and totally satisfying thriller.

Forest Whitaker gives a titanic performance as Idi Amin, Ugandan dictator who rose to power in the 1970s. James McAvoy plays Nicholas Garrigan, a Scottish physician who travels to Uganda for the adventure and wins Amin's affections, becoming his personal doctor. Garrigan enters into a moral crisis as he begins to realize the kind of man Amin is, and begins to fear for his own life as events spiral more and more out of his control.

Whitaker seizes the chance to play this larger than life character and runs with it -- I've never seen Whitaker give so convincing and transforming a performance. However, as good as he is, McAvoy impressed me more. His performance as Garrigan is not as showy, but it's much more textured and subtle, and his character has the bigger arc from start to finish. Gillian Anderson also does terrific work in a small role as a fellow doctor, who understands things about Amin and the African culture that Garrigan does not.

Unlike other recent thrillers set in African nations ("The Constant Gardener," "Hotel Rwanda"), "The Last King of Scotland" is not greatly concerned with the geo-political implications of Amin's reign. The atrocities he committed against Ugandans are given only the barest of mentions, and the film sticks almost exclusively to Garrigan and the danger he himself faces. Some may think the film is irresponsible for this reason -- that the plight of one man pales in comparison to the plight of thousands, and I can see where a criticism like that is justified. But the movie packs a powerful wallop regardless, and complaints like this seem like quibbles when up against such an entertaining movie.

Grade: A

The most frightening character in history is the man who smiles. A person who can slaughter thousands and torture even more, and be a joker, is appalling. Forest Whitaker presents Idi Amin, the horror of Uganda. He comes off as a charming, outgoing source of venom. Obviously, there are liberties taken that are there with any historical drama, but the recency of his reign give us more immediacy. It also can make it more likely to be attacked. There is no question about Amin, however.

How can an actor terrify you without saying a word, without even hardly moving his face or body? I'm not sure how he does it, but Mr. Whitaker does it over and over again in this movie. And then he turns around the next minute and becomes giant hug-able teddy bear superhero. Forget all the others, this is the best horror film of the year. This movie, and his performance in particular, grab hold of you and never let go. Whitaker should win an Oscar for best actor, I've never seen a better performance in my life. Also notable is the Nicholas Garrigan character who is written and acted very skilfully to draw the (non-African) spectator into the world of Uganda and Amin. The way his character willingly "falls into" Amin's web of charisma somehow goes a long way toward mitigating the racist potential of a story about a very troubled (African black) man. The way the interplay of the two lead character's cultural backgrounds plays out on screen moves the story beyond just their personalities and into the realm of incisive socio-political analysis and critique. This movie is quite incredible, really.