Princess Ka'iulani

PRINCESS KA'IULANI feels like a made for TV movie, a film that will inform the viewer about a bit of history few know, but also a rather static and amateurish production - pretty to look at, embarrassing to hear. Marc Dorby directed this his first directorial outing based on his story written with the assistance of Robert Payne. The facts presented are apparently true and since few know the background history of Hawaii it is at least informative.

Without much historical background about the Islands before the Americans inserted themselves to feast on the beauty and agricultural goods of that paradise, the film begins with a conflict between the anti-Royalists lead by Thurston (Barry Pepper in muttonchops) and the Royal reign of King Kalalaua (Ocean Kaowili), Queen Liliu'okalan (Leo Anderson Akana). Princess Ka'iulani (Q'orianka Kilcher, a half Peruvian actress remembered for her role as Pocahontas in THE NEW WORLD with Colin Farrell and Christian Bale) is the niece who is in line for the throne, a royal personage who understands kindness in regards to the people of her nation (she is only half Hawaiian - her father is a Scotsman). To protect the princess she is sent to England where she gradually grows accustomed to British snobbery and overcomes it through her inner strength, living in the home of the Davies - Mr. Davies (Julian Glover, Alice Davies (Tazmin Merchant, from THE TUDORS) and Clive Davies (Shaun Evans). The family presents her to society, nurtures her, and the princess falls in love with Clive, who is juts ready to enter university, and they become engaged. Back home in Honolulu things disintegrate: Thurston gathers rebels to take over the Royal rule, alters the constitution to forbid voting by the natives, the King dies, and the Queen is under house arrest. Princess Ka'iulani travels to the United States to plead her case with President Cleveland, receives a grand reception and then returns home to Hawaii, raises her dignity to cope with Thurston and the anti-Royalists and with the assistance of Sanford B. Dole (Will Patton) she is able to alter the new constitution to allow voting rights to her people.

If that all sounds a bit short on story then the viewer can understand why so much time is spent with the princess, Julie and Clive skipping along the beach and finding other moments of diversion to fill the 90 minutes of the film. The cast is competent and delivers the piecemeal scraps of script given them well. In the end there jut isn't much story here that isn't fairly obvious from the first 15 minutes of the film. It is a good lesson about the US annexation of Hawaii and the tension between the native Hawaiians and the 'invaders'......

Grady Harp

The film isn't that great of a film, but the topic is certainly important and rarely seen. The period costumes are good and the tone is equally good, but it's a bit dull.

Not every princess meets a prince and lives happily ever after in his castle. This is a good alternative story. It's based on fact but just "based on". As an accurate representation of all the historical details and the Hawaiian culture, others have criticized it. My "8" is an assessment of the the movie as a decently told and entertaining story. If it inspires viewers to think more about the way the US acquired Hawaii as a territory, that's certainly a bonus. The actors are good, especially the young woman playing Kaiulani. The sets and scenery are gorgeous. The Victorian costumes are very -- Victorian! I can't imagine wearing those sumptuous, heavy clothes in the Hawaiian heat, but it appears they really did. Overall, well worth a viewing.

While this film is very well done stylistically, the scrip took far to many liberties with the history of the truly tragic story of how the peaceful kingdom was literally stolen by American businessmen with the aid of the US government. The romantic elements were pure fiction.

This movie was off-putting for me for more than one reason. To be completely honest, I might actually have enjoyed it had it not been for the casting of the main character. I could not understand this casting, for more than one reason. I could possibly have dealt with the more obvious reason if the actor had been ethically true to the character. But this is not the case, and as such I really was not able to understand what the casting director was thinking. Evidently, the character (the princess) was of mixed race, partly European. As such, the actor chosen to play the role should have had similar ethnicity. The actor is evidently of mixed race, but this in and of itself does not make the actor ethnically correct for the role. Even if the actor, like the character, was 1/2 European. The other half of the actor's ethnicity is that of a particular group indigenous to Peru and some of the countries that neighbor Peru, mostly to the south. This ethnicity is a branch of the indigenous people of America, who entered America from Siberia a little more than 10,000 years ago. This ethnicity has very little in common with the Polynesian people who populated Hawaii, i.e., the indigenous people of the Hawaiian islands. As I tried to watch this movie, I couldn't get past the fact that the main character looked absolutely _nothing_ like what she should have looked like. This _ruined_ the movie, and would have no matter how good the movie might have been in most other respects. Why would the casting director have done this? All too often, movies that cost a lot to make are ruined by inexplicably bad choices made by casting directors.