Whitaker's superb performance turns up the heat in an otherwise inconsistent film

Rating: 7/10 (20 April 2007)

Late last year, when Oscar pundits were not discussing Helen Mirren or the dozens of candidates for Best Picture, they were talking about one man: Forest Whitaker. He had apparently turned in an amazing performance in The Last King of Scotland, and it was touted right from the start as the winner of the Best Actor trophy. Having really enjoyed the main actor performances in Capote and Ray, I had high hopes for Scotland. And while he delivered, much like the other two, nothing else did.
The film centres on idealistic young Scotsman Dr. Nicholas Garrigan (James McAvoy), who has just graduated from college. Wanting to make a difference, he takes out his globe, spins it, and places his finger down on where he wants to go. Uganda ends up being the answer, and Garrigan turns up there just in time for the start of President Idi Amin's (Whitaker) reign. The doctor wants to help the Ugandan people out as much as he can, but after a chance encounter with the charming President, the charismatic doctor is taken in to be his personal physician. Only then does he get to experience what Amin is really like.
As intriguing as the film sounds, it really is not all that great. It is riveting in a lot of sequences, but many just drag on without a point. If a point is to be made, it takes about five minutes to get to it, if at all. Numerous subplots are thrown at the viewer, and only a few totally pan out. The rest either crash and burn, or are just never spoken or acted upon after their brief mention. It feels more inconsistent than anything, and the two hour runtime really does help in any case. It just drags the film out longer than it needs to be.
This mainly is indebted to the fact that the main character is Garrigan and not Amin. I realize that the film is based on a novel. But after some brief research, it turns out that it is very unlike the novel. So why not make this subtle change to? Focus less on the fictional Scotsman, and do more with the real person. Garrigan is an intriguing character on his own, but having him be the focal point of the movie is not too great an idea. Amin is the compelling character here, and the reason people are seeing the movie in the first place. He should not have to play second fiddle to a wavering fictional entity.
But while the main characters have a few issues, the cinematography does not. The beautiful and brutal African landscapes are captured in the awestriking way that North Americans have come to expect. The lush atmosphere (even down to small sequences involving the annoying insects) is represented wonderfully here, despite the subject matter. But in comparison to other harsh African-content films (like The Constant Gardener or Blood Diamond), the film captures a lot of the more upper class areas well too. Every African-based film I have ever taken in is always focused on the deep, dark and ferociously violent areas of the continent. Here, we get to see the more royal side of it, and it is equally if not even better captured than the rough side.
I liked the fact that it did not abruptly hold the movie up with historical details forcing the audience to feel the need to rush out and do something. Blood Diamond had that annoying element that totally ruined the film, and I am glad it is not present here. A movie should be subtle about a call for change, not in your face and halting the movie to tell you. The film is also nowhere near as brutal as I imagined, only having a lot of gore and blood appearing closer to the end of the film than to the beginning.
I would be lying though if I said that everything in the film is overshadowed by the overbearing and positively excellent portrayal of Amin that Whitaker turns in. You will be hard set to not have your eyes glued to the screen whenever he pops up and starts talking. Right from the start as a bus simply passes Amin waving to a crowd, Whitaker commandeers the screen (and you do not even get to see him again for at least another fifteen minutes). His profound performance is simply not to be missed. Any sequences are livened by his mere presence. His aura is felt in all of the scenes he is in, and even when he does not show up, you can practically smell the impact he has made on the scene and the actors acting within it. And when his character suddenly turns from an absolutely frightening beast to a kind hearted chum and then back again within mere seconds, you know you are watching a master at work. Whitaker more than deserved his Oscar.
As hard as he tries, McAvoy just cannot hold up against the force of Whitaker's performance. When he is on the screen for excessively long points of time, even he knows that the audience is begging for more Amin. It is not that his performance is not that great; it is the fact that it feels amateurish at best. He does very well for himself, just not well enough. I understand that this may have been for effect, and may actually prove just how right he was for the naïve doctor. But he just cannot hold the film on his own, and I am sure that everyone who watches it can tell in his struggle to even attempt it.
While no other supporting actor even comes close to being good on screen, Whitaker more than makes up for it. The film is flawed and inconsistent, but he is not. His performance had people talking for a reason.
7/10.