Problem: positive
=++++=
Answer: What seemed at first just another introverted French flick offering no more than baleful sentiment became for me, on second viewing, a genuinely insightful and quite satisfying presentation.

Spoiler of sorts follows.

Poor Cedric; he apparently didn't know what hit him. Poor audience; we were at first caught up in what seemed a really beautiful and romantic story only to be led back and forth into the dark reality of mismatch. These two guys just didn't belong together from their first ambiguous encounter. As much as Mathieu and Cedric were sexually attracted to each other, the absence of a deeper emotional tie made it impossible for Mathieu, an intellectual being, to find fulfillment in sharing life with someone whose sensibilities were more attuned to carnival festivities and romps on the beach.

On a purely technical note, I loved the camera action in this film. Subtitles were totally unnecessary, even though my French is "presque rien." I could watch it again without the annoying English translation and enjoy it even more. This was a polished, very professionally made motion picture. Though many scenes seem superfluous, I rate it nine out of ten.

Problem: negative
=++++=
Answer: While this film certainly does possess the stench of a bad film, it's surprisingly watchable on several levels. First, for old movie fans, it's interesting to see the leading role played by Dean Jagger (no relation to Mick). While Jagger later went on to a very respectable role as a supporting actor (even garnering the Oscar in this category for 12 O'CLOCK HIGH), here his performance is truly unique since he actually has a full head of hair (I never saw him this way before) and because he was by far the worst actor in the film. This film just goes to show that if an actor cannot act in his earlier films doesn't mean he can't eventually learn to be a great actor. Another good example of this phenomenon is Paul Newman, whose first movie (THE SILVER CHALICE) is considered one of the worst films of the 1950s.

A second reason to watch the film is the shear cheesiness of it all. The writing is bad, the acting is bad and the special effects are bad. For example, when Jagger and an unnamed Cambodian are wading through the water, it's obvious they are really just walking in place and the background is poorly projected behind them. Plus, once they leave the water, their costumes are 100% dry!!! Horrid continuity and mindlessly bad dialog abounds throughout the film--so much so that it's hard to imagine why they didn't ask Bela Lugosi or George Zucco to star in the film--since both of them starred in many grade-z horror films. In many ways, this would be a perfect example for a film class on how NOT to make a film.

So, while giving it a 3 is probably a bit over-generous, it's fun to laugh at and short so it's worth a look for bad film fans.

Problem: negative
=++++=
Answer:
The King Maker is a film about a series of real (citation needed) events that occurred during the Portuguese Occupation in Indochina.

Although the costumes and art direction are commendable, the movie still fails to impress the viewer. The acting, in particular, was extremely poor. Some of the actors are trying hard to let tears down and the accents, both real and fake, are extremely irritating. The storyline was also too dumb and too stupid to be true and it seemed more like a history lesson. The movie couldn't even capture that sort of regal and century-old air and it looked more like a botched attempt to make an Asian version of Elizabeth.

Final say? Costumes and art direction give the film a breath of fresh air, but the execution was extremely poor and the actors couldn't even give natural bursts of emotion. In short, the movie sounded more like hullabaloo than a script.