Ras555 No spoilers! I liked this movie! It is a kid's movie with an R rating, ha ha.OK, yes this movie is not excellent, but frankly it is not as bad as all these reviews say it is. I have seen many acclaimed movies that receive rave reviews that are not much better than this one. What is the difference between those movies and this one? This one has unknown lead actors and people are biased about watching movies with the lead roles not given to "star" actors. In my opinion the acting in this movie is not bad, just that the actors are not loved actors.Some have criticized the modern music and the fake British accents. I am really tired of the hypocrisy of these kinds of reviews. First they want the music to be "true to the time period" and then they want the Portuguese to speak perfect British English. Give me a break, there is not a British character in the whole film, why should any of them speak English well? The acting is not bad! It just isn't perfect! OK, granted the script does sound like they google translated it, the dialogue is awkward and sometimes doesn't really fit the character. But who cares? It is not an English film! I like the fact that they don't speak English very well. It gives it more authenticity as a whole. Why can't people stop their petty criticism and just enjoy a movie for what it is? I think that what people don't like is the R rating with no nudity or gratuitous sex. I can guarantee that if they showed some naked breasts there would be far less bad reviews altogether. Personally, I didn't miss it!

rwmpro I think that this film adds to diversity and is very accurate in terms of historic reconstruction. The way it shows the various communities leaving together in Thailand is very interesting...The Portuguese, the Japanese, and the various communities being managed by the king. The plots around the court are as usual a struggle for power with a lot of treason. The wardrobe is fine. The film is also done locally in Thailand in a reasonable production. The scene with the elefant as executors is very interesting. It is fun and I think that is also usable in schools for its historic accuracy because it shows that the European in Asia were subjects of the local kings in way very different from the traditional Hollywood perspective.

brentkincaid Up to this point, Gentle Rain was the movie I found the worst in history. It has been supplanted by this 'blockbuster' out of Asia. It has one "star" and it is John Rhys Davies. He is way out of shape to be the swashbuckling, magical flying baddie he is cast here. The rest of these people couldn't act their way out of a junior high school play. No clichés were missed in the dialogue, and the special effects were phoned in as often as possible.It is fairly easy to see that somebody in Asia had some bucks and needed to create a vehicle for some actors they wanted to throw money at. Or maybe it was a director or a writer that needed a credit. My guess is that any career with this movie in it's credentialDo yourself a major favor and don't watch this movie. A hundred Thanksgivings couldn't consume this turkey.The one funny scene was unintentional. The brother of the King appears on the scene. The king? A handsome, older, short Asian actor. (Bad actor.) The brother? A six foot European. (Also a bad actor.) No excuses were made for this. They just expected us not to notice that this poor man's Jet Li's brother was a wannabe Pierce Brosnan in a cheap dimestore "Injun" wig right out of an old western movie from the forties.

parhat The movie was to be shown here in Bangkok with all the fanfare and even in the theater, it failed miserably.Apparently the story writer just don't hold water. Something was definitely missing. In my opinion people must have a reason why they watch it other than historical glimpse of the past. Accuracy of history is not what we look for in entertainment.The movie just lack any substance. The only way to do this movie right was somehow make changes where it stands as some kind of a legend instead of just a story. And a legend will have certain elements that tries to tell you something that people have forgotten through time, such as the meaning of sacrifice, nationalism, etc. It is called the central theme.The movie fails to answer, why would I watch it anyway?At least some strange legendary Flying Elephants, psychic king, or the eccentric king such as "The King and I" would have been lovely, something would have added greatly to the movies' appeal. I guess there was no appeal other than a plain vanilla movie. Once you got the appeal, then the story is the next thing we concentrate on. In marketing terms, we call it "must see". Upon hearing the title of the movie people would say, Oh, I must see it. Now where's the appeal in Kingmaker? Why not just redo the title and call it, "How NOT to be a King?" and make a black comedy of the old Siamese days, to the style of "Dr. Strangelove". That would have been much more interesting. Narrative-like experiences of the foibles of the King from first persons goofs off would have made the movie extremely funny. Most movies today have that "must see" appeal, such as Spiderman, Men X, these titles speak for themselves. If they don't have familiar characters, some other movies such as, The Island, had an appeal itself when the advertising asks "Do you still believe there is an Island?". Or for the movie, retitled "How NOT to be a King" might ask the question, "So do you still WANT to be a King?" Parhat