nerowolfgal I rented this movie because I had never seen a movie set in medieval Siam (Thailand). I found the movie fascinating; the culture, the costumes, the history held me. Some of the politics went over my head on the first viewing, and being a westerner who uses things like hair and eye color to sort characters apart, it was at first difficult to tell who was who. However, I am definitely going to watch it again.Some reviews have said the acting is wooden. Some of it is, however allow for cultural differences. Also most royalty throughout history and in most countries are trained to be very self-controlled. You have to watch for clues. But how can some reviewers say the main character does nothing? In the very first minutes, Suriyothai is complaining about rules, she then goes off and talks to a man by herself(!) risking punishment. When asked to marry a man she does not love, she runs away and only her sense of duty to the people brings her back. We see her being VERY knowledgeable about court polities and the necessities of power. Later she organizes a rebellion, then rides off to battle and throws herself between the fighting kings to save her husband.I found it a very interesting movie that is well worth watching: besides how can you not love a movie where the king yells "Arm the elephants!"

birck I was not impressed. Whether because of FFC's re-editing, or because of the basic film, I can't tell. The acting is flat, which may be a peculiarity of Thai drama and/or film-making, but the flatness makes the emotional dynamics hard to pick up on. The characters are difficult to keep straight; and the main point of the story-the self-sacrifice of the main character-is there, but not emphasized enough to give the film any real narrative drive. Perhaps it was done that way because the principal audience-Thais at home in Thailand-was assumed to know all the characters and be familiar with the story?I have seen and appreciated films dealing with essential historical legends of Asian countries, so I know that it can be done effectively, and in such a way that non-asians can "get" the story. I know I'm supposed to be impressed by the money spent on it, the great costumes, the majesty of the story, and-yes-the elephants! But, at bottom, the story simply isn't told here in a way that delivers much of a punch for me.

ggrihn This is a beautiful epic film set in historical Thailand during a turbulent period about 1526AD into the 1530's. There is an interesting story behind the making of this film. Apparently, Chatrichalerm Yukol, the writer and director is a member of the sprawling Thai royal family (as is SF/Horror writer S.P. Somtow). The Thais have never been happy with films about Thailand, so much so that neither the Yul Brenner film "The King and I," or the more recent "Anna and the King" have ever been legally exhibited there. Yukol had made several well-respected "art" films. He was attending a family function when the Queen of Thailand asked him why he couldn't make a good film about Thai history. Taking this as a royal command, he spent three years researching and writing this story about a famous past queen. Evidently, going from directing small, intimate, modern films to a full-blown historical epic with thousands of extras, cannon, and elephants was quite a transition. However, the result is lovely.The story commences as Suriyothai, a young princess, is betrothed to Prince Thienraja, who is virtuous but rather dull. She prefers her childhood friend, Lord Srithep, but agrees to "sacrifice" her own desires for the good of the Kingdom, which is the first of a series of difficult decisions she is called upon to make. We see Thailand as a country with a beautiful and sophisticated culture, every bit the equal of the Japan of the era, but under stress from rebellious provinces and foreign invaders. A series of royal deaths from disease, disaster, and assassination brings about a dynastic struggle in which Suriyothai organizes a rebellion against a usurper that brings her husband to the throne. (As King Mahachakrepat--the way in which people take new names as they gain rank can be confusing.) She then has to don armor and mount an elephant to aid her husband in defending the country from the Burmese invaders seeking to exploit the general disorder.The film was cut from a four-hour Thai original to 185 minutes for Western release, and is consequently somewhat choppy, but still easy to follow if you are attentive. I was fascinated by this bit of history in a region of the world where I had known nothing. English subtitles were easy to follow, because, unlike some French or Japanese films, we've seen lately, it takes longer to say the same things in Thai than English, so the titles stay on the screen long enough to follow. Cinematography and settings were beautiful, and gave opportunity for some unique battle scenes, including one between river galleys, and the climactic fight which involves jousting from elephant back.I've seen criticisms from other viewers that essentially echoed critiques of films like "Gods and Generals,"--that it lacked plot. Get with it people--history doesn't need a plot, history IS the plot.

heihachii I guess they gave it a shot. It's kinda like how Shiri was one of the first Korean movies to hit outside of Korea... but in comparison w/ films outside of the country it was JUNK. That would probably be the case w/ this film. I'm sure it was huge in Thailand, but in the States... "better luck tomorrow"... hahaha.. get it? hahaha... okay.. that's enough of that... The costumes and culture was probably the only thing going for the film. I don't know if everyone was a bad actor if if that's just the way the speak. Suriyothai was not developed enough or wasn't significant enough to be titled that way. It was like a huge history lesson in a sense. Poor editing, poor battle scenes, poor acting. I would usually give this film a 4 but I'm giving it 1 to balance out the other poor reviews.