| Page 1 of 2: | [1] [2] |
| Index | 16 reviews in total |
13 out of 16 people found the following review useful:
terrible, 23 April 2007
![]()
Author:
dmuel from downtown, Michigan
This is a movie which attempts a retelling of Thai history, set in the ancient city of Ayutthaya. I decided to watch this film because I thought it was along the lines of many Thai films I've watched and enjoyed, one that has Thai actors speaking Thai and martial arts craziness. Well, it's none of that. This film is shot entirely in English, is chock full of Anglo actors, and has production values so terrible it is laughably bad....but not funny! Who can we blame for this rubbish? The acting, dialog, and most of the sets were quite bad. Some of the fight scenes looked like they were choreographed by the local high school drama club. The special effects were also mostly bad, but a few were just cheap animation patched onto the screen that provided an especially cheesy effect. It has one large, epic-style outdoor battle scene, where a few thousand extras get to run across a field in costume, but when we see the two armies collide in combat--HA! What a joke! The film does feature a couple of beauties. What a pity they didn't show a little more skin. At least that would have been something for the guys to appreciate. Don't bother.
13 out of 18 people found the following review useful:
A wasted 2 hours better off watching paint dry, 2 July 2007
![]()
Author:
nodakmotel from United States
Evidently when you offer a actor enough money they will do anything. I am not sure how much John Rys-Daves got, but most of the money he made should go to his fans as an apology for even being associated with such a ROTTEN movie. The special effects were worse then effects from the 1950's B movies and the acting of the rest of the cast was even worse. As to how bad the acting was a child gave the second best performance in my opinion. The English was terribly accented and I think no one could really even speak English they just memorized how the words should sound instead of memorizing the script and trying to make their character both "life-like" and real.
11 out of 15 people found the following review useful:
Even the Best of Intentions..., 7 April 2007
![]()
Author:
gradyharp from United States
THE KING MAKER will doubtless be a success in Thailand where the
similar (but superior) 'The Legend of Suriyothai' set box office
records. The film directed by Lek Kitaparaporn after a screenplay by
Sean Casey based on historical fact in 1547 Siam has some amazingly
beautiful visual elements but is disarmed by one of the corniest,
pedestrian scripts and story development on film.
The event the picture relates is the arrival of the Portuguese soldier
of fortune Fernando de Gamma (Gary Stretch) whose vengeance for this
father's murderer drives him to shipwrecked, captured and thrown into
slavery and put on the bloc in Ayutthaya in the kingdom of Siam where
he is purchased by the beautiful Maria (Cindy Burbridge) with the
consent of her father Phillipe (John Rhys-Davies), a man with a name
and a past that are revealed as the story progresses. There is a plot
to overthrown the King and Fernando and his new Siamese sidekick Tong
(Dom Hetrakul), after some gratuitous CGI enhanced choreographed
martial arts silliness, are first rewarded by the King to become his
bodyguards, only to be imprisoned together once Queen Sudachan (Yoe
Hassadeevichit) reveals her plot to kill the king and son to allow her
lover Lord Chakkraphat (Oliver Pupart) to take over the rule of Siam.
Yet of course Fernando and Tong escape and are condemned to fight each
other to save the lives of their families (Tong's wife and children and
Fernando's now firm love affair with Maria) with the expected
consequences.
The acting (with the exception of John Rhys-Davies) is so weak that the
film occasionally seems as though it were meant to be camp. The
predominantly Thai cast struggle with the poorly written dialog, making
us wish they had used their native Thai with subtitles. The musical
score by Ian Livingstone sounds as though exhumed form old TV soap
operas. But if it is visual splendor you're after there is plenty of
that and that alone makes the movie worth watching. It is a film that
has obvious high financial backing for all the special effects and
masses of cast and sets and shows its good intentions. It is just the
basics that are missing. Grady Harp
5 out of 6 people found the following review useful:
An Interest movie, 1 May 2007
![]()
Author:
Robin Cook from USA
*** This review may contain spoilers ***
This movie seemed to have it all going for it with good camera, sound,
film, sets, music, costumes ... but drum-roll, Gary Stretch spoke! I
don't know if it was his poor acting or simply a bad script, but would
say it was both. Considering the casting of him in this role, I found
it difficult to root for him even to the very end. I wished he'd have
died in battle or one of the sword/knife scuffles.
Then, the tinder for the plot to kill the king was because the king
didn't have dinner and sex with his Queen? Pretty lame. And to go to
the extreme to kill her own son? And to then push up her lover as
succeeding King? I see a thread or two here and there of historical
bytes, but the manner in which this was all presented was farcical.
I don't recognize Gary Stretch from anything else, but he was dreadful.
I read another user's comments about audio being dubbed, but don't
think his was dubbed ... after all, he speaks English, right? It really
was awful. The lines were read right off the coroner's table ...
flat-line. It could be he just doesn't have the voice to carry tone
fluctuations.
Aside from this, I did watch it to the end, so the movie had at least
an "interest." It could have been more if the script/lines and casting
had been given more work. The scenery and filming crew along with very
good quality film is what really made this movie above all else. The
cast and story were all secondary. I give the film crew a 10.
6 out of 8 people found the following review useful:
Possibly a "How Not to Act" training film, 15 May 2007
![]()
Author:
espinosaj from United States
*** This review may contain spoilers ***
This was the worst acted movie I've ever seen in my life. No, really.
I'm not kidding. All the "based on a true story/historical references"
aside, there's no excuse for such bad acting. It's a shame, because, as
others have posted, the sets & costumes were great.
The sound track was typical "asian-style" music, although I couldn't
figure out where the "modern" love song came in when Fernando was lying
in his bed thinking of Maria. I don't know who wrote & sang that
beautiful song, but it was as if suddenly Norah Jones was transported
to the 1500s.
The Hershey syrup blood in Phycho was more realistic than the ketchup
spurted during the Kwik-n-EZ battle scenes.
But the acting. Oh, so painfully sad. Lines delivered like a bad junior
high play. If Gary Stretch had donned a potato costume for the County
4H Fair he may have been more believable. Towards the end he sounded
more like a Little Italy street thug. At times I half expected him to
yell out "Adrian!" or even "You wanna piece of me?!".
Favourite line: When the queen says to her lover (after barfing on the
floor) "I'm going to have a baby." He responds "A child?" I expected
her to retort "No, jackass, a chair leg! Duh."
6 out of 8 people found the following review useful:
Could have been a Fantastic Movie BUT, 21 October 2006
![]()
Author:
usenet69 from South Africa
*** This review may contain spoilers ***
If there is one thing I cannot fathom, it is how people (the makers of
the movie), can spend so much money on what is fantastic great scenes
with hundreds of extras, use such beautiful sets (and they were
fantastic all the way throug) and then make a movie that has NO
character development.
I suppose the storyline had to follow the actual history and I do not
know how accurate that is but lets say it was accurate.
The Priest sounded like a queen (gay queen) and the talk he gave
Fernando just before the great battle sounded more like a lovers chat
than a priest and a hero.
As for the battle's. They were OK but for those who did not first read
up on the history of the King of Siam, the battle just burst into the
front of the movie with one funny little guy asking everyone to help
and fight.
The bottom line - THE MOVIE HAD NO COHESIAN. It was a lot of small
pieces patched together with no pre-planning of any kind.
What a pity. The sets, costumes, extras and even the special effects
were so great but the movie sucked.
Lastly. If I was the movie producer and I had gone to such trouble to
create all the sets, get a very good sound track etc, I would have at
least made the move double the length and taken the time to make a TRUE
epic with proper development.
3 out of 3 people found the following review useful:
Seriously awful acting, 26 May 2008
![]()
Author:
james chandler from Thailand
Unfortunately, this has been showing on Star Movies here in Thailand
for the last week or so. It's complete rubbish acting. As another
member said, this movie is a good example of 'how not to act.' I
haven't seen a movie so poorly acted in a long time. The actors (can
you call them 'actors'?) are completely flat and deliver their lines
with the passion of a dead dog. I would say that in order to truly
understand how bad the acting is, you would have to see the movie...
but that would be akin to torture.
I cringe as the leading lady delivers her lines, and the rest of the
cast with their accents (fake or contrived) is equally heinous. Another
actress with the fake British accent was pretty, yes, but good lord was
her accent terrible. Mix that with her (lack of) acting and you have a
disaster. She should just have said nothing and I could have accepted
her as the pretty girl. Oh my, we just got to the scene where the
leading lady's lover says "Really me?" after a forced crying scene from
her. Laughable. No, really, I just laughed out loud.
The sets and the art directors offer some saving grace to the film.
Some of the sets are colorful and some of the scenes are rather nice
(minus the actors).
The old magic potion lady? What?! Another member mentioned the 'modern'
love song that was in the movie. Totally inappropriate for a period
piece set some 500 years ago.
I understand the movie was considered 'Big Budget' in Thailand at the
time of it's production. I would be seriously upset if I were the
producer of this movie. Just goes to show that money does not
necessarily make a good (or even mediocre) film.
I would give the King Maker a 1 out of 10, but the costumes and sets
make save the film from such a rating. 2 out of 10.
6 out of 9 people found the following review useful:
You can call it 'almost'..., 17 June 2007
![]()
Author:
daeris from Warsaw, Poland
This is just a bad movie. With what seemed to be quite a nice budget it had potential to be much better. It almost were. With the heroine beautiful almost like Salma Hayek, hero fighting almost like Jackie Chan, battles and duels almost like in Crouching Tiger..., music almost like in, say, Conan... etc. Almost. But in the end it's just dull and it is hard to find anything interesting in it. Maybe apart of John Rhys-Davies flying in duel like those warriors in Hero or before-mentioned Crouching Tiger... I am really ashamed of poor old John. He is after all quite a good actor and deserves much better. So as you - so if you still have a chance just watch something else.
2 out of 2 people found the following review useful:
Great art direction and costume design, poor execution and acting, 7 May 2008
![]()
Author:
unapalomablanca from Philippines
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.
4 out of 6 people found the following review useful:
What a waste of everyone's time!, 26 October 2008
![]()
Author:
brentkincaid from United States
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 credential
Do 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.
| Page 1 of 2: | [1] [2] |
| Plot summary | Ratings | Awards |
| External reviews | Parents Guide | Plot keywords |
| Main details | Your user reviews | Your vote history |