Back during the late Seventies, I read a book by Henry Kyemba titled "State of Blood: The Inside Story of Idi Amin", and recall a situation involving the Ugandan dictator having numerous members of his opposition summarily thrown into a crocodile infested river as a way of dealing with them. So I was waiting for confirmation of that while watching this picture and the subject finally came up when the diplomatic aide Stone (Simon McBurney) mentioned it to Dr. Garrigan (Kames McAvoy). What was interesting was when I went to Wikipedia to look up the book title, there was a picture of Henry Kyemba looking remarkably similar to the actor who portrayed Jonah Wasswa, Amin's Minister of Health. It turns out that Kyemba WAS Amin's Minister of Health for a short time until he fled Uganda and it's tyrannical rule!So with that extraordinary coincidence, one has to wonder why the film makers resorted to creating a fictional character in the person of Nicholas Garrigan to tell the story of Idi Amin. Amin's real life story would have made for a much more compelling picture to my mind, and would not have needed the first half of this movie to paint a disarmingly charming aspect of the ruthless dictator. Beyond that, even the most feeble attempt to portray Garrigan in a romantic entanglement with one of Amin's wives borders on the ridiculous, so why even go there? So as far as fictional stories go, and forgetting about historical accuracy, this was a fairly decent thriller with Forest Whitaker in a significantly cast against type role considering some of his other projects in which he portrays more reserved characters. He makes the transition from faux charm to maniacal craziness work rather effectively, with a unique power of persuasion to keep Garrigan in line each time the doctor expressed doubts about his role at Amin's side as personal physician.Having read a number of other reviews about the film, and seeing how it wasn't mentioned by anyone else, I'd like to comment on Gillian Anderson's role in the early going as the wife of another medical doctor stationed in Uganda. Her appearance actually stunned me somewhat, in as much as she looked a lot better (that is to say, a lot more attractive) than in any 'X-Files' episode I'd ever seen her in. Just goes to show what was possible after ditching Fox Mulder.

After having watched this extraordinary film, I realized that Forest Whitaker's captivating performance as Ugandan dictator Idi Amin, was one of the finest on-screen performances I have seen. Whitaker's work ethic in this film speaks for itself as he clearly did an intensive study of Idi Amin's Ugandan accent, his personal mannerisms, and of Ugandan culture and history in general. Whitaker's on-screen chemistry with James McAvoy's character, Nicholas Garrigan, Amin's personal physician, was extraordinarily mutually complimentary.Gillian Anderson's performance as Sarah Merrit, the wife of an English doctor, and an early love interest of Nicholas Garrigan was also commendable, and added an aspect of intrigue and beauty in the film.

It's 1970. Nicholas Garrigan (James McAvoy) is a recent University of Edinburgh medical graduate who hates his dull prospects at home. He picks Uganda at random and dives in with both feet. He joins a clinic run by Dr. David Merrit (Adam Kotz) and his wife Sarah (Gillian Anderson). The country comes out of chaos under Idi Amin (Forest Whitaker). Nicholas is taken to treat Idi Amin after a minor car crash. Idi Amin loves Scotland and takes a liking to him.I don't like Nicholas as a character. He rubs me the wrong way for some reason. He is arrogantly clueless which is the purview of the young. Other than that, this is a fine film. The performance from Forest Whitaker is especially excellent. He plays both the lovely charmer and the violent brute.

Idi Amin was an interesting, even intriguing, real-life character, but whether this movie portrays him well, I don't know.But the focus was too much on a fictional character, a weak and uninteresting character, the, as I said, fictional Dr. Nicholas Garrigan.Garrigan actually distracted and detracted from the story, which involved world-shaking upheaval in Uganda, revolution and murder and cross-border turmoil.Sorry, but even the portrayal was uninteresting. I could see nothing attractive about the actor or the character.What really damaged the movie, though, was the wobbly camera work. "Law and Order" on TV might be the source of so much hand-held motion picture photography, but it became a cliché there and also there distracted from the story.In "Last King," the camera often simply lost the subject, as if the camera operator fell asleep, or his fingers got slippery from sweat.The director and camera operator really should be ashamed.And I guess I disliked the movie more because of the ugliness of the subject and the way it was presented. And I had been wanting for years to watch it. What a disappointment.