Watch River Queen For Free
River Queen
An intimate story set during the 1860s in which a young Irish woman Sarah and her family find themselves on both sides of the turbulent wars between British and Maori during the British colonization of New Zealand.
Release : | 2005 |
Rating : | 5.9 |
Studio : | New Zealand Film Commission, Australian Film Commission, Capitol Films, |
Crew : | Art Direction, Production Design, |
Cast : | Samantha Morton Kiefer Sutherland Cliff Curtis Stephen Rea Temuera Morrison |
Genre : | Adventure War |
Watch Trailer
Cast List
Related Movies
Reviews
Very very predictable, including the post credit scene !!!
Good concept, poorly executed.
Watching it is like watching the spectacle of a class clown at their best: you laugh at their jokes, instigate their defiance, and "ooooh" when they get in trouble.
The movie really just wants to entertain people.
A good example of reversed, politically correct racism where white men are presented as senseless brutes who're only there to be massacred and their aboriginal adversaries as noble heroes, superior both in their appearance and abilities. Apart from making the story overally dull, this also prevents the neutral viewer to identify himself with one or the other side - it's just too simplifying. The repetitive score is incredibly annoying (as is the voice-over), the characters lack any depth and the viewer is soon lost between questions like "who is this character" and "what the hell is that supposed to mean". Photography is wonderful, though, and on the whole there's a lot of atmosphere to it but nice shots of misty landscapes alone don't save this movie. The DVD box uses Kiefer Sutherland as an eye-catcher. In fact, his character could have been played by anyone else because it's basically just an empty shell (like most non-Maori characters), and disappears anyway around halfway the film. But if you are eager to see Jack Bauer in a kilt, that's your kind of movie...
I was really looking forward to this movie but sadly it didn't live up to expectation.A good movie has the audience identifying/empathising/sympathising with the main actor. Unfortunately this was very hard to do with Samantha Morton.The storyline seemed very disjointed and didn't flow as it should/could have done.Keifer Sutherland appeared to be little more than window dressing and made me wonder why he agreed to play what appeared to be a bit part. Beautiful scenery and the acting of Tem Morrison and Cliff Curtis was about the only plus.Maybe by being a kiwi I set the bar higher for locally made films. Maybe the change of director/ supposedly hard to work with main actor has biased my opinion.Maybe I'm just trying to make excuses for a movie which could have been great.A lot of maybes which still does not explain why this movie just lacked anything special.It could have been great, it wasn't.
Peter Thompson, on this morning's Sunday show, gave River Queen a very favorable review; the review's timing was perfect because last evening Diane and I watched this new Kiwi film and drove home with mixed feelings about what we had just seen.Thompson's reviews are usually spot-on for us but in this instance we are still not sure. Yes, Vincent Ward's story was superb: huge amounts of recognizable human drama, multidimensional characters, a gigantic historical background and everything framed by New Zealand's natural beauty. Vincent's direction accentuated each of these elements; he made great use of the land's physical beauty as well as the beauty and uniqueness of the individual Maori people. This last comment will take on meaning with the watching of the film because certain Maori characteristics play a huge visual as well as plot role in the film-perhaps unexpectedly for some viewers more than others. Alun Bollinger's cinematography beautifully captures Ward's shot selection; it is impossible to leave the theater and not have been captivated by the physical beauty of the New Zealand landscape.I think the question must be asked: If I thought the film was so good, why did I only give it a rating of eight? The answer goes to the heart of why Diane and I were both uncomfortable with this superficially great film and that lies in the script, the third leg of Vincent's stool. We both thought the script was overly choppy; there were too many small pieces of story stitched together. I thought the film was too jumpy and that resulted in my concentration moving too quickly from one scene to another. I suppose that is just a matter of cinematic taste particular to one person and should not be used to paint an entire film.River Queen is definitely worth seeing. The subject matter alone is worth the effort, with excellent acting by all concerned and magnificent scenery beautifully captured in thee film. The film must indeed be judged highly.
For weeks I had been looking forward to seeing this movie only to find myself hugely disappointed after wards. In my opinion, the only good thing 'River Queen' had going for it was the amazing scenery used as backgrounds. The story line was all over the place, Samantha's character Sarah was very difficult to understand and what on earth were all the many close ups of her face for? It brought absolutely nothing to the story-if there was one at all!A better actor for the part of Boy could also have been selected, to me it sounded like he read his lines straight of the script while shooting his scenes.Overall, a real shame as it could have been such a good movie.