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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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."

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.

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.

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.

Warning Spoiler. . . I have to agree with you, it was almost there. This was such a bad movie, about such and interesting true story. It had such promise, but the acting was ridiculous at best. Some sets were beautiful and realistic. Others are something out of a theme park. I found myself laughing as I watched, what was suppose to be, serious scenes. I really wanted to like this movie, but I couldn't. The best part was the fight between friends that ended with the "King" dying. I liked the Queens' punishment. And, the final shot made a beautiful picture, though. There are so many better movies to watch. I don't recommend this.

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!

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

My DVD box calls her "Yossanadee Hassadeevicht," the movie credits bill her as "Yoe Yossawadee," and IMDb dubs her "Yoe Hassadeevichit," but by any name, a weed is a weed is a weed, so when Yoe's Queen Sudachan's head appears on a pike in the upper right corner of the final shot, viewers of THE KING MAKER will sigh that it's about time this dandelion was decapitated. This probably is one of the five most expensive Thai films ever; it's tragically comical that the producers did not spend the extra thousand to hire a professional loop group, opting to dub this sometimes visually stunning pix with pidgin English, instead. The only thing that could have made this effort more ludicrous would be to have Yoe waltzing with her hired ninja assassins to the strains of "I Could Have Danced All Night" from the far more accomplished THE KING AND I (which is also "based on a true story" from Siamese history).

A fabulous film. With everything you could want in a film. Huge battle scenes and lots of other action. Suspense, and a romantic love story.

Kind of like an old swashbuckler film. Totally entertaining from start to finish.

The editing was fast and you are never bored for a second. The story is like a classic story of trouble in the Royal Household. The actors are beautiful and the sets magnificent. The costumes are spectacular and the stunt work is imaginative. The special effects are amazing too.

Gary Stretch is really impressive as an actor and gorgeous to look at. He looks like a sure bet for Super Stardom.

John Rhys-Davies is wonderful as he usually is. He is one of the great actors of our time.

And Cindy Burbridge, Ex Miss Thailand is excellent and perfect for the leading lady, even doing an English accent with remarkable success.

I found out that the film has won numerous awards, and i can see why.

All in all this is an amazing Independent film. See it for sure.

I highly recommend it. And give it a TEN +!!!

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.