This is a very appealing film for dreamy people easily stirred by beautifully exotic costumes, some compellingly exotic actresses and a few scenes of relentless brutality. The story is complex (and at times downright bewildering) but fascinating, taking place in many places and involving many characters. We get a heavy dose of intrigue, assassination plots, adultery, regicide and betrayal spanning a dozen or so years in the heart of medieval siam (now thailand). By virtue of just that, the movie is worthwhile. But the sometimes dreary, monotone delivery of lines makes the film feel like it was dragging. Though I don't understand a word of thai, the dialogue seemed annoyingly but frequently devoid of sentiment. With sizable patience and curiosity though, this movie can be a rewarding experience.
Add a Review
-
fred_astaire30 August 2003
-
awiseman-13 March 2006I had heard a lot about this movie and I rented the Coppola version. While the costumes and sets were impressive, and the battle scenes were alright, in general I didn't like it. The acting seemed really wooden (I realize they're royalty, but it still seemed forced), the dialogue was cheesy. The emotions seemed to come out of nowhere - all of a sudden, people were in love, or angry, or what have you. It seemed like they were trying to tell us this was an amazing story, rather than making us feel that it was. And frankly, I didn't think it was that impressive - the ending seemed kind of pointless and forced to me, even though it's a true story.
-
Here is an awesome big budget period war movie from Thailand with exotic locations, exquisite costume, and exciting visuals--all this is great of course, but it can't hide the lack of focus in this movie. Every few minutes, there comes a "break" in the plot, where the pictures fades and a new section is shown. There are too many of these breaks, which do not have even transitions. Looking further at the plot, we can see that Suriyothai is absent from most of the movie, so the beginning narrative remark that "this is the story about the woman that sacrificed for her country" does not hold. Instead, this is about the transfer of power from people to people during the few decades of Suriyothai's life. We could even take Suriyothai OUT OF THE STORY entirely and it would not change much of its purpose.
Overall, Suriyothai is no extraordinary film. It has a great budget, which makes it look lovely to the eye, but it lacks a heart.
I did see the cut version [142 min], which I consider a misfortune on any occasion. -
ggrihn14 August 2003This 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. -
pitimpinai23 November 2007I can understand why this film received rave reviews in Thailand and among the Thais in the US. The sets, the costumes, the battle scenes are exquisite. There are many scenes that show activity of daily living in Thailand in the olden days. Many of those are quite rare these days. It's very good from a historical and cultural point of view. It's the best efforts in Thai cinematography I've seen thus far and much better than a lot of junk that comes out of Hollywood.
However, as an entertainment, it's quite lacking. I agree with some comments here that the acting is wooden and the story line disjointed. I do think it will do very well on the History Channel, or as a television series. In time, I hope acting, story lines, and editing in Thai movies will improve and deserve a second look. -
UberNoodle11 November 2005Suriyothai is a stunning film: Spanning 2 DVDs, and full of political intrigue, history, and glorious battle scenes. There are so many main characters, and all of them command a huge amount of weight, and against movie tradition, there isn't really even a traditional Hero character, even Suriyothai herself playing minor roles in much of the drama.
Some have criticized the actress's acting as stiff and wooden, but I thought that Suriyothai was poker-faced intentionally, because she is a Queen after all. Most period pieces from any country have characters like this. I think you have look past her obvious cues and look for the more subtle ones, in order to appreciate her character: passionate about her country and her people, and devoted to her role.
In fact there are many cards that other productions would have played, that this film doesn't, and much to its credit it stays away from many of the obvious manipulative narratives that are the mainstays for this genre of film, especially in the west. The film has a historical and legendary basis, and I am unsure exactly how closely it stays to that, but I found the film had the great level of depth and realism that only the best historical films attain.
Watching hundreds of extras, alongside elephants, charge into battle, clashing swords and dodging cannon fire, is exhilarating. It's hard to see which army has the upper-hand until the final moments. There appears to have been a conscious decision to not fall for the trappings of making each battle into "hero's battle", so the action often stays away from focusing on main characters, and chooses to present to the viewer the sheer chaos of war.
Oh, and it needs to be said: The elephants are awesome.
If you are interested in this film, get at least the the 3 hour long version, as it is the closest to the way the film was intended (reportedly it was originally going to be a mini-series). While this longer edit of the film has a lot more political intrigue and dialogue, it that brings with it much more depth to the characters and situations. If you are not part of the "Attention Deficit Generation" bred by Hollow-wood, you can't go wrong with this REAL version.
I can see why this film was edited down for the USA release. It is very long, and there is a lot of references and content that is probably assumed knowledge for most Thai people. However, while I can see the logic in removing parts of a film because of cultural barriers, isn't one of the reasons for watching foreign film, to find out more about other cultures? Granted, there is much that went over my head while watching this film, but I have to say that I didn't mind, and now I will find out more if I can about Thailand and its history: The Internet is a wonderful invention.
Francis Ford Coppolla has some serious balls to have resold this film BACK to Thailand after he deleted most of it. I doubt he would take a film by Ridley Scott, and slice it to pieces. Faced with that particular situation, I am sure he would be all about "preserving the vision of the artists". It seems to be to be just another example of Hollow-wood being unwilling to let Asian Film compete on its own merits in America, and at least an ingrained xenophobia.
Suriyothai is an amazing film. It is an epic that I have not seen bested by any other, and maybe even the mythical long edit of Tsui Hark's Seven Swords would have an near-impossible mission to dethrone it. The sheer size and quality of this production, together with the unique chance that it gives to see Thai history represented so gloriously and elegantly, are reasons enough to hunt down the Thai DVD. -
JohnSeal19 June 2004This review is based on the American cut of Suriyothai, apparently supervised by Frank Ford Coppola. Without benefit of a viewing of the original version, it's hard to pass judgement, but in my opinion, Coppola has done the film no favours. Additionally, the pan and scan print currently airing on cable looks seriously compromised. Western audiences will be lost by the array of characters and the film's episodic nature makes it very hard to appreciate or understand their motivations. Suriyothai also suffers from overactive cinematography, with endless tracking shots, annoying use of slow-mo, and an over reliance on slow zooms. Richard Harvey's soundtrack is paint by numbers stuff, though the contemporary pop song over the end credits is rather nice. All in all, I can't recommend this film, though the original version is undoubtedly superior.
-
artzau7 May 2004This film should be seen, evaluated and considered in its own merit. I find some of the racist comments in this section very detracting and unnecessary. Most of the people who have slammed this epic have demonstrated little or no sensitivity to the depiction of another cultural setting. The film is historical in that it is based on recorded events; the film is traditional in that it is a story known to most of the Thai people. That it does not rise to level of X Men, Kill Bill or the Matrix slamming, moaning and groaning is certainly to its merit. For those weaned on Hollywood, it will seem too long, to drug out and too "expressionless," "Southeast Asians hacking each other up," "boring..." Ugh.
When will some of the viewers take the time to consider that not every one of us love exploding cars, graphic shoot'em ups and mindless dialogue. Just consider the film for what it is: an artistic view of an epic from Thai history...and thank God, it ain't Hollywood. -
happyturtlegifts24 October 2002Many folks have already mentioned the great costumes atmosphere and fight scenes. Let me be honest here, I'm Thai, I know Thai history,I've seen this movie twice and watched talk shows feature the making of the movie as well as a lengthy interview with the director and read all the newspaper articles I could get my hands on and I have to say...this movie was overall a -BAD- effort in every category except costuming.
Most of the money was spent on the fight scenes and things such as feeding the elephants...the story was based on the diary of a Portuguese mercenary because frankly Suriyothai had a very *small* role in Thai history. So everyone must admit that most of the movie was based on the imagination of the director. In fact one Thai historian's comments about the lack of significance of Suriyothai was part of a news clip on TV in Thailand. There are several other heroines in Thai history which truly deserve an epic movie of this scale but for certain political reasons Suriyothai (sometimes given 1 or 2 lines in the history books because of her sacrifice for her husband) was chosen. So I am a bit confused why Suriyothai's life was chosen to be the centerpoint of this period of history.
The lead actress, who had no acting experience (and it shows) contributed to the downfall of the movie. It seems the director tried to balance the lead's incompetence with other more dramatic characters: a vengeful courteson, valiant generals, and amazon bodyguards (all of which sacrificed screen time for scattered battles). Numerous well known actors and actresses contributed to the movie in 5 to 10 minute increments and it is easy to forget their characters' importance. In fact I didn't care when Suriyothai died...and I didn't care about the beautiful sets or fight scenes because the story evaporated after the first half and hour...I was bored and worst a group of Thai youths I was with the second time I saw the film started snoring---many of you will too. Unfortunatly, Suriyothai may prove to be an embarrassment to Thai films and even shut the door of opportunity to superior period films such as Mae Naak and Satang and modern flicks such as Bangkok Dangerous.
Its a shame that Mom Yukol did not study Chen Kaige's materpiece the EMPEROR AND THE ASSASIN a smart epic with clever plots,which moved fast and moved the hearts of viewers. Thailand must wait for another film (think small budget good story and acting) to represent her internationally. -
ProfessorFate6 December 2003I was pleasantly suprised by this film. It's a compelling tale of a nation's painful evolution, a unique mixture of murder, ambition, betrayal, duty and national pride. It has flaws - clumsy action scenes, wooden acting, confusing plot - but overall the heart and emotion of the film won me over, that and the fact that I have a soft spot for anything Thai. It's basically a Thai version of Joan of Arc, mixed with lethal doses of political scheming and battlefield mayhem. The title character is a princess who gives up the man she loves and agrees to marry into a more politically advantageous situation for her family. Suriyothai is loyal, self-less heroine who's smart enough to give her husband shrewd advise on how to improve his political standing and survive during the volatile times (mid 1500's). We watch as one King suffers a gruesome death to small pox, leaving an infant on his throne who is quickly overthrown by an ambitious prince. The new King loses his wife during childbirth, then takes another woman as his consort. It's this second wife who sets into motion the main drama of the film as she plots to kill her husband and disrupt the royal succession. All the while Thailand is fighting off rebellious provinces and staving off their aggressive neighbor, the King of Burma. The resulting parade of beheadings, poisonings, sneak-attacks and political backstabbing would put Italy's Borgias to shame. The finale features a battle against overwhelming odds with heroic sacrifices that help explain the reverence Thai people have toward their monarchy. If you can handle subtitles and love historical drama (and battles featuring elephants), then "The Legend of Suriyothai" is for you.
-
lp15963574 April 2002It is true that the movie is long. But it has to be long or else the audience will not understand nothing. Further more the tone, style and the speed of the speech is believe to be talk by Thai people of the old days according to the historical evidences.Thailand's history (and every nations) is complex and consist of many matters.
Interesting is that the story is 90 percent real,the costume, the implied cultural and social believe are hundred percent real comparing to Anna and The King. The fact is that it made and cast by the Thai production team.
And I do not think that "Jan Dara" the other Thai film will be better. It focus on a different aspect.
If some one wants to know Thailand in terms of history, costume, culture and believe, this film is good value for money. Do not expect to wash only the film that last only an hour.
This is the Fact. -
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.
-
jaichind23 April 2009Visual was very good but the history is incorrect.
1) After King Rama Tibodi II dies in 1529, King Boromaraja IV takes over. King Boromaraja IV is King Rama Tibodi II's son not his brother as claimed by the movie.
2) After King Boromaraja IV's death in 1533 Prince Ratsadatiratkumar takes over but is overthrown by Prince Prajai. Prince Prajai is the brother of King Boromaraja IV and not his nephew as claimed by film.
3) In 1548, King Kaeofa, son of dowager queen Tao Sri Sudachan, tries to do away with her lover and in turn is killed. He was 13 at the time. Film shows him as much younger then that. After Kaeofa is killed, his brother Prince Srisin is placed on the throne (not shown in film) and then is overthrown by Tao Sri Sudachan and her lover Khun Waraniongsu who makes himself King.
4) Khun Pirentoratep does then kill and overthrow Khun Waraniongsu in 1548 and places Prince Tienraja as King as shown in film. Khun Pirentoratep is shown as a good person in the film. What the film does not show is that 1568 Khun Pirentoratep would betray the King and join forces with Burma to destroy Ayutthaya. He then makes himself a puppet King with Burma as his overlord. To be fair his son, who later became king as Somdet Phra Sanpet II, did become one of Siam's most revered monarchs as he liberated Siam from Burmese tributary.
One funny thing in the movie is that when Khun Waraniongsu was killed, Suriyothai made sure that Prince Srisin was not killed. She was warned that he will be a threat. He was, in 1561 he led a failed rebellion.
I just cannot stand incorrect history. -
risen_feenix8 July 2003When the movie finished, everybody cheered and left the theatre with great haste, laughing as they did. The film's ending was somber, not the kind that you cheer or laugh for, but the entire audience cheered because this rambling wreck was finished, and laughed at how ridiculous the last 2 1/2 hours of their lives were spent. I love indie and foreign film, but this was just terrible.
Expressionless acting, writing so dry it must have been pulled straight from a doctoral thesis on the subject, and a story that goes all sorts of different directions, but accomplishes nothing. Too many principal characters, some of whom (like the title character) disappear for an hour, other seemingly important characters suddenly are dropped from the plot for no reason, never to be seen or heard from again. Needlessly violent.
Positives: The cinematography was rather nice, though. Beautiful pictures of beautiful scenes. That's it though.
Don't bother. If you watch in the theatre, you'll be tempted to leave about 45 minutes into it. If you rent it, you'll stop the DVD long before you get to the finish. The ending battle scenes aren't worth the wait. I couldn't tell who was on who's side for any of them, so it was just a bunch of naked Southeast Asians hacking away at each other. -
Bobs-927 December 2003I watched the shortened Coppola cut of this film on DVD, and on the whole found it to be a cracking good story that kept me engaged, and I particularly enjoyed the high production values, the exotic costumes, sets and props, and the beautiful cinematography. The elements of nations at war, political power struggles, palace intrigues, and murderous treachery in the royal family of Thailand seemed to me very reminiscent of "I Claudius," a great favorite of mine, and I found some of the comments below referring to the film as having no plot totally inexplicable. I tended to wonder whether the deadpan acting style frequently commented-on here might be a cultural artifact, as modes of expression can vary to some extent in different countries, but judging from the remarks of some Thai commentators this wouldn't seem to be the case. The bottom line for me, though, was that I thoroughly enjoyed all two and a half hours of this film.
I do take issue with some commentators who declare without hesitation that a particular film is a complete waste of time, that you should "save your time," or "save your money," etc., and not even consider seeing it. Why on earth would these people presume to urge me (or anybody else) to reject this film sight unseen? One thing I've learned in the course of seeing hundreds of films is the absolute folly of trying to predict who will like which film. Those I've recommended to friends more often than not lay an egg with them, while they rhapsodize over stuff I couldn't care less about. I'm always interested to hear a variety of opinions on films, which is why I love the IMDb, but an opinion loses much of its credence for me when the commentator comes off as an opinionated blowhard.
Anyway, for what my own opinion is worth, I see "The Legend of Suriyothai" as a damn good story, told effectively with exotic and stunningly beautiful visual elements. I don't in the least regret spending a few dollars and two and a half hours experiencing it. -
davejnash6 September 2001I watched this film in Thailand, without any subtitles. And despite the fact that I cannot speak Thai, I managed to completely understand the film, and I thoroughly enjoyed the whole thing. I urge anyone who gets a chance to see this film, you will not regret it. And if anyone knows when and where I can get a copy of this film on DVD with subtitles, please let me know.
-
eye_of_the_pyramid18 November 2002Though met with rave reviews by fellow Thais, I still think of Suriyothai as a piece of horrible, drawn-out filmmaking. The entertainment value is right down at Absolute Zero, with the flick trying to cover 50 or 70 years of events in 3 hours. The story progresses at a relentless pace, never pausing to let viewers have a better look at certain aspects of the story or a character. Even worse, few characters get more than 30 minutes of screen time - rendering most of them underdeveloped. Characters also pop in and out of the story without making any impression at all.
Even though the production value is sky-high and the battle sequences excellent, nothing could save Suriyothai from becoming a drawn-out epic wannabe. Suriyothai is a 3-hour-long session of boredom. See it if you want to see the magnificent set and costumes, ignore it if you wish for some entertainment.
Rating: 1/10 -
nerowolfgal2 July 2006I 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!" -
Karellen23 August 2001I will add that given that the original cut of the film is quite long, (8 hours) that in the hands of a skilled editor "Suriyothai" could be reconstructed into a decent film. After all, the costumes and sets are quite nice, and the acting is strong in spite of the awful dialogue (based on the subtitles, maybe it's better in Thai).
However, in its current cut "Suriyothai" is only an average film, and at three hours hardly worth it unless you're interested in the "historical" angle--specifically in seeing the high disagreement between the director's vision and that of actual, credible historians, who mostly agree that Suriyothai's famous achievements are myth without evidence.
Many have hailed "Suriyothai" as the coming of age of the Thai film industry. Perhaps it is, but that's a qualified compliment. Mostly it seems that Thai film has now learned how to stage massive epics endorsing dubious history, spend lots of money on crowd shots and CGI, hype a movie based on its size and not its merit, and substitute grandeur and bluster for good writing, deep characters, and originality. In other words, to emulate the less admirable aspects of Hollywood. Is this really good?
I can only hope that the real legacy of "Suriyothai" will be an overall increase of funding of all Thai film, an increase in interest among young Thai auteurs in making better movies, and an increased interest in academic examination of Thai history, which suffers from a lack of good primary written sources. (No one in 16th century Thailand apparently wrote anything down except the Burmese and the Portugese).
Meanwhile, I understand the Thais pride in "Suriyothai" but still can't condone a myopic view of its artistic merits. Art is about truth. Pride and patriotism are as much the enemies of art as profit. "Suriyothai" is not nearly as good as many smaller Thai films which have preceded it. -
The people on this site that complained about this movie being boring, must have seen an entirely different movie, on the contrary, I found it to be an exciting, action packed and culturally enlightening film. It isnt perfect, but It is defintely worth the time and money I spent on the VCD. To the uninformed I saw the original Thai cut of this film esp. when I heard that Francis Ford Coppola was going to release a shorter version of it, because he in all his benevolent wisdom knows better than the director how the picture needed to be edited. Mr Coppola all I want to ask is how come you didnt get rights to release all five hours of footage that was shot, instead of taking out scenes and replacing it with others? Somebody in Thailand should take 40 minutes out of Apocalypse Now and take out entire scenes and replace them with scenes from the additional 3 hours of footage that FFC shot for the movie.
All the critics of this movie, esp those who feel it was too long need to think and consider that maybe the reason why: it jumps around in the story, there seems to be little character development, and some of the dialogue seems choppy might be because it was orignally intended after theater release to be shown on Thai television as a 2 part miniseries. My personal opinion is I dont think the film was long enough and in spite of that and the other weak points I mentioned I seldom found it boring. Great care and detail obviously went into period costumes and sets and the scope of this film is tremendous, especially in the intricate battle scenes, which were on par with many of the Hollywood spectacles. I also found a rare peek into Thai culture extremely fasinating, since it so seldom that we get an accurate glimpse of Asian cultures aside from the Japanese and Chinese cultures, and even though those protrayals usually condescending and jingoistic. Many of the same people who complain about this movie had no problem going to see long movies like Dances with Wolves or Braveheart, which too were highly entertaing if historical inaccurate films. I found that even though the dialogue in the final scene was a bit hokey, that it still packed an emotional wallop even knowing the Queen Suriyothai is going to die, not a spoiler folks, because the film opens with her death, there is just something about the sacrifice of one's life for something greater than yourself which is very dramatic and inspiring.
The films major weakness is that even though the film is about her, it spends a lot of time on a lot of secondary characters most of which are fairly interesting, I wanted to see more of what made her tick. The whole thing works inspite of this weaknesses. If you like larger than life characters, well choreographed and bloody battle sequences, and some drama and intrigue then you will love this film. -
Ranb21 September 2001I saw this movie with my girlfriend while I was in Thailand. While it was very fast paced, it kept my attention the whole 3 hours. I do not speak Thai, so I had to rely on the subtitles. This may be why I thought some of the dialog and acting was a bit wooden. I was most impressed with the actors surrounding the title character. Suriyothai seemed one dimensional while the other characters, especially the evil consort were much more interesting. 8/10.
-
...I hope.
Actually, most of the elephant stunt shots were CGI-assisted.
With all the preceding hype (it's the biggest Thai movie ever), Thais may be a bit disappointed with its weak writing and poor editing. But then again the Suriyothai myth is dear to Thai hearts, and they may just love seeing it on screen.
For non-Thais, you're spared the hype/expectations/emotional attachment, which puts less pressure on the movie to impress--you can just kick back and get immersed into a decently entertaining period epic--but you're also less likely to care much about the characters, who are quite flat. Apparently the first cut was eight hours long and the theatrical release, at three hours, is a bit choppy. The subtitles (not the writing, I mean the actual subtitling) are about the best you'll ever get from a Thai production. -
jort3828 May 2004Good movie with good research on background. Needs some insight on how the history of Siam has been unfolding to appreciate this movie more.
Characters in the movie seems actual and believe worthy.
Behavior, especially behavior on court, seems very accurate.
Impressive movie.
This movie hit the tops while on display in Thailand. Intention to create this movie was more to educate young Thai about their history rather than make a top movie. I think both have been achieved. -
L-MK23 May 2003Don't be fool by the grace you've seen. It's not that memorable epic.
I have seen this movie twice since it was released in Thailand 2 years ago, the first time in theater and the second on cable (because there is nothing on TV that night and I can't sleep.) I didn't find it such a masterpiece or a kind of movie that Thai citizen should proudly present it as an OSCAR-quality movie.
First of all, the first version released in Thailand is too long, too complicated, too boring and too much overrated because of badly edited. If you are not Thai, you may not know that this movie represents some kind of foundational myth in Thai social and Thai politics.
Secondly, the storyline is dull. I'm quite agree that it's one-dimensional movie and I'm so sure that some matter of Thai history is distorted in Suriyothai. Like Anna and the King, which shows only Anna's perspective to Thai royal and was banned by Thai government, This movie shows only Thai perspective to the conflict event between Thai and Burma. I think that if Burma had its own version of this movie, it would be much different and probably unacceptable to lots of Thai citizen.
Even more, acting is something definitely to be blamed. I've never seen any expensive movies containing this much of bad acting. Top list Thai stars who play their part in this movie may never think that such a great movie like this could bring them down to the lowest point of their profile.
Moreover, this movie is not unique at all. If you watch lots of Thai masterpiece movie in the past, you'll see Suriyothai didn't bring any kind of new technique or any breakthrough development to Thai movie industry at all...
One thing to be praised is its costume and scenes. Well, if you know who the director is, you have nothing much to be praised.
Don't be surprised by the fact that this movie grossed around 12 million$, more than 3 times of Titanic tally, or more than 4 times of amount at the box office of Nang Nak, the second blockbuster in Thai movie industry of all-time. It's just a fever that lasts for 2-3 months, not forever. The gross compiled extra 20% cost more than ordinary ticket and there is no discount...like other movies. Actually, I'm not sure that this movie does profit because only production costs 10 million$, not to mentioned promoting cost that left unknown.
And, don't be too proud if this movie succeeds in USA box office or even gains OSCAR, the one to be praised is Mr. Coppala's version, not the original one, pals! Remind to Thai citizen that Mr. Coppala is AMERICAN filmmaker who had terrific filmography, including the film like The Godfather series, The Conversation and Apocalypse Now.
I think there are lots of Thai films produced by lower cost that are worth watching and not gonna waste your time like this one.
4 out of 10, only to its attempt to lure moviegoers. -
Vincentiu3 September 2012history page. beautiful show. preoccupation for nuances. huge project , romantic slices, plots, love, heroic scenes, battles and story of a queen as reflection of sacrifice spirit and love for country. sure, it is more a subject of Thai pride. but, in same measure, an admirable work. at first step but this step is remarkable. for measure, for images, for nuances of tale, for science to create a window to Orient far from basic recipes of exoticism. it is a mega - production who preserves its identity. a testimony of charming potential of South Asian cinema to give a different product by Bollywood . and the fact is not insignificant. portrait of Thai XVI century, it is a beautiful jewelery, really impressive for each its part.