River Queen (2005) Poster

(2005)

User Reviews

Review this title
35 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
6/10
Something for everyone
MrStabby18 February 2006
I just saw River Queen today. It's not as bad as the critics are saying. But it's not as good as it could have been. The acting from the leads is good, Cliff Curtis proves how world class he is and it's great to see Temuera Morrison doing some acting again. And as unpopular a view as it might be I thought Samantha Morton was very good. The cinematography is amazing and at times breathtaking. But (come on you knew there was a but.). The voice over is just really annoying and seems to state the obvious when I'd rather the actors just be allowed to show us. I also found the first half hour or so really hard going, it seemed disjointed and felt more like a long short film. The action sequences were well done and captured the battles well without doing the shaky hand held camera work that everyone else is resorting to these days. Overall the film is worth a look I'm sure everyone will get something out of it.

Note, If your a fan of Kiefer Sutherland. He's really just there so they can put his name on the poster there are plenty of local actors that could have played that role.
28 out of 34 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
River Queen
jfrehua17 September 2006
Warning: Spoilers
The anticipation of seeing Temuera Morrison, Cliff Curtis AND Keifer Sutherland all in the one movie had me salivating! However while I wouldn't say I was exactly disappointed with the movie I did feel that so much more could have been explored. I was left with some things unanswered. Why did Sarahs Dad go away? Why did Sarah pop on a wedding dress (this after apparently everything had been destroyed)?prepare to marry Doyle, on his deathbed, then have an intimate time with Wiremu? I felt that some aspects of the movie simply did not add up and I was unconvinced by the acting talents of Samantha Morton,she was neither tough chick or helpless femme and I couldn't embrace her character at all.I guess for me thats just an important aspect of any movie. As a female I want to identify with the female, especially if she is the lead character. On the positive side the Maori fight scenes were raw, real and raunchy (well Temuera had a great time!)but again I was not totally convinced. Look, it was a good movie, easy to watch,and entertaining in its own way. Be warned though if you are looking for a tight storyline,deep sincere acting and mind blowing thrills this is not for you. Having lived in NZ for 12 years I also had some frustration that I didn't see more of the great country. The scenery, while beautiful was also limited,same lake scene over and over, although maybe Vincent Ward was hoping to steer away from the breathtaking scenes a la'Lord of The Rings',if this was the case then Vincent succeeded. With the line up offered maybe I just expected too much. At the end of the day it was not a bad movie it just lacked that something special.
6 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
Violent confrontation between British army and natives filmed in gorgeous cinematography on location in New Zealand
ma-cortes18 July 2022
Very good film with interesting as well as attractive plot , nice acting and exceptional , colorful cinematography shot on location and it has the feel of a great epic fable . It begins with a real sense of wonder and intrigue when we become involved into a lush world with full of vegetation , rivers , mountains and dangers . An intimate and affectionate story set during the 1860s in which a young Irish woman called Sarah O'Brien and her family : father (Stephen Rea) , brother (Kiefer Sutherland) and son (Rawiri Pene) find themselves on both sides of the thunderous wars between British and Maori during the British colonization of New Zealand. A Maori village has so far been spared from the encroachment , but the villagers fear the imminent enemy arrival and subsequently seeking to defend themselves . Eventually , the Maori group will face the ultimate battle against the nasty colonialists . With darkness all around, only the heart can see ! . A kidnapped son ! . A nation at war ! . An epic journey !.

Gripping and evocative film about New Zeland's turbulent wars and full of enjoyable scenes when a group of natives from the wild emerge in a brutal battle against the white invaders who are causing ravage , massacre , destruction and high body-count . It is a genuine as well as imaginative tale written and directed with great sensibility , clarity , fairness and brutality too . This engrossing picture contains powerful and haunting images , it's plenty of images that stay in the mind . Main and support cast are pretty good , giving decent acting , such as : Samantha Morton as starring Sarah O'Brien , Kiefer Sutherland , Cliff Curtis, Temuera Morrison , Anton Lesser and Stephen Rea. The interesting perspective is intimate and it lends a great deal of excitement to the movie experience . Beautiful scenery , tense , intriguing and a moving climax lift this story . There's something for everyone here ; fans of history , fans of adventure , fans of gorgeous landscapes should all find something to enjoy about this film .

Wonderfully directed , and it is all strongest for being brilliantly photographed in splendid panoramic screen and boasting colorful imagines , excellently shot by cameraman Alun Bollinger , filmed on location in New Zealand : Rangitikei River, Ruatiti Domain,Manganuioteao River, Pipiriki, Wanganui River, Manganuioteao River, Wanganui River, Manawatu-Wanganui, Waimarino, North Island, Patea Bay, Patea, Manawatu-Wanganui and Wellington . Adding a sensitive , stirring musical score by composer Karl Jenkins , including native and folkloric sounds . The motion picture was stunningly written and directed by Vincent Ward , though on a limited budget . Ward's first big hit was ¨Navigator¨(1988) , It's a masterpiece who made his major impact gaining international acclaim, that was the movie what convinced the producers of Alien 3 (1992) to hire Vincent Ward as writer/director , although Ward would eventually leave the set of Alien 3 after many creative differences with the studio . Vincent Ward's won several prizes in a lot of Festivals such as Australian Film Institute , Cannes Film Festival , Fantasporto and Sitges Catalonian Film Festival . The great filmmaker Vincent Ward has produced , executive produced and/or written and directed feature films including ¨What Dreams May Come¨ , ¨The River Queen¨ and ¨The Last Samurai¨ , developing the underlying material , as he chose the director , before acting as an executive producer on this film . Ward's films have earned critical acclaim and festival attention whilst achieving a wide , eclectic audience, such as ¨Vigil¨ (1984), and ¨Map of the Human Heart¨ (1993) . ¨This River Queen¨ (2005) along with ¨The Navigator: A Medieval Odyssey¨ (1988) are considered his best films . ¨River Queen¨ (2005) rating : 7/10 . Well worth watching . Above average but is deemed by many to be the Vincent Ward's best .
3 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
Fantastic...photo.
jonas-lindstrom2610 March 2009
Nothing short of a masterpiece when it comes to scenery and photo. Not so much the film it self. The editing is really poor, and the script is copied from the movie "Braveheart" But the photo..! Filminglocation is "LOTR-country" in daytime-mode, which is quit proper for this movie. It makes it easy to get those magnificent scenes. Maori-conflicts whit intruding westerners are not rare in films, but this one has an unique touch to it. It takes place in the 19'th century, and feels genuine at first glance. Troubles comes first in editing, and I cant help thinking this movie deserves a better editing some day. This movie on 1080-upscaling is a wet dream for those who rate a movie by its appearance. Those of us who doesn't can still appreciate it thanks to just that.
4 out of 8 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
Feels longer than it needs to be
briancham19944 June 2020
I did enjoy this movie. The depiction of early colonial New Zealand was fascinating and it had a foreboding feel to it. The scenery was the best part of the film, with the exception of one painfully obvious CGI sequence. The acting is varied and the story is historically one-sided but other than that, it was well made.
1 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
4/10
Beautiful but disappointing
ZaphodIV30 January 2006
Warning: Spoilers
River Queen attempts to pack a complicated, sweeping, historical narrative into just under two hours. There are some breathtaking battle scenes and the Wanganui scenery is beautifully captured. However, the film did suffer from some poor leads - Samantha Morton (Sarah) especially came across as unconvincing. There seemed to be an indecisiveness about how the role should be played - as a helpless waif tossed by fate or as a strong, determined character with a clear view of her destiny. Kiefer Sutherland's character - Private Doyle - seemed to be pointless and for the most part - unintelligible. Keifer's Irish brogue needs a little polishing. On the other hand, Cliff Curtis, Temuera Morrison and Rawiri Pene (as Sarah's son "Boy") were well rounded and believable.

The last 20 minutes of River Queen came across as particularly compressed and rushed. It seemed as if they decided they had to tie up all the loose ends before 120 minutes were up. E.g. How on earth did Wiremu know how to find Sarah and Doyle? No explanation and very unsatisfying.

I did go to this movie with an open mind. I hadn't read or heard anything much apart from its troubled production. What I experienced was a mish mash of New Zealand history, beautifully photographed but ultimately disappointing.
21 out of 25 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
4/10
Beautiful but dumb
johnnycandle24 July 2008
As the above suggests, I was ultimately unimpressed with this movie. It is lovely to look at, the scenery is lush, but the detail of the story, in particular the characters, are totally unbelievable. Films don't have to be believable, but films like this, with a political edge and social commentary do.

Similarly, I have no problem with commercialism as such, but once again, films like this shouldn't be making casting decisions purely based on box office draw. This is absolutely the case with Sutherland, who is frankly rubbish as Doyle. His accent was far from authentic, but he fell into the biggest trap of all, his accent IS his performance, and we end up with a caricature of Irishness with no personality outside of his nationality. I find it totally implausible that anyone involved thought he was the best man for the job. All in all, this is a clear case of commercial interest over quality and when you're trying to be The Mission, this kind of thing wrecks your chances of success.

Speaking of accents, there were a couple more problems, one being the striking modernity of Boy's accent which acted to dispel the feeling of being transported to another time. More surprising was Samantha Morton's much lauded Irish accent, which was variable to say the least. Her voice meandered between strong north and soft south, even in the voice-overs, where I would've expected any such discrepancies to be picked up.

However, these are minor gripes compared to the motivation and actions of Sarah. She never seems at home with the English, and almost instantly at home with her son and his tribe, the dilemma between the life she knew and the life she if offered just seems like a no-brainer. Perhaps a lot has been lost in editing, perhaps this was meant to be a three hour film or a mini series where these things could've been fleshed out, but I can only judge what I've seen.

Now the biggest problem, Sarah's (Morton) relationship with Doyle (Sutherland) is incomprehensible. The fact is that her affection for him is not conveyed in any way until her having to choose between him and her son, the conflict she goes through at this point was frankly ridiculous and killed the movie for me.

As you may have guessed. this movie didn't work at all for me, but it is top notch to look at, you really won't see anything more stunning in terms of scenery, there are some good performances and my wife liked it.
13 out of 18 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
4/10
A possible Classic, spoilt by it's Direction and Production technique
preynolds-1020 September 2007
Reading through most of the other reviews, I tend to agree with most of the comments. The one thing that I would add is the disjointed way the movie has been Directed and Produced. I think that some of these new wave movie makers think that they are being clever using unusual (sometimes jerky) camera angles, and flitting from one scene to another. It goes down well with these movie festivals, and with some of these Indie type critics, but it spoils the movie for me. I noticed in the reviews, one comment saying that none of this movie makers films have become blockbusters. This would maybe prove my point, as the film has that 'rushed to finish' feeling that makes you wonder why such a beautiful film appears to be lacking a smooth flow. As for the comment about Kiefer Sutherland being a big name to put on the poster, I would bet he cringed when watching the final cut. This is a story with real potential, spoilt by trying to be different in it's production. Worth watching, but not many would come back for a second view.
6 out of 11 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
excellent on many different levels
cadpgmr29 January 2006
When I saw the two stars that the NZ Herald gave it I was not discouraged because the same critique gave King Kong 5 stars, which was the worst movie I've seen all year! River Queen was a beautiful movie. The depiction of the musket wars of colonial NZ was outstanding. The unique beauty of the NZ scenery was stunning, the music, which seemed to be an amazing mixture of Maori and Irish influence was very moving and added a great deal to the energy of the movie as a whole. The dramatic musical piece that was played just before the battles enhanced the anticipation of it all.

I also have to add that when Boy did the solo I was so mesmerized by his voice that I didn't realize that he was singing an Irish song! I would see the movie again just for that scene alone! I enjoyed watching the characters. I don't think the acting was brilliant, although the boy was superb in the one scene where he's telling his mother off, but the actors themselves were attractive and enjoyable to watch.

I would highly recommend this movie if you enjoy stunning scenery, visual artistic effects with water and color, a good story based on history, and nicely placed and original use of music, or if you enjoy learning the history of a very unique culture that so few people know of.
44 out of 60 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
Bloody boring.
michaelRokeefe18 January 2009
Warning: Spoilers
Set in the mid 1800's when the British is clearing New Zealand outback wilderness to establish colonies. The daughter of a British army surgeon, Sarah(Samantha Morton), falls in love with the son of one of the Maori leaders. The Maori is an indigenous tribe and a dangerous people for the Europeans to deal with. By the time Sarah's child, which she calls "Boy", is born, his father is dead. By the age of six, "Boy" is kidnapped by his father's family and Sarah will begin her search for him with a man(Kiefer Sutherland),who is deeply in love with her.

Two-time Oscar nominee Morton is definitely the star of this movie. Sutherland is a total waste. Also starring are: Cliff Curtis, Stephen Rea, Temuera Morrison and David Rawiri Pene. This movie is rated R for some sexual content and violent battle scenes. I find the title RIVER QUEEN very misleading and the DVD cover with Sutherland only and making you believe he is the leading star should be a crime.
5 out of 9 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
A huge disappointment
Joeylondon8 February 2006
Warning: Spoilers
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.
10 out of 23 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
3/10
Reverse racism
ramayana1 October 2007
Warning: Spoilers
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...
7 out of 16 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
3/10
Watch it on "mute"
posteropolis-com7 February 2010
With an interesting premise (in the conflicts between Europeans and indigenous peoples sometimes the battle lines were not so clear), this should have been a good film. But the story is sabotaged by the director's overriding infatuation with his own cleverness twinned with a very poor script.

Yes, the natural setting is beautiful and, yes, the movie is authentic to its 19th century historical setting. But the filmmaker keeps gilding the lily over and over again, adding layer upon layer of over-the-top musical accompaniment, not to mention a completely unnecessary voice-over, to the soundtrack, that ultimately overwhelm the viewer and, by calling attention to themselves, take away from the story.

To me, it was clear the director, with his microscopic closeups and the endless recurrence of the musical motif of "Danny Boy" (of all things!) was trying to make a New Zealand version of an epic Sergio Leone film, something on the order of Once Upon A Time In The West. But given the earnestness of the story (most of Leone's westerns were tongue-in-cheek), not to mention that it's no longer 1968, he succeeds in making a parody of one.

Too bad.
2 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
9/10
Visionary filmmaker polarizes public again
BorrisB10 February 2006
All Vincent Ward's movies have a heart, a visionary heart. It amazes me that he has managed to make as many movies as he has, as none of them have been block busters. They have all been personal and intense, and they have all added something to the world. None of them are just another genre type a,b or c movie.

I had heard conflicting reviews about this one, but given his previous films particularly Navigator and What Dreams May Come I just had to go. It really got under my skin, it's a historical drama, but dream, desire, and vision saturate the story, making it like no other.

Also being from Aotearoa and with Maori blood having been mixed into my veins, it was fantastic to see such a good film finally being made of that clash of cultures. How personal and close the wars were.

The landscape and the Wanganui River were filmed to perfection.

This movie haunts me. It's great to finally have another Vincent Ward movie. If only they released the other ones on DVD!
39 out of 53 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
River Queen: Like a lost bi-polar puppy dog...
andy19822 February 2006
Apart from the beautiful imagery thanks to New Zealand cinematographer Alun Bollinger, this film is not worth seeing.

The storyline is so fragmented and lost that it's hard to know what is going on at any given time, and just when you think you're following then the direction changes again, like a lost bi-polar puppy dog.

The musical score is awful, relying too heavily on extremely emotive pieces that try to force the audience into feeling a certain way, as if the instruments were acting as an emotions queue sheet — 'feel sad here'; 'feel shocked here'; 'feel scared here'. On top of that, the repetitive samples used over and over again leave the audience on the verge of laughter.

Gone are the days of silent film, where musical instruments were the sole portrayal of voice — but you wouldn't think so while watching River Queen.

The voice-over was so over-utilised that one has to wonder if this film really even needed any accompanying imagery. It could have easily been a radio play although even then it would be hard to follow the story.

And the stolen ideas from Jane Campion's The Piano are too obvious to overlook. Not only are the beach and forest shots almost identical to those in The Piano — perhaps some of this comes down to Alun Bollinger's camera work on the latter — but the voice-over feeling and levels too are strikingly close. And who could forget when Holly Hunter's character has her wings clipped, in the form of her index finger being cut off by Sam Neill. Does it remind you of when Wiremu has his 'trigger finger' amputated, and surprisingly too with an axe? I thought so.

All in all I cannot recommend this film for viewing, unless you wear some ear-muffs and just go with the scenery in mind.
10 out of 38 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
2/10
Worst Post Production in History, really
flaviosurf181 December 2007
wow, i just got one watching this.

How CRAPPY post production is on this movie.

I kid you not, I literally could've done a better job myself.

ALL of post production is flawed, all of it. Whoever cut this film should be banned from the film industry.

That aside, the script was a trainwreck. absolute rubish.

Not to mention Jack Bauer and his Patchy the Pirate in Spongebob accent. WTF is his character doing there? But to me, the biggest flaw of all was character development, intereaction, dynamics, dialogue. WOW. I cant believe how bad it was.

I give this movie a 2 out of 10. 1 for Samantha, who is a great actress, too bad the production made everyone look like amateurs out there.

the other 1 goes to cinematography, which was indeed good.

Other then that my friend, this is one bad movie.

I don't even feel like making an elaborate post on this, it was just horrible production. Poor actors, didn't know what they were getting into...
5 out of 17 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
4/10
A Disappointing Movie
SW_MoJo11 November 2006
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.
3 out of 9 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
3/10
What a boring movie
sblawyer9 January 2010
This was one of the dullest movies I have seen in some time. I'm in my late 40s, and watched it with my son-in-law (early 20s) and son (17). The scenery was beautiful, but the story was a bust. We watched about an hour of it and turned it off. I spent more time on my iphone during the hour that we watched it than I spent actually watching the movie. I gave it a 3 because I enjoyed the scenery and cinematography; otherwise I would have given it a 1. I'm sure there are people who are really into the "art" of it all who will find my review appalling but we're all entitled to our own opinions, right? I couldn't figure out if this was supposed to be a "chick flick" where the focus was on the mother, or if it was supposed to be a movie for guys, with the focus on battle and adventure. In my opinion, it didn't succeed in either.
1 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
Thoroughly enjoyable and engrossing film
Puckles8325 February 2006
Boy did I enjoy River Queen. The scenery was stunning, the acting superb, the story brilliant, and the music was a hauntingly beautiful match to an incredible film. I always thought it would be great if a film was set during the Maori wars that was similar to Michael Mann's "The Last of the Mohicans". Well this it, with shades of Joffe's "The Mission" to boot.

River Queen grabs you and draws you into a world that you only learned about in history books. It does not take sides but portrays the beautiful and the ugly in both sides to the conflict. The chemistry between the main actors is powerful and moving and keeps the people of the story to the fore, stopping them from being engulfed by the powerful images of the war.

I always thought it would take our own Peter Jackson (should be Sir Peter) to make a film of this quality in New Zealand and about New Zealand. But I take my hat off to Vincent Ward. River Queen demonstrates that there is an amazing depth of movie making talent in this small country that time and again punches way above it's weight.
33 out of 47 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
Spoiler warning
ezyjamma5 August 2006
Warning: Spoilers
River Queen's sound recordist should have been fired, in this day and age there is no excuse for poor recording on the set. Mumbling voices was the end result, and the cinematography was average to fair at best. The story had potential and I feel sorry for the overseas actors who must have known they were on a turkey shoot while they were filming. Its obvious that the movie was suffering from el cheapo budget syndrome, and the scene where Temuera is procreating inside the house while a battle rages outside is just too stupid for words.

I noticed a few shortcuts taken on the Maori protocol side of things, but this was probably due to movie length time restraints etc. All in all I wasn't impressed with this movie, the Whanganui river has many beautiful spots but this movie gives us a cold, drab and claustrophobic image, with none of the beauty. The movie needed more sunshine and better camera angles, less on screen confusion, better sound recording, and more thought needed to be put into what the movie goers would be seeing on the big screen.

Hats off to all involved though for completing what must have been a very difficult shoo. I have the utmost appreciation for anyone who can make a feature film, sadly I did not enjoy this one.
3 out of 18 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
An absolute waste of time!
sumana-m2126 January 2009
This is by far one the most boring movies I've ever seen! And if you don't believe me go ahead and watch it for yourself.

The movie starts of slow, the storyline makes no sense at all. People fighting doesn't make any sense. I could not make sense of what they were talking during the movie (in most cases I didn't even bother) It does nothing to keep you watching the movie, the only plus point would be the cinematography. New Zealand looks awesome. Everything else just plain sucks.

The actors try their best to keep us awake, but unfortunately you will go to sleep instead.

Do us all a favor, even if this gets on "On Demand", Don't WATCH IT!
2 out of 10 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Samantha Morton
dugong130 January 2006
K, I haven't seen the film yet... BUT - SO looking forward to it!

I'd just like to make note of the dramas around the filming of 'River Queen'. Samantha Morton became 'sick', which meant production stopped. Vincent Ward was fired - thankfully Alun Bollinger replaced him, so his artistic vision wouldn't have been altered drastically - until post-production, or until Samantha Morton left the country. Rumours went around about Morton being the reason Ward was fired. Ward evades questions on Morton. In selling the film, various stars comment on the ... ('special-ness, treatment, issues) in working with Morton.

General consensus is that Miss Morton is never going to work in this country again. Hurray Vincent Ward. Long Live Vincent!
4 out of 32 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
Dude..... Kiefer Sutherland is in this!
dlev1828 March 2009
Warning: Spoilers
Wait... wait... wait... wait... wait... wait..... WHAT!? This movie is terrible, absolutely terrible. 1. The only reason Kiefer Sutherland is on the cover is to sell it to Kiefer fans, only to have their hearts broken. He kills one guy, gets shot, and dies before half the movie is over, not to mention he was only in the first 10 min and then disappeared until the point which he died...WHY put him on the cover if his character BLOWS. 2. Where are the EPIC battle scenes promised in the preview on the back cover? 3. It was way too confusing, i mean whats up with the girl? She had to narrate the movie to TRY to get our attention, she failed! 4. If Kiefer dies in a movie..... it fails. Now I am going to go watch 24..... THIS MOVIE FAILS!
1 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
5/10
Interesting portrayal of era and war, if not otherwise mediocre
gaute_eiterjord9 May 2012
Warning: Spoilers
Somewhat spoilery, I'd say you should read anyway) The River Queen is an interesting, if a bit underwhelming experience. Throughout the whole movie, at least I for one, never felt invested in journey, and it seems that this is the main struggle of the movie – engaging the audience.

The movie tells the story of Sarah, an Irish medic in the English army on New Zealand. Mothering a half-caste with a native Maori, a young man who quickly goes on to die of the fever, Sarah raises their boy in the colonized ways. One day, however, the boy, which never gets any other name than "Boy", is taken by one of the more militarized tribes of Maori, as the tension between foreign settlers and natives escalates to war. Sarah sets out on a journey to find her son again, and while it is a decent premise for a plot, as mentioned the movie struggles telling the story in an interesting way.

Much to my begrudging side, the director is guilty in heavy use of shaky-cams, creative zooming and hasty editing. While maintaining a sense of, what, "realism", shaky-cams will never be engaging in my book, and I can't help to wonder why someone would even consider having a drunken cameraman all throughout the film. In River Queen, the method isn't used to the irritating degree, it isn't as dizzying as how the Hunger Games used it, but still I would definitely enjoyed the movie more had they decided to shoot it in a normal way.

If there is one thing the movie does get right it is scenery, music and effects, with these three factors done almost flawlessly. New Zealand no doubt has an amazing nature and wildlife, and the movie succeeds in portraying the rivers and forests as a last frontier between the European civilization and the native tribes. The music is a mix of native Maori and 1860s European, and when you're not assaulted by the wind blowing calmly through the grass, whistling just because it's the wind, man, it sets the atmosphere of colonization in the 1860s. The effects are, when not blurred out by a drunken cameraman and creative editing, good at portraying both the every-day life and nature, and the warzones and violence. There's little CGI, and since I'll never get my stop-motion robots from the eighties back, I would say it's refreshing to see a movie that is a little bit real and authentic.

More mediocre, if not disappointing, is the acting, with the main actress of Samantha Morton coming across as quite bland and uninteresting, with acting rather dependent on the different situations. As often as I found myself engaged in her journey, I also found myself quite fed-up with her role and the way she played it. Rather mediocre than bad, I guess it's unfair to blame the actress for the character, the writing could have been better. Some dialogues and scenes of long-lost-reunions (honestly, don't say you didn't see it coming, OOPS I'VE SAID TO MUCH) does not prove to be as satisfying and tearjerkery as they could have been. It's a shame, because Irish accents really are smashing, and there are times when Sarah isn't that bad a character. Better, if also quite bland, are the other main roles of Rawiri Pene as Boy, Kiefer Sutherland as Private Doyle, Cliff Curtis as Wiremu and Temuera Morrison as Te Kai Po. All of these are men of different meaning to Sarah's life and journey, and with the exception of a mediocre romance with a certain native, and the rather good performance of a certain chief, the actors are okay.

If there is one thing I would say about this movie though, it is that the war between the Maori and the Europeans is portrayed in a very good manner. It might just be me fancying grey areas at the moment, but I found some sub-plots coming out of the seemingly never-ending conflict way more interesting than the actual plot. With certain soldiers going fighting for such a long time they're not even sure what they're fighting for anymore, the movie gives an interesting and emotional peak into what these soldiers are going through. As families also were split up by this war, with brothers fighting brothers, the conflict comes across as more engaging and thought-provoking. The movie clearly stands a neutral ground, showing the thoughts of both sides, and showing both sides committing the atrocities of war, and at least I found this viewpoint interesting. (If a tad moralistic, but hey) I guess I would recommend it to you if you're interested in the time period, as the movie is quite good at portraying the era. However, if you're looking for a deep and emotional story of family, love and strong heroines, you would probably find it somewhat, well, mediocre, at least when it comes to engagement. By all means, watch it on a Sunday afternoon if there's nothing else to do, you would most likely find it a bit interesting, but if you're looking for something deeper, then you should look somewhere else. I'd say Aliens would be a good choice, if not just for the reason that it is a badass movie I would rather watch than this. But now I'm acting unfair.

Well bugger that, a person should be allowed to act unfair sometimes, elsewise I we would all be reduced to objective muck.
0 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
A wonderful story with too many facets.
diane-348 July 2006
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.
18 out of 24 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
An error has occured. Please try again.

See also

Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews


Recently Viewed