River Queen

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.

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.

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.

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.

I enjoyed 'River Queen' better on second viewing. First time through, I found the story-line a tad confusing and even long winded in places. Admittedly, I was also distracted wondering whether it was shot on the Whanganui (I grew up in and around Wanganui - the river has an 'h'; the city doesn't). At the end though, I was happy with the experience. Certainly happy enough to watch it again.

On second viewing, familiar with the story and characters and confident in the knowledge that I was indeed looking at the Whanganui, the pace seemed good. I thought the acting good and I loved the scenery (an ex-patriate's nostalgia perhaps?). I particularly appreciated the recreation of warfare in the New Zealand Wars.

Others have suggested that the movie was unduly biased towards the Maori. This surprises me as, pakeha though I am, the thought did not cross my mind on either viewing.

PS I recently found out that an ancestor of mine was in the Regiment depicted in the movie.