Choosing to base the film around the experiences of a fictitious doctor did the film a disservice, I think. This is an important historical story to tell, and it's clear that many parties agreed from the production trivia. So why inject such a large note of "fakeness"?

I do have to give the script credit for one thing: the tone shifts perfectly in line with the narrative. The first half-hour or so successfully lulled me into thinking that this was a comedy with some dramatic elements, rather than the serious drama it turned into. Certainly, fooling me would have been more difficult if I'd actually read anything about the film before watching it—but surprises like that are a big reason I sometimes just choose a film at random and press Play. Then again, it's precisely _because_ young people like me have no idea what happened in Uganda all those years ago that this film was important to make.

Aside from its historical relevance, Forest Whitaker is honestly the best reason to watch _The Last King of Scotland_. HIs performance is astonishing, and it's no wonder he won an Oscar for his portrayal of Idi Amin. The _X-Files_ part of my brain was hoping for Gillian Anderson to have a big role in the film, after seeing her name in the opening credits, but Sarah Merrit was a pretty minor character in the end. In hindsight, it's not surprising; her name appeared near the end of the list… (I also nearly didn't recognize Anderson without Agent Scully's red hair. Really, truly, I'm a recognize-by-voice guy. Faces aren't my strong suit.)

I'd say **7.2/10** overall—pretty good. Using one of Amin's real British doctors instead of a fictional Scotsman would have made it better. (Basing the film on a book already framed as the memoir of a fictional Scot probably made that a more difficult sell, to be fair.)