June 26, 2007

The Last, Second Last and Third Last King of Scotland

I noticed the DVD cover today for the newly released The Last King of Scotland (to the left there). Now, y'all know I truly hated that movie (I gave it a D or D+ - one of the two, I try not to think about it) because it was pretty much the most unpleasant cinema-going experience of 2006 (read more about my reaction here). But, back to the DVD. Look. I know Forrest Whitaker was the big selling point of the movie (Academy Award in tow), but was it really necessary to put him on the DVD cover three times?

One Forrest is enough, okay. Surely throwing James McAvoy on there and perhaps even Gillian Anderson (who had a small part, but was the best thing about it) couldn't have hurt? No. Instead we get Forrest Whitaker (who was good, I agree, but not that good. As the movie got progressively worse, he got progressively less interesting) three times with changing facial expressions (charming, stoic, angry). Just in case you forgot who it starred, I presume.

6 comments:

J.D. said...

Yeah, that really upset me to be honest. Not just that, it's just a really bad cover.

rural juror said...

You know, I really liked that movie, but that cover is just awful.

Kamikaze Camel said...

I know. It's a shame that we have to wait until the special editions of DVDs in order to get a decent cover design these days.

Anonymous said...

Further proof that, no matter what a lot of bloggers say, absolutely nobody cares about James McAvoy.

rural juror said...

YOU LIE YOU ANONYMOUS COMMENTER, YOU! I CHALLENGE YOU TO A DUEL!

Kamikaze Camel said...

I think what Anon meant was that no matter how many bloggers say James McAvoy is good in the movie (which I didn't exactly agree with, but that's not the point) that nobody else seems to care whether it was McAvoy or a 6ft puppet in the role.

...