"Kingdom of War"--which was the title I saw it under in a two-disc DVD set from Magnolia Home Entertainment--has some things going against it but a lot more going for it. For Westerners unfamiliar with Thai history, it gets a bit confusing because so many historical names and places are mentioned and the shifting political and military alliances change so often that it's hard to tell the players without a scorecard and, as other reviewers have mentioned, the acting is, at times, somewhat stilted. Also, I know that royalty is revered in Thailand, possibly more so than in other countries, but seeing the complete subservience of everyone to the various kings and lords--there were even scenes of people walking toward the king on their knees because apparently no one is allowed to stand taller than the king, something I'd never seen before--is somewhat hard for Westerners to take (we're much more comfortable cursing and swearing at our leaders than prostrating ourselves in front of them, as much as they'd no doubt probably like us to).

That's all small potatoes, though. Overall, I enjoyed this film way more than I thought I would. It's an epic in every conceivable sense of the word--thousands of extras, huge and fantastic sets, beautiful costumes and interiors (palaces, throne rooms, etc.),and truly spectacular battle scenes. The story--after you finally figure out who is who--is fascinating and not all the acting is stilted; the actress who plays Princess Lekin is not only one of the most ravishingly beautiful women I've ever seen but gives a first-rate performance, possibly the best one in the film. The man who plays King Nerusuan--the Special Features section, which you should really watch, says he is actually a Thai Army colonel who was hired because the producers wanted someone with military experience to play one of Thailand's great military heroes--also contributes an excellent job, along with several other actors in lesser roles (the head monk and Prince Menechan, among others).

As I said, it's a bit hard to slog through in the beginning, but once you get the different characters, kingdoms, etc., straightened out, it's an incredibly enjoyable film, both visually and story-wise. I recommend it.

This is supposedly an epic story about a King Naresuan during his childhood era, which supposedly, in his later years protected the invading Burmese from conquering Thailand, by driving them out.

Basically it is actually a heresy to say the movie is not good for Thai audiences and hence, in my opinion it is overrated. However, this is on of the best of 3 part series of the movie. The best in my opinion is Part 3 (climax),followed by Part 1, and Part 2. Much of the complaints came to part 2, which doesn't exist historically and many audiences were left complaining about the main actors' escapades with women, which actually was in conflict historically as he had little time for that. This fact is actually generally well known by the watching audience, so basically the director just stepped on a very sensitive big toe of the audiences. Something that a director should not do since they are the ones who come to enjoy the movie.

The problem about this movie, which is actually Part 1 is that the movie, cinematic version has been adapted for the movie has actually changed so much of the story historically (known by a majority of the audiences) and in very successful dramatic stage plays that actually had gained a wide television audience acceptance in Thailand (another big blunder). The most common complaints I received from viewers is that, if only the cinematic movie had been more faithful to the original dramatic stage plays or most of the television version of this movie, but with better cinematography, it would gained a strong following, at least internationally. Cinematography, is o.k., in general, but I do received complaints from viewing the initial hour of the movie to be a bit too dark on the lighting. This movie is basically similar to George Lucas, Star Wars Episode I, in which actors, and actress are cardboard character, language are somewhat unnatural, but in addition is the problem of poor editing, long sequences of movies at points where it doesn't seem to contribute to the overall story.

Basically a good movie, at least for the Thai audiences anyway, is that it is historically accurate at least to what the audiences are generally aware of(it would be insulting to actually say something contradictory),or faithful to the original successful dramatic plays (much like Mr. Bean's Holiday, that used the same original movie that made Mr. Bean so successful),or another that departed so much from the formula of success was the Godzilla movie, done by the Emmerich.

The key of the movie's success, that could have improved is the addition of dramatic elements, the toning down of unneeded parts of the story, and I am sure about more than half of the movie can be edited out, and at least dramatic elements be added, at least initially in the start of the movie and getting the audiences attention, is something that needs a lot of improvement.

Back to basic emphasis is needed in the movie, which is the basic theme of the movie, or the message, is missing, which I think should be how Naresuan achieved his greatness, and his ability of cunningness, would at least be helpful. Most thematic elements here are actually missing, a more successful movie, while there is little truth, was The Curse of The Golden Flower. While that movie had little relevance historically, its major thematic elements were that the King tried to poison his wife. While many plot elements, especially during the fight scenes in elaborate traps, were bad and contrived, the actors and the intensity of the actors, actress were excellent. I think that thematic elements is sorely needed in this movie.

Most of this movie lacked the stress, intensity in the actors and actresses needed to move the audiences. One of the most important elements of the story besides Aristotle's claim that plots are more important character is not really true, at least for today's movie. While we do claim plots in many movie reviews to be important, it is that most important elements should be the Theme of the movie, and the Premise of the movie that the plots should support.

If the Premise of the movie is a historical one, at least the major historical elements should get the audiences to agree and enjoy the movie more so than audiences going into defensive, and just watching the plot goes from one part to another part of the movie. Otherwise you get busy body in the movie, much like Next 2007, without a message, and the believability elements, which is the primal force of Premise, is lacking, but has a strong weight in all of Kubrick's movie, especially Clockwork Orange and Dr. Strangelove.

If any directors want to have a good movie despite his bad editing, Kubrick's movie was a bit long, not well edited in many scenes, he still won the day because his premise for the story was strong and plot elements were there to prove his premise, which buildup to a strong message or a theme of the overall masterpiece, which we can sum up in few words, such as in Dr. Strangelove, that an accidental holocaust can happen. What about the possibility of the movie Naresuan? A good premise, where many plots element are supportive is the argument that one person, can indeed make a difference. Length of the movie is not of the essence. How many would complain Godfather is ever long a movie, which is about 175 minutes, but feels more like 30 minutes. If I had no intelligence in making any movie, there is one factor I will look that I know the movie will make it big: if people will not take their eyes off the screen for the entire movie, I have got a hit.

"Suriyothai" told the story of Thailand's greatest ever heroine - a Queen who rode into battle on an elephant.

When "Suriyothai" was released, it quickly broke all box office records in Thailand. However, internationally the film did not make much impact. Even after Francis Ford Coppola re-edited and re-released it, it did not attract significant attention.

There are certain facts one should know in order to understand the popularity of "Suriyothai" in Thailand.

1. The Thai people love the royal family. They don't just respect the royalty, they feel a personal love for the King.

2. The director, known informally as 'Tan Muy' is a cousin of the King, quite high up in the rankings of the royal family. I have heard that when visiting the film set, some people would drop to the floor and lie prostrate in front of him - although I understand he is in fact very friendly, approachable and informal.

3. The story of "Suriyothai" is not only a story that every Thai schoolchild knows - but is an extremely symbolic story - one that touches the hearts of all Thai people.

4. Very few directors would be considered worthy of even attempting this story. A director would have to be very careful not to abbreviate or alter the plot for dramatic value. Retaining period detail and accuracy would be very important.

But for a foreign audience with no appreciation of Thai royalty, Thai history, Thai politics or Thai culture, much of "Suriyothai" simply went over their heads.

When one stripped away the cultural significance, what was left was a rather long film, with a plot sometimes difficult to understand, wooden acting, beautiful to look at, and some epic battle scenes.

When judging "Naresuan" therefore, one has to accept that this film shares a lot in common with "Suriyothai".

1. It takes its plot from a famous episode from Thai history.

2. It is again the true story of a famous Thai royal who waged war against the Burmese (the historical enemy of Thailand)

3. It is directed by the same director.

4. It was produced with the support of the Thai Royal family.

5. Its plot has not been simplified for dramatic value, but contains a lot of characters all entwined in a complex way that might be unfathomable to a non-Thai audience.

In fact, it is probably true to say that in every way it is like "Suriyothai" but more so.

"Suriyothai" was long. 'Naresuan' is longer - in total around nine hours.

"Suriyothai" was the most expensive Thai film ever made. "Naresuan" cost more than twice as much.

"Suriyothai" broke box office records in Thailand. "Naresuan" after one week has already beaten those records.

So, in writing a review of "Naresuan", it is very important to understand the film within its context, as a film that is so particularly 'Thai' that perhaps a Western viewer is incapable of looking at it from the same perspective.

One problem with the depiction of Royal characters is that they must always be depicted with dignity, respect, aplomb. This means that in many scenes, the main characters are adopting stiff, regal poses which greatly limits their acting freedom.

Similarly, many of the shots of throne-rooms are beautifully composed, perfectly lit, wonderfully detailed, but after repeated scenes, tend to feel rather static - like a series of beautiful formal portraits. Even when the camera moves, frequently dollying and craning, it is always with a certain formal grace.

Thus, I think a Western viewer might criticise what could be seen as stilted performances and a very formal shooting style.

One might argue that there are too many characters and that some of the complex royal politics are hard to follow. But of course, if one has set oneself the task of documenting a well-known period of history, it is almost impossible to edit characters and events for dramatic purposes.

So, ultimately while it is perhaps easy to find fault with "Naresuan" from the perspective of Western film-making, I think one has to realise that it stands apart - as a particularly Thai phenomenon.

I have one regret. MC Chatrichalerm Yukol - to use the director's proper name - will be remembered internationally and in Thai film history as the director of these big epic royal chronicles. But I can't help feeling that working within the restrictions of this genre has somewhat masked his true talent as a director. We all remember Sir David Lean for the grand spectacles of "Lawrence of Arabia" and "Dr. Zhivago", but for me an equally important film was "Brief Encounter", the story of an illicit romance between two people in a small town - not epic at all. Or how about Richard Attenborough - whose epic "Gandhi" attracted so much attention - but managed later to make "Shadowlands" - again a much smaller, more personal story. MC Chatrichalerm Yukol has made a number of ground-breaking films in the past tackling controversial subjects such as rural poverty and prostitution. In a way, I would rather swap all the grand spectacle of these royal epics for some of the real compassion and conviction of the earlier, smaller films.

For me, the best scenes in "Naresuan" were not the scenes with thousands of extras and grand sets. They were the informal, playful scenes of the three children. Just as in the film the three children were outside the palace and free from the formal bonds, etiquette and royal protocol and could play, explore and develop, it felt like the director also enjoyed the same freedom in these scenes.

It is important to note that "Naresuan" is a trilogy, and these comments are based on viewing only the first film.

Paul Spurrier