The last king of Scotland

I went into the theatres quite sure that the movie would have a towering performance, a predictable(dare say, cliched ?) storyline, would start with a fascinated eye on the vibrant culture of the country of Uganda and end with the country in shambles.
I scored brownies on all of the above and there is no 'yet,it' moments to speak off. So am I disappointed ? yes I am. I have a feeling this movie was created as much as a vehicle for Forrest Whitaker to make a legitimate claim to the academy awards as as a human interest picture.

Dr. Nicholas Gellergan, is a young blue eyed Scottish physician, who, deciding he wants more adventures in his life than the idyllic Scotland can offer, lands up in Uganda. Complete with good intentions of desiring to make a difference in the world, he joins a doctor and his wife in the countryside in tendering to the people in desperate need of healthcare. A chance meeting with the President of Uganda leads to an unusual camaraderie between the two mostly owing to the scottish origins of the doctor and the fact that he shows initiative and boldness in killing an injured cow in pain in front of atleast a couple of scores of armed military men who cannot take a decision. The doctor invites him to join him as his personal physician in the capital city of Kampala and after an initial refusal he accepts the offer, partly owing to the awkwardness he now has with the wife of the 'great' doctor after he tries to kiss her.

Once in Kampala, the president plies him with expensive gifts, invites him to state dinners and introduces him to his large family of four wives and 10 children, slowly ingratiating him until he becomes a personal adviser to the president. All through these events, we get to see what Idi Amin is really like. There are allusions to him being an epilectic, he clearly is forgetful, he calls himself the saviour of Africa, the king of all men among other fancy titles. But he has charm and he works the crowd with it. Quite like Hitler some may say.

We are never witness to the genocide that is raging across the country meanwhile. If you observe closely, all that you see of the dictator is a personality that is etched based on what people said the man was, a murderous buffon. There are not many real life events that are enacted here, all fictional stories directed at projecting him as a not so smart, but charming and obsessive megalomaniac

The ending is the most disappointing of all because they chose to make it a thriller ending probably with the box office in eye.
it is in traditions with films like Blood Diamond in this sense.

A constant gardener and
Hotel Rwanda are in comparison much better movies and Don Cheadle deserved an Oscar as much if not more than, Forrest Whittaker did for this movie. His 5 months of research, accent and the random swahili proverbs notwithstanding.
Method acting is fantastic but prone to misuse. I think this is a valid case of that situation here.
Somehow something jarrs.