My Kingdom

Yet another film inspired by 'King Lear'; this time set in the world of drug running and violence in rundown Liverpool. This makes it as quirky a setting as Imperial Japan (Ran) or the wild West (Broken Lance) but it doesn't quite come off.

Yes, the parallels are there. Richard Harris as Sandeman gives up control of his gangster empire to his two unlikeable daughters while effectively 'banishing' the youngest; there is a character who has his eyes put out as Gloucester did ... and yet, behind this inspiration the story is thin indeed.

Beautifully shot and atmospheric in its detail of the bleak Merseyside setting, this film disappoints with largely poor acting and a cop-out ending - where we should have had fire and brimstone, we had a whimper.

Richard Harris however is excellent, as ever, in a towering performance which makes me grieve that we never got to see him play Lear for real. There are few actors who could put this complex character across (a variant on the one he played in 'Trojan Eddie', sure, but a meaty role none the less). He's let down by the script but with what he has to work with he is impressive and the one reason to see this film.

My Kingdom was sufficiently entertaining for a rainy Sunday but that is where the upside ends.

Maybe it's that I'm American and have been overexposed to Capone, Gotti and Luciano but the characters in this movie fall miserably short as mobsters. Rule one: Mobsters are scary people. Mother (Mandy) and daughter (Jo) are so wholesome they could pass for GoodHousekeeping covergirls (Mandy even resembles Martha Stewart!). Apparently, Jo (Moll-turned-preppy coed) managed to just "walk away" from her position with "The Chair". Shouldn't she be dead?

Dad is apparently so important that he asks the lowest of thugs, "Do you know who I am?". Where are his bodyguards? Why is he sitting in the cheap seats at the show? Also, it would have been nice if someone clued us in as to how this giant-among-men built his empire: Drugs? Prostitution? Gambling? Stamp-collecting?

Lastly: Where was the trademark blood? Guess the budget was too low for a few bottles of Ketchup.

All-in-all, My Kingdom had a good plot-line and decent actors but it was a little low-calorie for my gangster-genre diet.

This film is about gangster in the mean streets of Liverpool about the ups and down of the underworld and one man who was at the top became bottom after what the family did to him. There is some nice acting northing really bloody in the film but can't understand why its an 18 and over to watched this film but anyway it had a fine cast but really felt sorry for the little boy.

I did find Sexy Beast alot better then this but My Kingdom is worth watching and mostly BRITISH GANGSTER FILMS ARE ALOT BETTER THEN AMERICAN GANGSTER FILMS

Give this film 5/10

and one his best. He plays the boss of a Liverpool rime family, whose own naivety brings his downfall. This is based on King Lear but it doesn´t really work for me here. We´re supposed to believe that this tough, streetwise gang boss would be stupid enough not to see the consequences of his actions (I don´t want to give the story away, but those familiar with King Lear will know what happens. This supposed sudden naivety goes totally aginst the grain of the character Harris portrays in the film up until his fateful decision.

It was an interesting idea but just doesn´t work for me and the second half of the film becomes increasingly silly as a consequence. I´ve also no idea why one of the main gangsters is a Sihk. Liverpool is unusual amongst British cities in having a very small asian population and I don´t think I´ve ever seen a Sihk there. Strange.

That said, it´s not a bad film. There´s some good camerawork, Harris is on good form and the supporting cast are mostly very good. 8/10 for the first half of the film, 5/10 for the second.

Overall, I'd vote this a 7.5/10 film, if fractions were available.

I think the comments by L8Hatter (above) veer near the essential tone as to whether or not a person reading these comments might want to view the film. Nonetheless, I am rather more sympathetic than Mr/s Hatter, because I think the film is especially strong in one regard: directing.

I differ with L8Hatter re "We're supposed to believe that this tough, streetwise gang boss would be stupid enough not to see the consequences of his actions..." I believe that is an oversimplification of the presentation of a powerful figure near the end of his life not realizing how his strength and, indeed, bullying conduct of his life have kept him more than a little ignorant of the feelings of those in his own family.

While I disagree with L8Hatter's phrasing, "...the second half of the film becomes increasingly silly...", I agree that there is definite stumbling in the plot line about halfway through the third act, which is a hell of a bad place to have it.

All that said, the directing pretty much single-handedly carries the film. If one particularly enjoys that aspect of the craft, this is a should-see film. And if you haven't some powerfully better film to watch this evening, the character work, cinematography, 92% of the plot line, and definitely the superbly paced directing of action, timing and actors, mean you can make up your mind now.