A United Kingdom

I love it when a story is told that many of us haven't heard of or known much about.

Although possibly oversimplified due to the necessity of keeping the movie within a normal viewing time, nonetheless, it's a very good story about an amazing piece of history.

Well acted, well directed and beautifully filmed, this is a film I'm very happy to have seen. It's an inspirational look at enduring love and intelligence, at people power and a nation's faith in their leader, as well as credibly showing yet again how the British Empire and their bevy of crooked prime ministers deem to destroy nations for greed and profit, and to boot, having the gall to treat anyone but themselves as underdogs.

An excellent film for what it is and I would recommend it.

6.8 does not do justice to a film that tells a story of how love can overcome boundaries. In this case, this is one of the rare African stories that we tend to get to hear about. For a long time, stories to do with Africa have been about disease, poverty and undernourishment. Asante's take on this film does indeed tell the viewer that there is more to Africa than what meets the eye.

I believe that this film should set a precedent for more African stories to be told . This film tells you that there is a lot more than just about Mandela. There is need to learn about other Africans namely Jomo Kenyatta, Hastings Kamuzu Banda, John Chilembwe and many others. These are perhaps some of the few names that I can think of. I commend Asante for taking a bold stand in producing a film of a figure(s) that most people out there may have not heard.

For those of you that may want to get a different side to Africa, I would recommend that you begin by watching "A United Kingdom". In my view, it is one of the more decent films of 2016/17 combined.

This is one of those movies that is flying under the radar and deserves to be seen. It is a wonderful story, well scripted, well acted, and has terrific cinematography. The fact that is a true story makes one wonder what the hell we have been learning in school when we have never been taught this type of history. I give this a ten and really it deserves it. It is a shame people have degraded the rating for some reason other than the fact that this is good cinema. It is a very deserving movie and is like the movie Hidden Figures or Queen Katwe, it is important for history. I am a white conservative and think everyone should see the movie.

"A United Kingdom" is based on the true-life relationship between Sir Seretse Khama, an African chieftain from what was then the Bechuanaland Protectorate, and a white British woman, Ruth Williams. The film implies that he was the King of Bechuanaland, but in fact no single individual ever held this position; Khama was the ruler of the Bangwatho, one of a number of tribes making up the Tswana nation, the largest ethnic group in the country. In Botswana, as Bechuanaland is now known, Khama and Ruth are today revered figures, as he was the leader of the country's independence movement and its first President when independence was achieved in 1966; unlike most other former colonies in Africa Botswana has remained a democracy ever since, and their son is the current President.

Khama's marriage to Ruth Williams (they met while he was studying in London in 1948) was highly controversial at the time. Many of Khama's own people, led by his uncle, refused to accept Ruth as their Queen. The South African government, which was just starting to introduce its policy of apartheid, objected furiously to the idea of a high-profile black leader in a neighbouring country marrying a white woman. Clement Attlee's Labour government, anxious to placate the South Africans who were threatening to leave the Commonwealth, intervened, exiling Khama from Bechuanaland and forbidding him to return. Winston Churchill, at the time leader of the Opposition, initially made sympathetic noises, but after the Conservatives were returned to power in 1951 he took an even harder line than Attlee. The situation was complicated by the discovery of diamonds in the territory; the British government, using the rift between Khama and his uncle as a pretext, threatened to revoke Bechuanaland's status as a Protectorate and declare it a Crown Colony. (The real reason was that in a Protectorate mineral rights belonged to the local people, whereas in a colony they belonged to the colonial power). One of Khama's few British allies was the Labour MP Tony Benn.

The action switches between an austere, drab post-war Britain and a bright sunlit Africa. The recreation of historical detail is well done and both the leading actors, David Oyelowo as Khama and Rosamund Pike as Ruth, are excellent. The film is an interesting look at a historical romance which made the headlines at the time but which today is largely forgotten, at least in Britain. 7/10

Some goofs. We hear a radio broadcast on the eve of Indian independence in 1947 telling us that Indians would go to bed "subjects of the Queen". Britain still had a King, George VI, in 1947. We are told that Queen Victoria made Bechuanaland a Protectorate to protect its people from "racist South Africa", but the Protectorate was created in 1885, twenty-five years before South Africa came into existence as a single nation. (In 1885 it was still a patchwork of British colonies and Boer republics). Prime Minister Attlee claims that the Presidents of South Africa, South-West Africa and the two Rhodesias were all opposed to Khama's marriage to Ruth. During Attlee's term of office (1945-51) none of these territories had a President.

This is an outstanding film about a story I knew nothing about. However, my review is more a review of IMDb and its voting system.

I note that this film has, at the time of writing twenty-two 1 star reviews. Maybe these are genuine but I suspect they are not. For one thing the film has not had many screenings so have as many as twenty-two different people really hated it that much?

Secondly, 1 star films do not get selected for the Toronto Film Festival or for the opening night film for the London Film Festival. The programmers and selectors of these highly regarded festivals are at the top of their game and each year they are offered several thousand films. None of them are going to risk their hard fought reputations on selecting a bad 1-star film.

My feeling is that these 22 people are members of the KKK who hate black people or else they are people who are jealous of the those involved in the production.

Either way IMDb needs to have an algorithm that can deduce whether these people are genuine, or not. Maybe they are and the press reviews so far, which rave about the film, are wrong, but maybe these people are racist bitter bigots who hate the success of others because they themselves are failures and they have nothing better to do in their small sad lives but set up false IMDb accounts and vent their spleen in the only way they can.

Time as they say will tell.