The Devil's Double

I'm a big fan of Dominic Cooper, but he's not enough to save this truly bizarre and puerile film.

The film starts off with Uday hiring a doppleganger of himself (Latif), to pass off as him publicly. Latif, hasn't really a choice, and is portrayed as having some morals, Uday is portrayed as a millionaire playboy, who is a murdering brute who gets off on violence, sodomy and rape. His only redeeming quality is his penchant for 80s British synth pop (?).

The film becomes increasingly outlandish. If it were a true story, then this could have been quite fascinating. I learnt nothing, and by the end had tuned out. It reminded me of the last king of Scotland, which I didn't enjoy either.

I thought it were unnecessary for Cooper to play both the leads. It felt unbelievable as both characters appeared unrealistically identical.

I knew nothing of the back story of Uday, a quick glance at Wikipedia describes him as quite the devil. That much the film gets right. There's some artistic license used at the end of the movie.

Saddam Hussein was not the only one in his family with a body double; his son, Uday Hussein had one as well. This is the story behind that double, and his name is Latif Yahia. This is definitely not a film to miss when it is released. Lee Tamahori is a skilled director who has his flaws when it comes to his films, but overall he has a very good record behind him (Next, Die Another Day, Along Came A Spider). The acting in this film is good (especially Dominic Cooper), the deliverance is spectacular, and the overall tone and feel for the characters and setting is very realistic. With great effects, cinematography, and writing, this film is, hands-down, one of the best Indie films ever created. I'd see this in theaters twice, given the chance to. I'm sure Latif Yahia will be satisfied with this Indie masterpiece

8.5/10 Stars****

Saw this movie today at Berlinale and was pleasantly surprised that as I walked out of it thought to myself that it's been a really long time since I saw a decent movie like this. Before I looked Uday/Latif up on the internet I had doubts about how close the plot was to reality, turned out to be quite interesting showing that, well everything in the movie has (kind of) happened. Makes it disturbing to know on a different level.

The depiction of Uday's psychotic character throughout the movie seems very real and does not spare or cheat the viewers any disturbing torture/abuse scenes. Some people might dislike this, some maybe even enjoy it.

That being said I liked the overall acting, both main and lesser characters did a good job. And on a side note: i found the movie sets and props were quite awesome.

btw: I can still remember the news of Uday's and Qusai's deaths back in 2003, but that meant little to me at that time. At least now i know.

Great deal of this movie is not true. Yet, this movie tells about 1/100th of the truth about the tyrant of Baghdad and his family in the 1990's. The other 99 parts are still under oblivion, thanks the the author and to the current chaotic regime of Baghdad. The movie is fine because even that 1% counts to understand what was really going on for the people in Iraq at that time.

But there is a serious drawback when someone watches this movie knowing that at the time of movie release in 2011, the main character and the author, Latif Yahia, was (and still is) glorifying the tyrant and calling on people to re-establish his era in Iraq. He actually has a YouTube channel filled with his political opinions and his shameless strange sympathy to the tyrant!! So whatever the author's claims about his political views, or about his own opinions of not having political views; he was not opposing the tyrant, and still not; he was one of the tyrant's followers and still is.

Now watching the movie knowing that the writer and main character stands there, it will make the audience uncomfortable and cautious to accept what's being told in this movie without questioning.

Aside from that, directing was weak in general, and the story is not as the original Arabic book (I Was A Son For The President), but a revised version of the English edition which was a revised version of the Arabic edition!

For example in the Arabic edition the main character was claimed to be a ranked army officer, in the movie he was just a soldier. In the original story it was claimed that the tyrant saw and examined his son's double for a few times, in the movie that wasn't happening. Now if this was a history book/movie then.. voila! There is a good definition for the person who says what he doesn't think and thinks what he doesn't say, and changes his saying/thoughts 3 times in a day...

At no point does this feel as though it brings any truth to the history of Uday Hussein or Latif Yahai. Which makes me ask 'why make a film based on real events and then just soften it all up for an audience'??

The actual truth and reality behind the film is washes aside for repetitive Hollywood storytelling which ends up making NO SENSE in several parts and is a true waste of time.

This film was recommended to me several years ago, now I have a week off work I decided to watch it. Since it finished I now longer have said friend on Facebook. You're deleted for your terrible taste you turd.