No Limite do Mundo

Don't believe the low ratings and reviews. This movie touches subjects like colonialism, imperialism and Islam. So of course many people will rage about the movie not being in line with their views or beliefs on the subjects. It's not a movie for peoples that need a "safe space".

I don't have any biases on the subjects and to me it seemed pretty fair. The movie doesn't depict the British Empire as all evil or all good. It doesn't depict the Muslims as good or evil either. It doesn't show the indigenous people in a particular good or bad light either. So I'd say the movie didn't sink into modern politics which is always surprising and refreshing.

As for the movie in general. Actors are great, scenery is great, music is good enough, costumes look good at least for someone not knowing exactly what costumes of the times are supposed to look like.

As for historical accuracy. According to Wikipedia, there doesn't seem to be a lot to go about with this story. The place was quite isolated in a time when info didn't circulate very well. So in this condition making the movie forces the artists to make romanticized relationships, characters and dialogs.

My main complain about this movie would be about the fact the guy's reign lasted around 27 years and this movie is more about how it all began. I felt it would have made a great TV show or mini series. So it's a bit sad that it felt like watching the first episodes of an unfinished show.

Also they tried to be a bit pretentious about the main characters thoughts. Thoughts they probably had no way to know anything about. So I wouldn't have made the choice to go with made up thoughts no one can relate to or care about. Yet it did provide some context of the time period.

To sum it up. This movie is quite ok, pleasant to watch and certainly no where near as bad as people are saying in the reviews.

Seems like whoever directed this movie had somewhere else to be with its fast pacing and discombobulated scene to scene organization...even at just a few minutes shy of 2 hours, it is still felt so rushed and inadequately put together.

Why do Hollywood-style films always follow the same corrupting boiler-plate model? Here was a chance to really examine an interesting anomaly of British Colonial history in the Far East. Brook's character was certainly more interesting than the portrayal Mr. Meyers summoned with occasional Shakespearean oration. The supporting cast were forced to play along, it seemed, with his inability to convey complexity. The insertion of romantic elements didn't help. It appears we are in an age where having little respect for the value of history as it has been documented is just fine.

This film is not a remake of Michael Powell's 1937 masterpiece about life on a Scottish island. This "Edge of the World" is an adventure drama about the British soldier and adventurer James Brooke (1803-1868) who helped the Sultan of Brunei put down a local rebellion and was rewarded by being made Rajah of Sarawak. (Brooke's adventures may have inspired Rudyard Kipling's story "The Man Who Would Be King"). Brooke's rule was notable for his campaigns against slavery and piracy, and he and his successors ruled Sarawak for a century until it became a British Colony in the aftermath of World War II. This was the first film to be made of his life, although one, provisionally entitled "The White Rajah" and intended to star Errol Flynn, was projected in the 1930s. In the event, however, it was never made.

The film makes some changes to Brooke's story; for example, his nephew and ultimate successor as Rajah, Charles, accompanies him on his journeys and is portrayed as a junior naval officer and a young man in his twenties. In fact, at the time of the events portrayed here Charles would still have been a schoolboy aged eleven or twelve; he did not travel to Borneo until ten years later. Brooke's former fiancée Elizabeth Crookshank, whom he meets again in Borneo, appears to be an invented character.

Brooke's adventures contain enough material for a very good film, but this is not really it. My objections are not political; those who criticise the film for its alleged "white saviour narrative" overlook the fact that it is based upon historical fact and that Brooke really did rise to power in the way shown here. The part of Brooke, however, really demands a swashbuckling hero like Flynn or (given that we don't really do swashbuckling in the twenty-first century) at least someone more dynamic than Jonathan Rhys Meyers. His interpretation of the role struck me as too introspective and angst-ridden, not the sort of person one could ever imagine seizing a kingdom for himself. This is not a bad film, and can make for enjoyable watching by anyone who likes historical adventures, but it does not really grab your attention. 6/10.

The premise could have lent itself to an incredible movie, but it fell very short. Acting, locations, photography were all excellent but the story was slow and plodding and never really goes anywhere. Could have been so much more.