User reviews

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.

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 is quite an interesting story but the execution of it is pretty slow and plodding. The script suffers from too many unfinished sub-plots and the director seems intent on trying to show the inner demons of Brooke's mind rather than tell a good story. As such, there are elements of Heart of Darkness but it is certainly not A Man Who Would Be King or Apocalypse Now. Indeed, it is a rather confusing and drawn-out affair.

I think it is an interesting piece of history to explore. It is a good effort. However, I get a bit confused by the plot. Characters and their background are not introduced properly at times.

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.

We don't take the script apart or delve into what the director did or didn't do.

Did my wife and I find this film entertaining? Yes Did we enjoy it? Yes That's it, end of!! We vote 7/10.

Writing historical stories should be made accurate, many aspects must be used as guidelines, especially historical studies. Many historical themed films fail to implement this. And Edge of the world is one of them. The depiction of locations that do not match the era. The costumes and equipment were too modern for that time. Bad acting. All of which result in shallow and boring story construction. The only positive thing is the cinematography.

There are few tales of greater derring do than that of The White Rajah of Sarawak. This film sadly does not do it justice. That's not to say it's not a perfectly decent Sunday afternoon watch. There was too much caricature in the portrayals to really engage the viewer and far too much reflective dreaming.

The script was terrible, the directing was horrendous, and yet, somehow, the editing was worse. The scenery looked like they filmed it in the mountains of West Virginia on a budget. This is a story that could have been absolutely fascinating. The real life events and characters are extremely interesting. This movie tried to be an art flick and failed. It tried to be an adventure movie and failed. Many users mentioned the balanced perspectives. It did have that. If the movie is garbage, who cares!? If a college kid shoots a 2 minute movie on his iPhone that has a balanced perspective does anyone care? No! This could have been an interesting movie about a truly unique period in history. It could have delivered its balanced perspective in a useful and impactful way. Well done on the balanced perspective but it was a terrible movie. I felt like I was watching it after drinking a bottle of whiskey. Maybe if I had, I would've understood the meandering plot and nonsensical storyline. Don't waste your time.

Definitely not for viewers with the attention span of the average Tik Tok video. It does move at a slower pace than most mindless Hollywood junk films but it is an interesting adventure film just the same. Don't know and don't care if it's historically correct, it kept me awake and engaged. Meyers always delivers and the cast give the film the emotional depth it deserves. The director and/or the editor seem to have missed a few marks while at times aiming for another "Apocalypse Now". This is a good film that had everything they needed to make a great one but fell a little short. Still a journey worth taking even if not a completely satisfying one.

Possibly the only history in this are the names of people and places, not for anyone who is remotely interested in the real history of Sarawak and the White Rajahs.

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.

The story was nice. The character's played very well. The scenery was beautiful. The sound effects good. Although the story a bit slow but it was manageable as the script writing was good.

Low budget production, paint-by-numbers screenplay, and more than just a whiff of reenactment .

The cast isn't too shabby , but they got nothing to work with .

I'd give an extra star for some of the actors, but the usual fake high ratings need to be fought at all times, so there .

Either way, avoid even when intoxicated .

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.

Feels like watching Lawrence of Arabia with severe budget cuts.

The movie fails to reach any great heights, telling a story about one more nutjob going troppo in the forest!

Or over the edge I guess ... pun aside, this is not an easy movie to watch. And not because it doesn't really take sides on certain matters (good or bad), but gives you a story and a character that you can root for ... or find quite disturbing. But not because of morality per se ... but because of the passion and the thick head he has.

That being said, the acting is really good and the cinematography is superb. That may not be enough to sway you though ... especially because of the pacing of the movie and the mentioned missing moral compass of invaders and native people. There are grey areas - so not a black and white matter. Which makes things complicated ... the reasons for our main character to stay may not be complicated, but also still not enough for you to like this overall.

An intriguing story and really well told ... not excellent but more than decent for sure.

This is one boring movie with the characters all one-dimensional, full of stereotypes. If you think this is the story of James Brooke, think again. Other than the names, almost the entire storyline is fiction.

Sarawakians who had hoped this movie will draw tourists and put Sarawak on the map will be disappointed.

I'm sure the movie will do well in Sarawak but outside Sarawak, I don't think so ....

The Jonathan Rhys Meyer /Dominic Monaghan pair may remind you of Sean Connery and Michael Caine (the "head" is featured in both) in John Huston's masterful "the man who would be king"; this one does not compare favorably with it,but it does not mean it's a dud. The 1975 work was a masterpiece ,this one is an estimable adventure yarn .

The principal is more detailed than in the average adventure movie: he's a failure ,in everything he tries:at school,in the army , and in his sentimental life .When he sets foot on this island ,he 's ready to start all over again :and it's what he does : when he's asked to return to his native England to be knighted , so as to "his" kingdom will become a part of his queen 's empire on which the sun never sets, he soldiers on .

He wanted first to study the wildlife and the customs of the natives (and discovers that the English ones are simply more hypocrit as far as sex is concerned ,doesn't he get a girl pregnant when he was engaged to another one?) ; Elisabeth ,his ex-fiancée is a hateful silly goose,racist , snob ,whereas his new wife is wise, clever and tolerant.

But his earlier failures urge him to take a spectacular revenge on life ; the pictures of the jungle are dazzling and may have been inspired by those of "the lost city of Z" .

The final lines suggest the subject should have been given a miniseries treatment .

My main reason for watching this was Jonathan Rhys Meyers.

It was a decent enough movie although rather slow. The scenery was beautiful. The acting was alright although JRM's introspection and inner dialogue got somewhat tiresome by the end of the movie.

There were some parts that I felt were jarring and inaccurate but these could be historical aspects of that time that I'm unaware of.

Watch if you have nothing else to do or watch.

I love Jungle exploration films. Though this film doesn't quite achieve the power or the realism it tries to portray, it still played out pretty well. I'm not sure what the budget really was, but I assume it was tight, and they had to stretch what they had to work with, especially working in these locations. One problem for me was the filmmaker shied away from the act of violence, but then had no problem showing a decapitated head. I think if you make a story like this the realism would transfer better with full frontal grim visuals.

Inspired by the real life of English adventurer turned ruler Sir James Brooke, Jonathan Rhys Meyers plays the lead as a sort of Errol Flynn meets the Sean Connery character from "The Man Who Would be King" (1975).

The lush cinematography of the Malaysian rain forest is stunning. It really lends to the feeling that they're watching an old-fashioned Hollywood historical adventure movie. Like Mutiny on the Bounty or Gunga Din. There is some gorgeous scenery in the exploration scenes and during the battle scenes.

Jonathan Rhys Meyers is good in the lead role;whatever happened to him? Atiqah Hasiholan is surprisingly compelling as his female costar and love interest. On that note, the movie does deviate from history since the real Brooke was rumored to be homosexual. To its credit, the movie hints at this by including a character based off a suspected male lover of Brooke.

Dominic Monaghan shows up as a more conventionally minded Englishman and Brooke's sidekick. Ralph Ineson (The VVitch, Game of Thrones) shows up as a snooty racist Royal Navy captain. He's good in his brief time but you wish he had more to do.

'Edge of the World' does not shy away from confronting the 'white savior' trap that a lot of similar movies have been accused of. In some scenes where things go wrong for Brooke, one could actually say it turns it on its head.

If there's a nitpick I level at the movie, it feels too short. Like they shot more footage but tried to get the movie under two hours. So there is a reliance on narration in scenes that should speak for themselves.

Otherwise, I have to say that 'Edge of the World' surprised me and I found it to be a lovely throwback to those imperialist-themed adventure epics from classic Hollywood. If a bit more socially conscious than what those films often were.

Please do ignore the negative feedback. Yes,its a must watch.

Seemed like it had great potential but was lacking in so many ways. Meyers was a let down and the character development was none existent. I can't even think what to write here and the credits are still playing, it was so unmemorable. There was as mentioned the potential for it to be a gripping tale but actually it was just Meh, wishy-washy, trying to be poetic, with no depth, no excitement. I'm not sure why I gave it fou stars actually. I personally would not recommend this movie. I continued to watch it as it was raining outside and I had to take my dog out.. I should have gone and got soaking wet, would have been a much more enjoyable alexperience!