This is supposedly an epic story about a King Naresuan during his childhood era, which supposedly, in his later years protected the invading Burmese from conquering Thailand, by driving them out.<br /><br />Basically it is actually a heresy to say the movie is not good for Thai audiences and hence, in my opinion it is overrated. However, this is on of the best of 3 part series of the movie. The best in my opinion is Part 3 (climax), followed by Part 1, and Part 2. Much of the complaints came to part 2, which doesn't exist historically and many audiences were left complaining about the main actors' escapades with women, which actually was in conflict historically as he had little time for that. This fact is actually generally well known by the watching audience, so basically the director just stepped on a very sensitive big toe of the audiences. Something that a director should not do since they are the ones who come to enjoy the movie.<br /><br />The problem about this movie, which is actually Part 1 is that the movie, cinematic version has been adapted for the movie has actually changed so much of the story historically (known by a majority of the audiences) and in very successful dramatic stage plays that actually had gained a wide television audience acceptance in Thailand (another big blunder). The most common complaints I received from viewers is that, if only the cinematic movie had been more faithful to the original dramatic stage plays or most of the television version of this movie, but with better cinematography, it would gained a strong following, at least internationally. Cinematography, is o.k., in general, but I do received complaints from viewing the initial hour of the movie to be a bit too dark on the lighting. This movie is basically similar to George Lucas, Star Wars Episode I, in which actors, and actress are cardboard character, language are somewhat unnatural, but in addition is the problem of poor editing, long sequences of movies at points where it doesn't seem to contribute to the overall story.<br /><br />Basically a good movie, at least for the Thai audiences anyway, is that it is historically accurate at least to what the audiences are generally aware of(it would be insulting to actually say something contradictory), or faithful to the original successful dramatic plays (much like Mr. Bean's Holiday, that used the same original movie that made Mr. Bean so successful), or another that departed so much from the formula of success was the Godzilla movie, done by the Emmerich.<br /><br />The key of the movie's success, that could have improved is the addition of dramatic elements, the toning down of unneeded parts of the story, and I am sure about more than half of the movie can be edited out, and at least dramatic elements be added, at least initially in the start of the movie and getting the audiences attention, is something that needs a lot of improvement.<br /><br />Back to basic emphasis is needed in the movie, which is the basic theme of the movie, or the message, is missing, which I think should be how Naresuan achieved his greatness, and his ability of cunningness, would at least be helpful. Most thematic elements here are actually missing, a more successful movie, while there is little truth, was The Curse of The Golden Flower. While that movie had little relevance historically, its major thematic elements were that the King tried to poison his wife. While many plot elements, especially during the fight scenes in elaborate traps, were bad and contrived, the actors and the intensity of the actors, actress were excellent. I think that thematic elements is sorely needed in this movie.<br /><br />Most of this movie lacked the stress, intensity in the actors and actresses needed to move the audiences. One of the most important elements of the story besides Aristotle's claim that plots are more important character is not really true, at least for today's movie. While we do claim plots in many movie reviews to be important, it is that most important elements should be the Theme of the movie, and the Premise of the movie that the plots should support.<br /><br />If the Premise of the movie is a historical one, at least the major historical elements should get the audiences to agree and enjoy the movie more so than audiences going into defensive, and just watching the plot goes from one part to another part of the movie. Otherwise you get busy body in the movie, much like Next 2007, without a message, and the believability elements, which is the primal force of Premise, is lacking, but has a strong weight in all of Kubrick's movie, especially Clockwork Orange and Dr. Strangelove.<br /><br />If any directors want to have a good movie despite his bad editing, Kubrick's movie was a bit long, not well edited in many scenes, he still won the day because his premise for the story was strong and plot elements were there to prove his premise, which buildup to a strong message or a theme of the overall masterpiece, which we can sum up in few words, such as in Dr. Strangelove, that an accidental holocaust can happen. What about the possibility of the movie Naresuan? A good premise, where many plots element are supportive is the argument that one person, can indeed make a difference. Length of the movie is not of the essence. How many would complain Godfather is ever long a movie, which is about 175 minutes, but feels more like 30 minutes. If I had no intelligence in making any movie, there is one factor I will look that I know the movie will make it big: if people will not take their eyes off the screen for the entire movie, I have got a hit.