BoardChiri Bad Acting and worse Bad Screenplay

Quiet Muffin This movie tries so hard to be funny, yet it falls flat every time. Just another example of recycled ideas repackaged with women in an attempt to appeal to a certain audience.

Nicole I enjoyed watching this film and would recommend other to give it a try , (as I am) but this movie, although enjoyable to watch due to the better than average acting fails to add anything new to its storyline that is all too familiar to these types of movies.

Phillipa Strong acting helps the film overcome an uncertain premise and create characters that hold our attention absolutely.

beorhhouse There have been made quite a number of films about the Atlantic slave trade, but this is the best of the best of them. Others like the newer Birth of a Nation, Armitage, 12 Years a Slave, The Free State of Jones, and The Retrieval cut a close second, however. This film really shows the hypocrisy of the so-called Christians of the late 18th century and early into the Regency period of the 19th century. There are even so-called Christians in this film who believe it is right to be part of bloody revolt in order to overthrow, making them no more actual followers of Christ than the American rebels who rose up against their British king and his patriots or the alleged Christians of who beheaded the royalty of their country in favor of a far worse despot in the form of Napoleon. But the Christianity of Parliament member William Wilberforce shines as the most christlike, and ultimately as the most effective force that ended the British slave trade. His opponents were right. The French would take over, and the American South, fawning after all things French, soon followed suite--though never nearly as brutal as the French slaveholders simply because they sought to save the lives of their slaves, being expensive property, while the French routinely killed theirs for the slightest infraction of a rule--then simply bought a replacement.

VaneWimsey How can you not root for William Wilberforce? He's against slavery! He's kind to animals! He loves his hot girlfriend! So the narrative does manage to carry you along. You might even shed a tear or two.For me, though, it was an uphill battle. The timeline jumps around wildly. At one point, it's explicitly said to be 1797, but after that, I could never keep it straight; some scenes seem to be flashbacks, but don't quote me. Also, characters aren't introduced properly.I'm not an evangelical Christian (in fact, I'm Jewish), but the film doesn't do justice to this aspect of Wilberforce's character. It was central to his life and to his abolitionist mission, but the movie reduces it to a sort of animist blithering about the beauties of nature.And it's full of historical howlers. A royal duke (the Duke of Cumberland) sitting in the House of Commons? "Lord" Charles Fox?!? It's a shame that the screen writing was so sloppy, because the costuming and set decoration are meticulously well-researched. The acting is also quite good. Weak though the script is, the cast manages to bring it to some semblance of life. I don't quite understand, however, why they took the trouble of casting an actor to play Pitt who looks uncannily like him, while the actors who play the other characters (including Wilberforce and Fox) look nothing like the originals at all.

SnoopyStyle It's 1797 England. William Wilberforce (Ioan Gruffudd) struggles to end the slave trade in British. From pushing to end the American war to abolition, Wilberforce is constantly opposed by powerful interests. He is comforted by the lovely Barbara Spooner (Romola Garai), and former slaver John Newton (Albert Finney) who would write "Amazing Grace". He must confront indifference, fear of lost of jobs, war fears, and finally moneyed interests.The political intrigue could have stifled this movie, but instead it adds layers of fascination. The great actors involved has probably something to do with it. It's one of the first movie I saw Benedict Cumberbatch in. Then there are the great Michael Gambon, Rufus Sewell, Ciarán Hinds, Toby Jones, and many others. It is a fascinating piece of history that usually doesn't get made into movies. The fact that it's done so well is a great triumph in itself.

ironhorse_iv Directed by Michael Apted, Amazing Grace is about the campaign against slave trade in the British Empire, led by William Wilberforce (Ioan Gruffudd), who was responsible for steering anti-slave trade legislation through the British parliament in 18th century England. Wilberforce fruitlessly fights both public indifference and moneyed opposition determined to keep their exploitation safe. Nevertheless, Wilberforce finds the inspiration in newfound love Barbara Spooner (Romola Garai) to rejuvenate the fight with new ideas that would lead to a great victory for social justice. It was so touching, he's so determined. The title is a reference to the hymn "Amazing Grace" by John Newton (Albert Finney), William Wilberforce's friend who was inspired to write the song after his own experience with slavery. The song became a major influence on Wilberforce and the abolition movement. The movie was pretty good. I have to say, Ioan Gruffudd was great for the role. His acting and singing voice was stellar, I was so impressed. I have to say the ing cast was astonishing. I am a huge fan of Benedict Cumberbatch's work, and love him as William Wilberforce's friend William Pitt the Younger. Other great cast are Michael Gambon as Charles James Fox, Rufus Sewell as Thomas Clarkson, and Toby Jones as William, Duke of Clarence. For a Christian theme movie, it's not so bad. It doesn't preach too much, and allow the story to unfold. It's full of witty script, full of information worthy of a movie. It's a good movie worthy to be show in history classes, and anybody willing to know how slavery came to an end. Still, the movie comes with a few problems. There are some historical inaccuracies, such as example, in one scene Wilberforce, known as a fine singer, sings the first verse of "Amazing Grace". However, the verses written by John Newton were not associated with the now familiar melody until much later. The singing scenes are full of audio/visual unsynchronized that the film was delay for release due to boom problems and scenes not matching with the sound. Anachronisms are also in the film way too much. The worst one in my opinion is the bottle of Dom Perignon champagne. Why is there a bottle of Dom Perignon in the 18th century? That didn't come until the early 20th century. I didn't like the love story being add to the film, it took so much away from the main story of ending slavery. The editing get a little bit confusing. Jump back and forth from different periods of history of William Wilberforce's film. It easy to get lost where and when in history. I do have something else to say, during that year, 2006 when it was released, there were two movies that came out during the same time. One is this movie, while the other is call 'The Amazing Grace' an Nigerian-British historical drama film written by Jeta Amata & Nick Moran. That movie is about tells the reformation story of British slave trader John Newton (Nick Moran), sailing to what is now Nigeria to buy slaves but, increasingly shocked by the brutality of slavery, later gave up the trade and became an Anglican priest. While it's not well known, I don't want people to get confused and get the wrong movie. That movie by Nick Moran is good, but mediocre compare to this film. Overall: a good movie that is brilliant and important to history because it represented how much mankind need to know that slavery is wrong. Very inspirational film, so check it out.