The movie really just wants to entertain people.

It is a whirlwind of delight --- attractive actors, stunning couture, spectacular sets and outrageous parties.

There is, somehow, an interesting story here, as well as some good acting. There are also some good scenes

.Like the great film, it's made with a great deal of visible affection both in front of and behind the camera.

The opening of "Amazing Grace," has a written statement that sets the stage for the movie. It reads, "By the late 18th century, over 11 million African men, women and children had been taken from Africa to be used as slaves in the West Indies and the American colonies. Great Britain was the mightiest super-power on earth and its empire was built on the backs of slaves. The slave trade was considered acceptable by all but a few. Of those, even fewer were brave enough to speak against it."The film is part biopic, part historical drama, and part fiction. It is an excellent story about slavery, and the efforts in 18th century England to stop the trafficking and sale of human beings. The focus is on one man who led a small group of dedicated people in the fight to end the slave trade. William Wilberforce, played by Ioan Gruffudd, was a man of many accomplishments in England. This film tells the story of his 26-year effort to abolish the slave trade. And, his inspiration for ending slavery completely within the British Empire by the time of his death in 1833. Gruffudd is just one of a large cast, all of whom deliver outstanding performances in their roles. Benedict Cumberbatch plays an excellent William Pitt (the Younger). Albert Finney is excellent as John Newton. He is a former slave-trader, now reformed, and writer of the song, "Amazing Grace." Michael Gambon is excellent as Lord Charles Fox (who was not a Lord in real life). Rufus Sewell as Thomas Clarkson, Ramola Garai as Barbara Spooner, and Youssou N'Dour as Olaudah Equiano all excelled in their roles. The rest of the supporting cast, down to Richard the butler, played by Jeremy Swift, were excellent. Two key fictional characters also were played quite well. Ciarán Hinds excelled as Lord Tarleton, a leader of those who opposed the abolition of the slave trade. He is another character of peerage who would not have served in the House of Commons, but the House of Lords. And, Toby Jones was very good as the fictitious character, the Duke of Clarence, who supposedly was the young son of the king. While not a character in this film, the king would have been King George III. He reigned almost the entire lifespan of Wilberforce – from 1760 (age 12) to 1820. The last 11 years of his life, he suffered a mental illness that earned him the title "Mad King George." This was, however, after the ending of the slave trade in 1807. The film overall does fair justice to the principal characters involved in the battles to end the slave trade and eventually slavery. The role of Lord Fox was highly fictionalized. He was ahead of Wilberforce in calling for an end to the slave trade – as was William Pitt the Younger. While many of the situations in the film are true, the actual details and facts are altered. I think the life of Olaudah Equiano would make for an interesting movie itself. Most of the details given in the film were factual. But the film doesn't mention his many accomplishments and travels as an explorer and merchant. He also went under the name of Gustavus Vassa, and later married an English woman. The couple had two daughters. He was 52 yeas old at his death. A scene in the movie has Wilberforce visiting his grave site, but in reality, the exact location of his burial is unknown. Movie buffs may be interested to know that the U.S. abolished the slave trade within months of the action by England. But, just as in England, slavery continued. England was much faster in ending slavery outright. That was in 1833, shortly after Wilberforce's death. It took the U.S. until December 6, 1865 to end slavery entirely. That was the date the states ratified the 13th amendment to the Constitution. On Feb. 1 of that year, Pres. Abraham Lincoln approved a joint resolution of Congress that provided for the constitutional amendment. Other viewers have referred to the film, "Amistad." It is an excellent companion film to "Amazing Grace." These are important stories about the horrors of slavery. And, they are good accounts of some early heroes in the cause to end this horrible abuse of human beings.Albert Finney's John Newton in this film gives an impassioned reply and charge to Wilberforce when he asks Newton for help. I think it's a nice description of the film's plot. "I can't help you. But do it, Wilber! Do it! Take them on! Blow their dirty, filthy ships out of the water. The planters, sugar barons, Alderman Sugar Cane, the Lord Mayor of London. … Liverpool, Boston, Bristol, New York – all their streets running with blood, dysentery, puke! You won't come away from these streets clean, Wilber. You'll get filthy with it, you'll dream it, see it in broad daylight. But do it … for God's sake." This is an excellent film all around.

The script seemed to have been abandoned in a half-finished state, after perhaps its second draft, and could have done with at least another 10 revisions, and very substantial tightening. The director appeared to have lost his grip on the project, as though he feared running out of funds at any moment. The result falls embarrassingly short of doing justice to a subject much too big and intricate for this confusing, haphazard treatment.One of the other reviews tells me the narrative covered a 35 year period. None of the characters aged in any visible way. Dishy Miss Spooner was in the bloom of glowing youth throughout. And what did she have to do with anti-slavery? There was virtually nothing to say what year any incident was taking place. At one point the message "Two Years Later" came up on the screen. Two years later than when ? Besides which, several other events, e.g. the death of Pitt, must have been two years later than two years before. I didn't even know he'd been ill. At another point a group was meaninglessly told that a certain phrase was in Latin, but even when thoughtfully translated for the modern movie audience, I still didn't know what it was about. Very clumsy.Newton's hymn was spliced into this chopped-up presentation of Wilberforce and his friends at irregular intervals. The only reason seemed to be to justify the film's title. The tune wasn't used until 1835, after both men had died. The real Wilberforce is said to have had a fine singing voice, but the same could not honestly be said of Gruffudd. Wilberforce, sometimes called William and sometimes what sounded like Wilbur, is also said, according to Wikipedia, to have been a sickly, delicate child, who transformed himself from a shrimp into a whale when making speeches. Not true, either way, of Gruffudd.The sets, clothes, hats and hairstyles were very striking. The permanent height of fashion, no doubt; but were some of those wigs really that fluffy and ill-fitting? Make-up varied. Sometimes William had dark shadows under his eyes, and his face was lined with care (and laudanum?), at other times he was white as chalk.Perhaps the most disappointing aspect was that the whole show was tweaked so as to pander to the American market, which is seriously deluded about its own history concerning slavery and its ludicrously hypocritical Dec of Ind. In recent years one or two books have come out which plainly demonstrate that the true underlying purpose of the American Revolution was to preserve slavery, and expedite slaughter of the native peoples. Jefferson changed the original draft document from "All men are born free" to "All men are born equal", since asserting the freedom of "all men" would be too unpopular in America. "Equality" was meant to target the British alleged hereditary dynasties. It sounded better to the Americans, and was repeatedly used in the film. In truth, of course, men are neither born free nor born equal --- they have to work and fight for their freedom; and each man is different from every other. No human being is less free than a newborn infant, imprisoned by the circumstances into which it is born, and over which it has no control at all.An honest biographical film of the true, turbulent, amazing, early life of John Newton would be infinitely more interesting and exciting, and would convey the anti-slavery message far more effectively. Why are you waiting, film-makers? A film with this subject would be a smash hit --- if properly managed.

Amazing Grace is the story of British abolitionist William Wilberforce and his struggle to end slavery in Great Brittan. The film follows him through his struggles and joys as he fights what appears a first to be a losing battle, but in the end, wins.The Good: The overall message of the film is about fighting for something bigger and more important than ourselves. At the beginning of the film, Wilberforce is striving to be a politician, but his friends are all trying to get him to take on the issue of slavery. After becoming a Christian, Wilberforce does tackle the issue, and continues to fight for the abolition of slavery year after year, through defeat after defeat. The film is an excellent example of persevering through seeming overwhelming odds to, in the end, achieve a noble victory.Also, I think it is worth noting that technically speaking, this film was excellent. The amount of detail taken in choosing and decorating the sets was incredible! While BBC didn't (to my knowledge) have anything to do with this film, I came away with the same sort of feeling I get after watching one of their more recent films - "Wow, why haven't we independent Christian filmmakers done so well?" The Bad: There wasn't a whole lot in the film that was offensive. John Newton was not portrayed very accurately (though besides that, the film was surprisingly historically accurate), and there where several instances of language, and a few scenes which included a low cut dress or two, but that was about all.There are however, some scenes which would only be appropriate for mature audiences. The evils of the slave trade are discussed several times, and the characters use some rather vivid descriptions, which, while not inappropriate, are probably not suitable for young ears.Conclusion: I enjoyed this film, and would probably recommend it to mature audiences who where aware of the few problems this film contains. It is an excellent example of perseverance.

Looks like, according to others, that this film was made in the old Hollywood tradition of never letting the facts stand in the way of a good story. No matter, it captures the atmosphere of the struggle in spirit and if it spurs one to use Google to learn the details properly so much the better.The film fails to explain a few details, such as why his proposal was passed nearly unanimously in 1807, nearly passed 20 years earlier - but nothing much in between. Answer - war, or the immediate threat of war, with French resulting in the Battle of Trafalgar in October 1805. The film did explain that any British withdrawal from the trade would just allow the French and others to fill the resulting vacuum. No gain there but after the French and Spanish fleets were destroyed n 1805 there was no chance of any vacuum being created. The potential costs of banning the trade dropped sharply.Again, the film was a bit vague about distinguishing between abolishing the trans-Atlantic trade in slaves and abolishing slavery itself in the West Indies. That took another generation and another revolution - the railways - to enable that.The struggle for Parliamentary Reform had been going on just as long. It had been opposed as being a risk too far - look at what happened during the French Revolution. However in 1830 a railway between Manchester and Liverpool was opened. A few months later a riot broke out near the line in Liverpool. Word was passed to an army barracks, also near the line, on the outskirts of Manchester. A train was commandeered, filled with troops and sent rapidly on its way to Liverpool. The troops delivered, riot cleared - all within 2 hours!!! A year earlier it would have taken 2 days!!! With the balance of power shifting so sharply in favour of the forces of order resistance to Parliamentary Reform weakened so much that it was finally achieved by 1832 - and the new Parliament finally voted for the abolition of slavery itself in 1833 (although it took a few years to be fully rolled out). Cause and effect.(Trivia: The Duke of Clarence depicted in the film had his mistress housed in the same road that Boris Karloff was born. Is that why so many cinematic liberties were taken with his character?)