wow was this bad (SPOILERS)

So either you cut and paste this from somewhere else (and gave no credit).. or you can't count. I suggest you stop going to movies since you are obviously such an expert and well=learned critic that your actual enjoyment of the movie is completely smothered by your astounding intellect.

That's what I thought at first... but then I realized you are just a troll! ;)

I thought Amazing Grace was a good movie. Perhaps we can agree to disagree.

The only problem that I have with your post is #4. Yes, it does mention that Wilburforce was known for his voice in his younger years. The operative word there is "was". As you saw in the movie, he is sickly throughout, and such a thing will take a toll on your ability to sing, talk, etc. His singing isn't nearly as good as it used to be, but Wilburforce himself still brings about some respect from the others in the parlor being a member of parliament, partially due to some trying to figure out what point he's trying to make by standing up on a chair/table (whatever it was that he did in the movie) and singing.

-----
Looks like you forgot to take your anti-retard pills again.

First off - to comment specifically on your "critique" ....

Laserprinterfeatures, as far as I can tell, you have really only critiqued one aspect of this film, and that would be the "Noblesse Oblige" line. "Noblesse Oblige" is a phrase, by the way, that originated in 19th century French aristocracies and is explained by Toby Jones at the climax of this film for both audience accessibility (it is rated PG, after all), and more importantly, dramatic effect directly in relation to the speaking character, one of the antagonists of the film - and a line that seems to infuriate you to no end simply because of this explanation.

My problem with your critique is simple: to actually "critique" anything, you need to discuss substance, and that involves citing examples and articulating why you feel this way - something that you failed to do beyond "Noblesse Oblige". Oh, and "not good" is not an acceptable form of "why". So, seeing as how you expressed disappointment in how nobody took your incredibly condescending post seriously enough to comment point for point, I'll attempt that now.

#1. "You don't take a reasonably important character and finish their storyline by having another character say, "Oh yeah, I know, he died" - Equiano - awkward, clumsy, stupid storytelling."

I thought the Olaudah Equiano character's arc was perfectly balanced with the rest of the film. I disagree with your assessment that he is a "reasonably important" character in the main plot. His character is important to plot point 1 (Wilburforce's decision to become immersed in the Abolitionist cause) but beyond this, he has no consequential importance to the story. A historical figure, yes, without a doubt, and crucial to the flight of the story, but the action primarily revolves around Wilburforce, Clarkson, and Pitt, and he is not crucial to the flow of the story beyond his first scene, and that, to me and most people I think, makes his closing perfectly acceptable.

#2. "Barbara Spooner was never developed, never had any real purpose in the script."

Again, what is Barbara Spooner's purpose in this film? Is she the protagonist? An antagonist? No, she's a supporting character, written to specifically support Wilberforce, and has little bearing on the forward movement of the story - far less than any other supporting character. What purpose would further development of her character serve? None.

#3. "The blind preacher was barely seen the whole movie, and was just there to clap idiotically at the end for sympathy."

I would have loved to have seen more of Albert Finney's phenomenal performance as John Newton as well, but at the risk of repeating myself, the main story here is of William Wilberforce, not John Newton. John Newton's story supports Wilburforce's struggle (the abolition of the slave trade in Britain), by inspiring and motivating Wilberforce through his own revelation and redemption (see the sympathetic, idiotic clapping). Despite Newton's years of piety and charity, it is ultimately through Wilberforce that he is saved. This is also a fantastic example of the filmmaker "showing" you, and not "telling" you.

#4. "Wilberforce couldn't really sing that well, which wouldn't be a big deal if the movie didn't assume he could. All those people in awe at the bar really would not have been, maybe just for the lyrics' sake, but still he was very metiocre and I felt embarrassed for him, not enthralled. And I wasn't looking for some modern, scale sliding R&B acappella rendition, but it was still not good."

This could just be a matter of taste, but again, you don't cite specifically why you found his singing so mediocre. You seem to like to rail about historical accuracy, and I thought this scene in particular was dead on. Both Wilberforce and Ioan Gruffudd were classically trained choir singers, and while Gruffudd's vox probably couldn't fill the Met, his pitch was proper, timbre was even, tempo and meter were both correct, and he sang it exactly how a choir tenor would sing that arrangement. You say you felt uncomfortable for him, and I think if you put the scene in context, you might feel better. Music, singing especially at small parties was the iPod of the day. Times were different then, people would sing for the entertainment of others .... it was extremely common.

Uggh.... there is more I want to say, but it'll have to wait as I need to reenter the real world.

p.s. On a personal note, I have news for you: "20 something" means you are no longer a "kid" - congratulations.

[deleted]

2. Barbara Spooner was never developed, never had any real purpose in the script.

I guess you weren't paying attention when they showed that she convinced him to restart his campaign to end slavery, which he had given up more than a decade prior.


You must be the change you seek in the world. -- Gandhi

I don't give a damn if it wasn't historically accurate or if it was just another mediocre tear-jerker; I enjoyed it for what it was. If you want a more serious/accurate film, that's fine. However I didn't take this film too seriously (despite the subject of it) and found it to be very entertaining. It's not the best but it is still entertaining for some of us.

OP,who whizzed in YOUR Wheaties?

"They sucked his brains out!"