I like the storyline of this show,it attract me so much

This is a gorgeous movie made by a gorgeous spirit.

Actress is magnificent and exudes a hypnotic screen presence in this affecting drama.

The film never slows down or bores, plunging from one harrowing sequence to the next.

Amazing Grace (2006): Dir: Michael Apted / Cast: Ioan Gruffudd, Rufus Sewell, Albert Finney, Michael Gambon, Benedict Cumberbatch: Overwhelming and beautiful portrayal of God's grace upon those burdened with difficulties. In this case the subject at hand is slavery and the struggle for one political individual with a conscience to break the slave trade. Set in the 1800's Ioan Gruffudd heads the fight against slave trade but discovers quickly that the battle isn't an easy one although he has his supporters as well as his oppressors. Director Michael Apted is backed by tremendous production and costume design that convincingly portray the time period. Apted is the appropriate director for this project having made Coal Miner's Daughter and Gorillas in the Mist. This ranks as one of his greatest achievements backed with a production that backs the periods. Gruffudd does an outstanding job as one man attempting to influence many against hardship. In supporting roles are Rufus Sewell as a clergymen who approaching Gruffudd regarding the issue. Plus strong veteran performances by Albert Finney and Michael Gambon whom also sense that this issue will be a dire journey to complete as well. Tremendous production highlights the appeal and underscores the core message, which regards freedom and the ability to sense God's grace at hand. Score: 10 / 10

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.

There is no doubt that the Brits love a good period drama, either on a big or small screen. There seems to be a regular flow of costume dramas that enthrall audiences while they're on but fade from memory the second the next one comes along. So if you're a fan of Jane Austin or are waiting for your latest fix of Charlotte Bronte to come along, might I suggest that you turn your attention to this curiously over-looked film which not only has all the attention to detail you'd expect from such a production but also benefits from being a true story instead of the bodice-ripper you may be used to.Mr Fantastic himself Ioan Gruffudd plays William Wilberforce, a young and committed Christian MP in the early days of the 19th century. Striving to end the slave trade on which the British Empire reaped such rewards at the time, Wilberforce finds little sympathy in Parliament for his ideas but he is not without some allies. His good friend William Pitt (Benedict Cumberbatch) must balance support for Wilberforce against his ambitions to be Prime Minister while like-minded preacher Thomas Clarkson (Rufus Sewell) and his colleague, former slave Olaudah Equiano (singer Youssou N'Dour) find their reputations being tarnished as the country moves closer to war with France. But as the strain begins to show and his health begins to fade, what will it take to change a nation without risking it all? I'm not hugely familiar with the story of Wilberforce although I was aware that this film marked the 200th anniversary of these events. What I am aware of is that this is a fine example (another fine example) is the British coming up trumps with this type of film. It looks the absolute business and the film is certainly to be commended on that. Acting is also very good - Gruffudd is superb as Wilberforce and Cumberbatch is equally impressive alongside a stellar cast. However, I did feel that the dialogue felt a little clunky at times as though they were frightened of sounding authentic. I understand that the director, veteran Michael Apted, wanted the film to be accessible but it just felt a bit history-lite. I have also since learnt that the film contains numerous historical inaccuracies but seeing as Hollywood plays fast and loose with the truth on a regular basis, I wouldn't hold that against this film.While not what you would call entertaining, "Amazing Grace" offers plenty of inspiration and provides an uplifting message about never giving up on your beliefs. I am all for portraying stories like this in a way that reaches as many people as possible and while I confess that the film did not initially grab my interest, it quickly became apparent that this film is more than just a puffed-up luvvie exercise. The sad thing, for me, is that while the slave trade was eventually abolished, slavery itself is very much alive and kicking - I wonder how many of you are sat there in your Nike trainers or drinking coffee that isn't Fairtrade. "Amzing Grace" is a film about Wilberforce's life but the story of Wilberforce's work has not quite finished yet.

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?)