Type in any movie or show to find where you can watch it, or type a person's name.

User Reviews for: Suffragette

Keeper70
/10  8 years ago
Just skimming down the cast list and then seeing the writer you know are going to be entertained in an intelligent and adult way. So Suffragette proved.

Putting to one side the seemingly never ending arguments about the historical accuracy of the way the suffragette movement was portrayed, the light the few male characters were shown in [quite frankly who cares?] and you have an uplifting and entertaining film that doesn’t stray too much into over the top histrionics and heart string tugging. Being a film made for the modern cinema that basically is trying to make its money back, you are going to get some of this mixed into the ingredients but overall I felt I was being treated like an adult.

Carey Mulligan, trying desperately to look worn by years of working, apparently wearing little to no make-up and not washing her hair for days, puts in a believable performance, showing a woman who at first just wants to earn money at her ‘good job’ and being a good mother and wife to her husband and son. Inexorable she is drawn into the radical side of the suffragettes and the film does a good job of showing how a few actions, an inspirational speech here and one small let-down, can turn the mildest of us into an angry reactionary. It was believable as it was heart-rending and troubling on several levels.

Ranged against her is the incomparable Brendan Gleeson, honestly has this man ever given a bad performance? Given a role that could be seen as the traditional ‘black hat’, a man who is the purely the instrument of the government, Gleeson somehow through his acting gives you the feeling that although he will pursue the women and prosecute them to the full extent of the law somewhere deep inside he has great sympathy for them but yet he never says as much. Gleeson is great.

The rest of the ensemble cast is equally impressive. The more I see of Helena Bonham Carter away from Johnny Depp and Tim Burton the more I like the performances she gives. Anne-Marie Duff shows that perhaps she should be considered for bigger roles in films and I’m convinced that someone on the crew must have poked child actor Adam Michael Dodd with a pointy stick as he looked so upset and sad in a few scenes, well perhaps not.

Once again, aside from the social and political history that was correctly or incorrectly displayed the only minus points I could take from the film was the ‘ya-boo’ baddy Norman Taylor played by Geoff Bell. Maybe a little more Alan Sugar and little less Sir Jasper Naughty-Bonce would tone down his character but I do get the point that was got across. The other is it would have been nice to have seen something happen to Maud as the film’s ending scenes seem to suggest she just disappeared into the mists of time, which from the end credits is probably exactly what the makers wanted but certainly neither of these quibbles, and they are just small quibbles, took anything away from the story and film.

My personal take on the film is if it did incorrectly show a movement for feminism and its motives and if it missed important points during that time in history then it is but one film written, directed and primarily acted in by women that has added to the humungous pile of historically inaccurate films made by, staring and for men. Of course whilst also not forgetting the thousands of women who played major parts historic moments and events that have been diminished to a bit part or airbrushed out altogether by mainly male film-makers. So as the male of the species I can shrug this off and say fair enough it’s been due...
Like  -  Dislike  -  30
Please use spoiler tags:[spoiler] text [/spoiler]
John Chard
/10  5 years ago
Deeds, not words.

It's a telling point in history, that of the Suffragettes, the militant women's organisations in the early 20th century who, under the banner "Votes for Women", fought for the right to vote in public elections. So case in point that any filmic treatments are greatly anticipated - and wanted of course, so here we have Sarah Gavron's film that is written by Abi Morgan and starring Carey Mulligan, Helena Bonham Carter, Brendan Gleeson, Anne-Marie Duff, Ben Whishaw and in cameo Meryl Streep.

Right off the bat it should be noted on two crucial points, one is that this is merely a story strand involving a group of Suffragette women, this is not all encompassing, something which is emphasised by the fact that Suffragette leader Emeline Pankhurst is only cameoed here by Streep. Secondly it has to be said that this is a condensed narrative for story telling emotional gain in favour of the Suffragettes, their more serious activities for attention are very much played down. So with that in mind anyone interested in the subject are urged to seek out literary sources for story as facts.

Filthy Panks!

The gripping story here dramatizes events that builds to the death of Emily Davison at the 1913 Derby. We are privy to the harsh realities of the life of women in this era (period detail superb), the employment pay structures, the treatment at the hands of the authorities, and the home lives that could result in losing ones child on account of poverty. It's potent stuff and ensures that we at least understand the need for change and fully support the women in their ultimate goal, the arguments put forward viable and just.

Thankfully the makers are not on a one way mission to portray all men as monsters, there's a nice balance between good and bad. The implications of the women's long road to reckoning is given thought, the social distortion possibility hanging in the air alongside economic murkiness. So although the narrative often gets heavy handed in striving for dramatic impact, the point is well and truly made and begs all to delve further into a cause that ultimately needed winning.

Small in scale as regards the Suffrage Movement as a whole, but important as an historical pointer and acted with professional assuredness by the cast, this achieves its goals regardless of condensement gripes. 7/10
Like  -  Dislike  -  0
Please use spoiler tags:[spoiler] text [/spoiler]
Reno
/10  6 years ago
> A revolution that fought within a nation, within a race, within a family.

Biographical movies are always fascinating. If it is not something worthy, the movie would have not taken up the shape. It was a very good movie, and a very important historical subject. It has been 100 years since and now the world we live-in is much different and better. I think after thousands of years, now the women got their freedom.

I thought I knew this story very well, but it was 'Made in Dagenham' which is quite similar to this which is also based on the real. Both the stories take place 50 years apart, but this one was the beginning of a new era for women, not without sacrifices and sufferings.

Great actors, great actings, awesome storytelling, cinematography at its best, direction was amazing and the music was so pleasant, but the method of dealing was a bit gruesome, and sometimes brutal. I thought the terrorism is a new word, but this movie gives a different perspective and meaning to that.

You would definitely love this film if you respect women. All women cast movie, including the director, but for everyone. It might have begun in the UK, but the entire planet saw a drastic change and still taking place in some places. I don't see any reason why I should not recommend it to you.

8/10
Like  -  Dislike  -  0
Please use spoiler tags:[spoiler] text [/spoiler]
CinemaSerf
/10  2 years ago
This is a good example of what a solid ensemble of strong women actors, coupled with an equally strong story and a creative style of direction (from Sarah Gavron) can do to illustrate really well an historical scenario. Inspired by the sparingly used Meryl Streep as Emmeline Pankhurst, this film depicts the tale of a group of women who decide that they have had enough of being put upon because of their sex, and who put their liberty on the line with a campaign of civil disobedience. The central character is "Maud" (Carey Mulligan) married to the nice but rather ineffective "Sonny" (Ben Whishaw). When she joins what he sees as the rabble-rousers, he chucks her out of their family home and denies her access to their son. She must now take up lodgings with other, like-minded women and take up the cudgels for their suffrage. It is very wordy, the dialogue is actually intrusive at times. We can see what is happening, and we can use our own emotions to empathise - we don't need quite the running commentary we are provided with here, but that said this is still a potent mix of drama and fact that demonstrates the multitude of factors that influenced the politics of the day. Not least that it wasn't just men who wanted to deny women the vote - there were plenty of women who also felt the activity of these "radicals" was downright un-ladylike trouble-making. The film looks good, the attention to details and the costumes add a richness (and, on occasion, quite an effective stuffiness) to the proceedings, and though I am really not a great fan of POV cinematography, it does lend an intimacy as we get into the thick of things. It's probably worth saying that this film really only deals with the start of the struggle for emancipation - not in a ball and chain sense, but of a rebellion against illiberalism of sex, faith, sexuality that is still ongoing a century after this is set. A touch melodramatic at times, but still the contributions of Anne-Marie Duff and a slightly over-cooked Helena Bonham Carter all serve to present us with an entertaining and plausible drama that is enjoyable and informative to watch.
Like  -  Dislike  -  0
Please use spoiler tags:[spoiler] text [/spoiler]
Back to Top