Recently in Biographical Category

Directed by Oliver Stone. Drama. Biography. Starring: Josh Brolin, Elizabeth Banks, James Cromwell, Jeffrey Wright, Ellen Burstyn, Richard Dreyfuss, Thandie Newton. Drama/Historical

SYNOPSIS: A BIOPIC DRAMA OF THE 43RD PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, GEORGE W. BUSH, FOCUSING ON THE TIME BETWEEN HIS COLLEGE YEARS AND THE 2ND TERM OF HIS PRESIDENCY.

O.k. Take a breath. Let it out slowly. O.k. Well, here's the deal: a cutting edge director whose talent is prodigious but whose political/historical views are, to say the least, controversial in Oliver Stone (JFK, Nixon, Platoon) An ensemble cast filled with extremely talented actors. This could be something special, couldn't it?

Well, yeah, it could be...but I don't think it is.

So, am I saying its a bad film. Nope, not at all, quite the contrary, its a good film. I just don't think it's special, in the way that more than 1 Stone film has been in the past. Why do I feel this way? Well, my initial response to that question is, as opposed to some Stone films in the past that have tackled very controversial and mulit-layered historical topics, W was not made with the confortable cushion of some significant period of time between the event and the film. Platoon, Nixon, and JFK were all made with at least one decade or two of history and analysis after the monumental events at the heart of the movie.

In other words, rightly or wrongly, we pretty much knew, or thought we knew, how everything turned out with those historical events.W was made as some major things were still happening.

I know what you're thinking. 'You've missed the meaning of the film, you idiot!' JFK was not really about "JFK", and Nixon was not really about "Nixon" , they were really about the events which are most remembered about these two hugely influential and important presidents (the assassination and Watergate)! W is really about George W. Bush! Man, you're so dumb!'

O.k., I get that. (Not agreeing with the "dumb" part, but can't completely dispute it either, much as I would like to) But, still, I don't think this film hits the level of real epic cinema like, in my opinion, the other three Stone films I mentioned do. Why? Well, I already said what I think is the reason, because all the other elements of a wonderful film are there. Visually, its excellent, just as you would expect, it has those Stone trademarks that those of us who love the work of this director would expect, e.g. cutaways to the character in another setting while the character's dialogue continues

The cast is wonderful. No other way to say it. Josh Brolin (Milk, Planet Terror) is absolutely stunning as George W. Bush. To me, the highest compliment you can give an actor playing a well known celebrity, historical, or contemporary figure is to say that, while you were watching the flick, you would at times forget you were watching an actor playing the figure and though of it as the figure himself(or herself as it may be). I did that a few times when watching Brolin.

Now, I understand that many of you might have a strong visceral reaction, one way or another, to George W. Bush and your view of any actor pretending to be him might be set no matter what.

I get that, too.

In singing Brolin's praises, I'm attempting to leave my personal opinions about Mr. Bush and his presidency out of it. Also understand that this role as set up in the film was not easy to pull off, significant portions of the President's entire adult life are dealt with, events that occurred in his early 20's until his late 50's. Brolin plays the part in all of these scenarios and pulls it off well.

Not that he is alone in giving a great performance, his just stands out. Elizabeth Banks (The 40 Year Old Virgin) does very well as Laura Bush. Jeffrey Wright (Shaft, The Manchurian Candidate) is notable as Colin Powell, Thandie Newton (Crash ) is good, if slightly irritating, as Condeleeza Rice, Richard Dreyfus (Stand By Me, The Day Reagan Was Shot) is dead on as Dick Cheney. Also very good, but underutilized in my opinion, were Ellen Burstyn (The Exorcist) as Barbara Bush and James Cromwell (The General's Daughter, Salem's Lot) as George H.W. Bush.

There are some very telling implications in Stone's film, some of which have been talked about but not publicly verified, e.g. George W. Bush's arrests as a young man and his womanizing pre-Laura. But, I must say, those of you who go into this expecting the film to deal in depth with some of the more controversial and significant aspects of the Bush 43 presidency, such as the 2000 election or "mission accomplished", are going to be disappointed. This film is about the man, or more specificly, about perception of some of the man during the time he occupied the White House.

In my opinion, Stone is simply one of the most talented filmmakers we've ever seen and, fairly or not, when I see one of his films, the bar is set pretty high. I expect more from him. Did W deliver?

In my opinion, it barely did, and would not be one of Stone's best, but that is, again, largely because of the timing of the movie, we do not have the prism of decades of history to look at the film through, which keeps it from being the epic it was intended to be. On the other hand, the film is so well acted, who knows what we'll think of it in 5 years, 10 years?

That's just what I think. I know I say this a lot, but this time I can't emphasize enough: I'd love to know what you thought. 

Directed by Damien Chapa. Starring: Damien Chapa, Brienne De Beau, Silvia Suvadova, Tom Bruilhet.Drama/Historical/Biographical. Synopsis: A biopiv of the life of famed Director Roman Polanski focusing on the period(s) of his life when he was child and saw the brutality of the Nazis in Poland, his direction of the controversial movie Rosemary's Baby, the relationship and murder of his wife Sharon Tate at the hands of the Manson family and his arrest and subsequent fleeing from the charge of statutory rape.

I think this is the type of film that a lot of people will really dislike, and other people will like, but the first group will be much larger than the second. O.k., I know that is something that could be said about a lot of flicks, but especially this one.

Why?

Well, first the style ad flow of the movie. The story jumps repeatedly between the seminal points of Roman Polanski's life. As a boy in Poland in 1939 just before and during the Nazi occupation of his homeland; 1966 London, 1969 Hollywood and his preparation to direct Rosemary's Baby , and his actions leading to his arrest for the statutory rape of a 13 year old girl in 1977. The thing is, these scenes are not presented chronologically throughout the film, with jump cuts between the various scenes. I have no problem with doing different things with the chronology of a flm- a la' Tarentino, as long as the continuity does not suffer, but my problem with this flick is that it almost presupposes that you know the major details of the story of Roman Polanski.

Maybe that is a good supposition, after all, would anyone who had no idea who Roman Polanski is or the details of his interesting and controversial life want to rent/buy/watch this movie? I don't know, maybe not.

The story is fascinating enough, so the only ingredient missing is good acting and directing. I think you get it here, particularly from the lead actor and director, Chapa (Menedez: A Killing In Beverly Hills) as Polanski. We get a good idea of the genuis, motivation, and deep moral failings of the man, and the character is made empathetic, if not sympathetic. However, he is not alone as Brienne De Beau more than does justice to her role as Sharon Tate, Polanski's wife and victim of the infamous Manson family murders, and Tom Bruilhet as Anton Lavey, Church of Satan founder and consultant to Polanski steals every scene he is in.

This is a smaller budget film, not an epic, but that is o.k. by me and I think anyone who is interested in the long running saga of this talented and tormented director would probably be doing themselves a favor by picking this one up. But, if you're not familiar with the story(ies), you'd likely be better off watching a documentary on the subject when you get a chance.    

Directed by Lori Petty. Starring: Bokeem Woodbine, Jennifer Lawrence, Sophia Barley, Selma Blair, Chloe Moretz, David Alan Grier. Synopsis: A biopic of a teenaged girl who is the oldest of three daughters, living with her alcoholic mother and her pimp in the 1970's midwest.Based on the life experiences of the director. Drama/Biographical

This is a very interesting film, basically the story of  actor and first time director Lori Petty's (A Leauge Of Their Own) turbulent childhood in 1970s Iowa. The first thing you will notice that is interesting about this biopic is that, though the fact that it is the story of Lori Petty isn't really hidden in the promotion of the film, its easy to miss that fact as the character names are different. And, though those of us who are old enough to remember 1976 will certainly give props to the film for capturing the authentic "feel" of the mid 70's,right down to the excellent score. I must say that those of you who are not very familiar with Iowa-not to mention a few of us who've been there a time or two-will be surprised that it looked/looks like this.

The Lori Petty character, named Agnes in the film, is wonderfully played by Jennifer Lawrence. Agnes is the protagonist, narrator, and almost every scene is told from her point of view. We get an idea of her life right from the opening scene, sunrise in the wintry midwest, living in a home that is obviously worse for the recent wear with bottles and the refuse of a late night party strewn all over. Agnes, after a couple hits on that morning doobie, is up and about, telling an "overnight visitor" that he needs to get out right now, its a school day. After scooping a mouse out of the bathtub, we see her get up her two little sisters and...her mom.

Mom is played very well by Selma Blair (Cruel Intentions).Blair makes us both mad and empathetic with her character, a young, 30-something mother who is awash in booze and drugs right in the midst of her three daughters. But, that's not all. She's also turning tricks in the house (known around town, as you might guess, as the 'Poker House', due to all of the late night poker, fun, and, uhhh...frivolity taking place there) The relationship between Agnes and her mom is tense and inappropriate, but there is love there, and I think that was Petty's point, conscious or not.

In point of fact, we can easily see that Agnes is the actual mother figure to her two younger sisters (Chloe Moretz and Sophia Barley), despite the fact that Agnes is still a child herself, not even done with high school.

What about the father, you might wonder? Well, some brief back story is given to the situation with Agnes' real father, with strong implications of abuse. But, he's out of the picture. The father "figure" in the home, if you will, is the mother's pimp, Duval. (Bokeem Woodbine Edmond) .

There's more.

You see, if this setup is not already dysfunctional enough, we learn that Agnes is-ready or not-in love with Duval. Yep, believe it or not, and if you didn't know this story was true, you might have a hard buying that one, but there is no way anyone would make this up about themselves unless it were true.

I never want to play the spoiler (nor the fool, though I have played that role on multiple occassions), but I will say that those of you who are thinking that a romance between a high school girl and her mother's pimp can't possibly work out long term are absolutely....correct.

There's just a little too much to overcome, though Duval, in his own way, seems to reciprocate the feelings of amour. I said "in his own way" because Duval's first spoken words to Agnes in the film (after flipping her an Egg McMuffin fished out of his pocket on the table in front of her)  are a soft, gentle "F*** y**" in response to her question "Are you breaking into people's houses again?"  

Assuming that most, if not all of you, will not see Duval as the Romeo that Agnes does, but rather a Lothario, the question then becomes, does Duval have an ulterior motive and what does Mom think about all of this? Well, the answer to one of those questions should be obvious, the answer to the other not so much, but hopefully this review has been clear enough to let you understand this wasn't the Brady Bunch, Iowa style.

There is an unusual arc to this film because it is basically just a day in the life of Agnes ( Petty tells us on the director's commentary that though everything in the film is accurate, it didn't all take place in one day) without a huge ending or twist or resolution. There are several powerful scenes, including at least one most people, I predict, will find quite disturbing.

But, this is a moving film, not least because we have some real life knowledge, or can find out, what happened to 'Agnes' after her unusual daughter of a prostitute/caretaker of a whorehouse/care giver of her two sisters/main squeeze of a pimp/high school basketball star teen age years.

Lawrence was stunningly good, in my opinion, an Oscar worthy performance from a teen aged actress. And this role had to be played by a teen aged actress, in my view, part of the pathos of the story is the relative youth of the mother, and it just wouldn't have worked had Petty tapped-in true mainstream Hollywood form-a 24 year old actress, told us she was 14, then tried to have us believe she was the daughter of a 30 year old Blair. If you look up the real ages of Blair and Lawrence they are still a little too close in age, but visually and given the lifestyle of Blair's character, we can buy it.

The other child actors are wonderful as well, even the ones with minor roles as we get the picture of a time when children grew up too fast, which is interesting because those of us old enough to remember the time now or where pre-teens then (like your humble blogger)  likely think of it, compared to today, as relatively innocent...if sartorially challenged.

Woodbine is excellent, as well. You hate him, as you should, but also you can grudgingly see how an impressionable teen ager could fall for him. He is the epitome of quite rage, polyester- shirt- wearing- cool. 70s style.And without a whole lot of dialogue for so central a character.

 Also look for a couple of small scenes from an almost unrecognizable David Alan Grier, who also got a writing credit for this one. This is an excellent directorial debut for Petty, and I hope she does more. Some of the harder-to-impress among you might say, "Heck, its her story, she should be able to direct it well." Fair point, but I disagree. I think this might be among the hardest things she ever does. 

I think this is one you should see. 

 

Directed by Martin Scorsese. Starring Leonardo DiCaprio, Cate Blanchett, Alan Alda, John C. Reilly, Alec Baldwin, Ian Holm, Kate Beckinsale, Jude Law. Drama/Biographical. Synopsis: A dramatized story of the real life billionaire Howard Hughes, focusing on his youth spent in aviation and movie making.

Its pretty hard not to have a good flick when its directed by Martin Scorsese (Gangs of New York) and since this film is about, arguably, one of the more fascinating figures of the 20th century, you've got all of the ingredients of a good movie when you throw in a top notch cast.

The Aviator is the story of  billionaire Howard Hughes and focuses on his young professional life and especially the contributions he made to the field of aviation when that industry is in its infancy. Some of you of a certain age will probably remember hearing of Hughes as a total recluse who lived in solitude in one of the Las Vegas casinos he had bought, effectively ending Mob ownership of that town and beginning the transformation to the corporate mecca that it is today.

But, The Aviator's Howard Hughes (Leonardo DiCaprio The Departed) is young, fresh off of inheriting millions from his late father and out to conquer the industries of aviation and film making. We see Hughes' genius and vision in making the first multi million dollar movie as well as his love of aviation, being a pilot who sets speed records in addition to financing and eventually buying T.W.A. airlines.

Hughes was allegedly a playboy, despite being married twice for long periods of time. Cate Blanchett (The Gift) does a wonderful job as Katherine Hepburn, with whom Hughes had a long term affair prior to her involvement with Spencer Tracy. Kate Beckinsale (Van Helsing Fragments) takes a turn as the seductive Ava Gardner, who had her affair with Hughes prior to hooking up with Frank Sinatra.

The rest of the cast is very solid, too, with Alan Alda (Mash) stepping up to the plate-he was Oscar nominated- as the corrupt Senator who goes head to head with Hughes on behalf of his benefactor and Hughes rival, played by Alec Baldwin (Minis First Time/ Glengarry, Glen Ross).

But, the prize in this exceptional cast might just have to go to John C. Reilly (Boogie Nights  The Perfect Storm) who portrays Noah, Hughes' real life right hand man who was there through Hughes ascent and the beginning of his descent into madness. Along those lines, the film does touch on, but not dwell on, Hughes mental degeneration and places his obsession with cleanliness and fear of germs on an obsessive compulsive disorder, something that was not readily identified and treated in those days.

In fact, the excellent special features disc of the DVD does a good job of telling us a lot about this and Hughes himself, including a discussion panel that included DiCaprio, Scorsese, and Hughes' surviving widow.

This is a very good flick, but you probably already knew that.  

 

Directed by Gus Van Zant. Starring:Sean Penn, James Franco, Josh Brolin.Historical/Drama Biography. SYNOPSIS: A biopic of the first openly homosexual politician in San Francisco focusing on his personal life and entry into politics in the '70's through his assassination in 1978.

If you're making your own personal list of the best living actors, it is getting harder and harder, if you define "acting" as the ability (or artistic talent) to bring characters to life to the point where you might forget you are watching a movie and feel as if you're viewing the real thing, well....its getting harder and harder to leave Sean Penn (Carlito's Way, Mystic River) off of your short list. Really hard. This is an amazing actor.

Milk is a biopic of the real life San Francisco politician and gay rights activist Harvey Milk, who was the first openly gay politician elected to office-Board of City Supervisors- in California and one of the first in the nation.

The film starts out with Milk in New York and quickly encapsulates his transformation from careful and closeted homosexual businessman (in my day he would have been called a "yuppie") into the quintessential long haired hippie of the '70's to respected middle age politician in one of the most combustible hot spots of the 70s.Its really something when we look back at history. In full disclosure, I'm old enough to remember the times of Harvey Milk, which came on the heels of the Jim Jones tragedy which also was directly tied to San Francisco.

 

I was too young to understand the full impact of the events then and did not become familiar with San Francisco and its unique vibe until years later, but I do think I have a pretty good idea of the feel of the city as well as that late 70's feel and Milk captures it very well.

As for what I thought of Penn in this movie, well, what can you say? Though Messrs. Pacino, DeNiro, Freeman, Washington, Nicholson, Ms. Streep and a couple of others certainly have a claim, we might be looking at the best living actor. The man just transforms onscreen. My knowledge of Harvey Milk is certainly not as much as many other historical and/or political figures, but I have seen more than one documentary on the man. I know this sounds like a cliché, but every so often, you forget you're watching an actor play Harvey Milk and think you're watching Harvey Milk. Penn is that good here.

Lest you think the other actors disappear next to Penn, let me assure you that they do not. Special kudos have to go to James Franco (Flyboys, Annapolis) as Milk's long time lover and Josh Brolin (Planet Terror, W) as Dan White, Milk's fellow council member, political opponent, and ultimately his assasin.

 

To those of you who might be hesitant to give this one a look due to the fact that it might be "pushing" or "encouraging" the homosexual agenda or lifestyle, you needn't fret. And, don't think I'm endorsing the legitimacy of that concern. Personally, I think its silly, but to each his own.

 

Milk is a compelling flick, whether you have familiarity with the story or not, whatever your politics. If you're a fan of great acting, you almost owe it to yourself to see Sean Penn. 

Directed by Sidney Lumet. Starring Vin Diesel, Ron Silver, Annabella Sciorra, Peter Dinklage.Drama/Comedy/Historical. 

Synopsis: The true story of the trial involving reputed mobster Giacomo Norsicio and nineteen other codefendants in the one of the longest criminal trials in U.S. history, with Norsicio representing himself throughout the two year trial.  

As someone who was on both sides of the criminal law as a prosecutor and defense attorney in past years, I often take court room dramas with a grain of salt, it is impossible to accurately recreate the drawn out, often boring courtroom procedure that makes the moments of tension and excitement so memorable in a movie. Most times, the directors really do not even try to create an accurate representation of the actual trial, opting instead for a purely theatrical (meaning "made up") version of actual events. (See North Country)  

Find Me Guilty does not do this, using dialogue from the actual trial of Giacomo (Jack) Norscio and nineteen codefendants in the longest running criminal trial in U.S. federal court history. The film is set in the 1980's and Jack (Vin Diesel) and his codefendants are faced with a multitude of charges under the RICO (Racketeering Influenced Corrupt Organizations) Act. Jack, against the advice of everyone, chooses to represent himself.  

Having seen first hand the results of non-lawyers representing themselves in criminal trials, I expected this film to be a lot of laughs and it was, even moreso than I thought. The bulk of the story takes place inside the courtroom, where Jack jovially, if times crudely, does a wonderful job of getting the jury to empathize and like him. He relies somewhat on the advice of one of the lawyers (Peter Dinklage) for his codefendants, members of the Luchese crime family of New York.

Presiding over the trial is a judge (Ron Silver) with the patience of Job who, nevertheless, tires of Jack's antics in court...but comes to show respect for Jack by the end of the trial. The film moves quickly, smartly focusing on Jack's sincere desire not to implicate any of his fellow codefendants, who he shamelessly refers to as his family, as well as his unbelievable court room sayings. Believe me, you will be laughing very hard at some of the things that come out of Jack's mouth when he is questioning witnesses or interacting with the judge. I know its a cliche, but you wouldn't believe it in a million years unless someone told you it was true.

Diesel is masterful in this movie, easily the best thing I have ever seen him do. He shows a range of character and depth that I hadn't seen in him since his supporting role in Boiler Room, and you will root for him all the way, no matter how much distaste you have for crime in general or the Mafia in particular. Ron Silver was as close to the real thing as a judge in demeanor as I've seen in the movies in a long time, if ever. He reminded me of several judges I stood before and obviously, did the research to give a very accurate portrayal. Peter Dinklage is also a standout as the lead defense lawyer who counsels Jack on the side and, again, gives a realistic portrayal of a criminal attorney, a profession that, except for maybe police officers, is the most inaccurately portrayed profession in cinema.

Annabella Sciorra (The Sopranos) takes her turn as Jack's wife and blows everyone off the screen for the few minutes she is on it. She is gritty, sultry, tough and sweet at the same time, the epitome of what we who are not in organized crime expect such wives to be.

Lumet hit a grand slam with the casting in this one and the story, coupled with next level performances from Diesel, Dinklage, and Sciorra makes this one of the best films, if not the best, of '06.

In my humble opinion. 

 

Directed by Katja von Garnier. Hillary Swank, Anjelica Huston, Frances O'Connor, Vera Farmiga, Brooke Smith, Laura Fraser, Julia Ormond, Molly Parker, Patrick Dempsey, Bob Gunton. Drama. Synopsis: A look at some of the young women who were instrumental in the passage of the 19th amendment to the United States Constitution, guaranteeing women the right to vote throughout the United States

This film is an HBO production that I first saw a couple of years ago and just watched again on DVD for the second time. It is, without question, one of the better movies in a distinguished litany of HBO productions. The movie focuses on a roughly ten year period in the early twentieth century as the long time woman's suffrage (voting rights) movement came to a head and final conclusion with the passage of the 19th amendment. The movie uses several real life characters and, happily, background research shows that it gets the main events and circumstances correct with regard to historical accuracy.

I realize the need for creative license and interpretation in all movies about real life events, and the issue of historical interpretation and ambiguity when it comes to events of which there are no living participants or first hand witnesses when the film is made. Having said that, I still cringe when period piece movies either make up or change known and undisputed historical facts (like Murder in the First).Iron Jawed Angels does not do that and the script writer and director deserve special commendations for that.

The story is laid out with women's rights icon Alice Paul (Hillary Swank Million Dollar Baby) as the protagonist, but the cast is really an ensemble one, and all of the major characters, as well as the minor ones, deliver strong performances. The infinitely likable Frances O'Connor plays Lucy Burns, Alice Paul's historical suffrage partner and the combustible fire behind the aggressive portion of the movement.

The crux of the story is the growing division between the "older" generation of suffragettes, led by Carrie Catt (the wonderful Anjelica Huston Gardens of Stone) and the "younger", more militant faction led by Alice Paul and Lucy Burns. The older faction still held onto the old way of gaining ground, trying to win the vote for women on a state by state basis (with the Western states leading the way), a strategy that had led to 9 of the 48 states enfranchising women by 1912, the start of the movie. The younger faction advocated more aggressive action, more direct political attack on President Wilson, and, most importantly, a constitutional amendment. Of course, as with any historical movie in which we know the outcome, we can guess that the two factions ultimately come together, if not personally but in ultimate success. (The movie does a good job of dealing with the generation gap between the two factions as the real point of contention without laboring the point)

Other strong characters who you will like in the film include the real life Doris Stevens (Laura Fraser, a Isabelli Rosselini lookalike) and Mabel Vernon (Brooke Smith, who is so good at immersing herself into a character that I actually did not believe the Bible of movie info, imdb.com, when I realized that she played the surviving kidnap victim in Silence of the Lambs).The beautiful Julia Ormond plays real life Inez Milholland, the literal face of the more militant movement.  Two other main characters who I was not able to verify as real life-I'm not saying they weren't- are Vera Farmiga's (Running Scared, In Tranzit) Ruth Wiesczelaw and Molly Parker's Emily Leighton, who plays the wife of previously anti-suffrage Senator Tom Leighton, a women who is disinterested in politics and the world initially and, of course, ultimately becomes invaluible to the movement. If these two are composite of fictional characters, they certainly fit the bill as representing the nameless rank and file women who were crucial with their support: Farmiga's representation of the working class immigrant woman and Parker's "society" woman who, on the face of things as they were viewed in the early twentieth century, had no real reason to be so driven to gain the vote but did.

Another thing I liked about this story is that it paid tribute, albeit briefly, to other important issues and historical figures, such as Ida B. Wells, the African American civil rights hero, and the issue of the role of black women in the movement, and Fiorello LaGuradia, future mayor of New York and namesake of the airport so many of us are familiar with, and the homage to historical figures who were not at the forefront of this movement, but supported it anyway.

Happily, this is a female character driven serious film, a relative rarity especially when you consider that women are the majority of the world's population. It would have been easy to cop out and tell this story through the eyes of the politicians and make them the heroes, but Angels does not do that, sparing us the irritating fiction of seeing politicians who came on board only when it was politically expedient to do so as the heroes, while ignoring the people who risked love, freedom, and their lives to make it happen. We've seen enough of that crap in historical movies, such as the many films that appallingly portray FBI agents as the heroes of the civil rights movement. (Sorry if that is just a little too much personal opinion for this otherwise completely subjective review)

The only two main male characters in the film, Bob Weissman (Patrick Dempsey Outbreak) and President Woodrow Wilson (Bob Gunton Glory) are good in their relatively brief screen time. Dempsey as Alice Paul's love interest, shown only as an example of the choice and sacrifices made by the leader of the movement, not as a diversion from the real story. Bob Gunton is good, as usual, in his customary role as the man we love to hate-or at least dislike- as President Wilson.

Some might criticize the music and style of this film, modern, upbeat music and fast cuts set to a period piece. I was also surprised hen watching the movie, but it works, in my opinion. Now, I'm not advocating that all period pieces follow suit, I don't know that I want to hear JayZ or 50 Cent in the next movie I see about the Civil War, but it works here, as I think the youthful modern angle is key to this vision of the story. Remember, these young women were the militant, youthful, and modern thinking actors of one hundred years ago. I think showing it with similar music and style from our perspective in the 21st century helps us understand that.

Finally, no discussion of this film should be done without mention of the scene in which the last vote in the last state needed to ratify the amendment came down to one young politician (representing a largely anti-suffrage constituency) who changed his vote from anti-suffrage to pro because-and this is true-he received word from his mother to do so and he believed a good man always listens to his mother. Wonderful!!

And, again, done in such a way as to not make him the real hero.

Simply, an excellent film.