Once Upon a Time In Hollywood
Forgot your password?
Don't have an account? Sign up here
Got more questions about news letters?
Already have an account? Log in here
and the Terms and Policies,
and to receive email from Rotten Tomatoes and Fandango.
Please enter your email address and we will email you a new password.
We encourage our community to report abusive content and/ or spam. Our team will review flagged items and determine whether or not they meet our community guidelines.
Please choose best explanation for why you are flagging this review.
Thank you for your submission. This post has been submitted for our review.
Sincerely, The Rotten Tomatoes Team
This historical movie is very important due to the historic nature of its subject matter. The film itself has been very well done, and overall this is a picture well worth watching. It's entertaining and insightful, moreover very poignant. "Do yourself a favour, and get into it soon."
In 1912 London, the growing suffragette movement forever changes the life of a working wife and mother who is galvanized into radical political activism supporting the right for women to vote. It is a dramatic history lesson with representations of the most important figures of the suffragette movement, but its main characters could have been stronger. The scene at the Derby was definitely the highlight.
A strong female-led drama and you could say thriller as well. Some really great stuff here that shows the difficulties these women went through and the lengths they took to get basic human rights
A meaningful look at the sacrifices made by the suffragettes, a group that in the 50s and 60swere only referred to with laughter and made fun of, because their complaint was so serious and still is today--equality for women! And this prodiction is magnificent.
Educational. Every woman should watch this.
An amazing and inspiring story. These women are inspiring the feminist journey !
Classic script, sterling performances brings life and reality to 1918 Britain and shows the government for what it was. Britain, at that time, was a police state that did not allow opposition. Over 1000 women protested, some with dire consequences, to even get the right to keep their children.
We both gave it a five. What (other than Meryl Streep walking through her brief lines) were the flaws. This is a great movie ALL need to see.
Why on earth they let Abi Morgan keep writing screenplays after the horror of The Iron Lady (2011) and The Invisible Woman (2013) is a mystery to me. This is a film about an interesting and important subject matter that could make a great film that is handled with such little grace or care that it lands with a dull thud when you sit through it. The on screen talent amassed here is incredible and I have seen almost all involved appear in better films and do better with what they are given. This is absolutely not a film that you should have to see because even films like Mary Poppins (1964) manage to talk about women's suffrage and make it entertaining.
Maud Watts, Carey Mulligan, becomes a suffragette in 1912 after joining a protest that her friends have been involved in. She is imprisoned after testifying to a parliament committee and becomes a pariah in her community as her relationship with her husband Sonny, Ben Whishaw, becomes strained. She becomes even more radicalized after witnessing Emmmeline Pankhurst, Meryl Streep, speak and as her child is taken away from her by her husband she begins to understand what sort of sacrifices she and the other suffragettes will have to make if their cause is to prevail. She is present at many of the most important events in the history of the suffrage movement and witnesses Emily Davison be trampled by horses.
The major problem with the film is the screenplay as no real tension is ever built up because Morgan refuses to actually delve into any event she just glosses over them and attempts to stuff too much into a short amount of time. The lines given to the actors that are clearly meant to be their big moments land with little impact and are so generic and lacking in passion that it is hard to believe them. Were we to see more of one thing, Maud's home life for example, maybe we could connect to some part of the story and feel some pain when our non-descript main character loses her family. As it stands the film is impossibly dull and contains laughably bad dialogue that actresses as great as Streep and Helena Bonham-Carter are asked to spout.
The lead performance is lacking in any conviction as even though Mulligan is lumped with an awful screenplay she manages to be extremely blank in the lead role. I felt no worry for her as a lead character as her face remains blank and there was no pain in her eyes as she watches a woman be trampled by a horse. Streep is great in her one scene although there are shades of Florence Foster Jenkins (2016) she makes Pankhurst all her own. Bonham-Carter and Anne-Marie Duff try their hardest with their roles but they are given so little to do that it is hard to care. I was left feeling extremely dejected because I had just watched Wildlife (2018) in which Mulligan is great and this film managed to sap her of all the magnetism she is capable of possessing.
Director Sarah Gavron does not appear to have any real directorial voice with the entire film looking like a television production overseen by the BBC. She doesn't bring any excitement or sense of danger to the film and the moments that are clearly meant to have dramatic heft don't go all the way. I would think that watching a woman go on a hunger strike would be painful and affecting to watch but here I felt such a disconnect as nothing about the scenes made me care about Mulligan or her comrades. That is a bad film because when I feel such a lack of passion for characters swept up in a historical moment that I care about what's the point of making the film?
I would recommend anybody against watching this film because it is boring and wastes great talents. Go watch Fight Club (1999) if you want to see Bonham-Carter get to do something, if you want films directed by women look at the films of Nicole Holofcener who allows you to connect with her characters. This is a bad film about a great subject.
Only mildly entertaining for such interesting historical events. The characters are only partially sympathetic and the filmmakers tried to tell too many stories in 105 minutes. A mimi-series on Netflix or with HBO/Showtime would've allowed the story to bloom and the characters to grow.
After a shocked Maud stands at the horse track, the film goes to black with text and credits. While she is a fictional character, her story would've been more effective without being crammed into this film, perhaps even splitting her character into a second one. With all the horror delivered to Maud, delivered in quick succession, the film really would've benefit from another composite character to absorb some of that overzealous tragedy and plot devices. Also, more men that were supportive of the vote were oddly (purposely?) not included; most lower classed men did not vote either and only got their right about 1 year before women - though upper class widows, were allowed to vote after their husbands died, in order to maintain wealth based on continued business; it was upper class men that carried the vote. Also, the suffragettes did not endorse the right for women of color. That fact was portrayed, but never mentioned. Racism was a component of those suffrage days. After Maud is left at the horse track, it would be another 15 years before ALL white women got the vote.
So what became of Maud? Would her character go into survival mode, living poorly, and supporting the cause for over a decade. By then, she would've been considered too old to marry and have babies (which had been somewhat important to her). On the other hand, she may've gone into a deep depression - having lost everything - and died with a few years. Since the characters were barely sympathetic, I really didn't care. They probably should have focused on one of the real-life women, like the end's martyr, and how it went down for her specifically...to that shocking end.
So that's where a mini-series would've covered the 15-year period between the horse track scene and the gaining of the vote many years later. Scholars explain that these initial women actually did more harm than good, as the government would not give in to their terrorism, putting them off even longer (about ten years). After that healing time, it took further civil discussions and debates, peaceful demonstrations and rallies to finally get the vote for women, shortly after the lower class men had received theirs.
The overuse of HANDHELD (shaky) camera, close-ups, and darkness were distracting and uncomfortable to the eyes.
How in the world a reviewer compared the depicted struggle for suffrage to President Trump "stripping women of their rights" in the USA is quite delusional. As a woman who does not care for Trump, I am offended that any female in the US would consider what the UK suffragettes experienced to be comparable.