> 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

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

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.