User reviews

I enjoyed the movie and would have rated it an 8 but for some pacing issues, including how they awkwardly managed the flash forward scenes to the sub-plot with Newton Knight's descendant.

I'm not a history buff, but also not opposed to learn about compelling stories, and this was one. Who knew that there was this sub-war going on in the middle of the Civil War, or about this Lincoln-esque southern guy willing to fight the good fight? Knight was an inspiring guy who somehow saw forest through the trees and had courage to do right in a world with wrong going on all around him.

The acting was quite good. I particularly enjoyed fresh faces like Mahershala Ali (Moses) and Gugu-Mbatha Raw (Rachel). The script was not full of period clichés or overly polish, things I appreciated in a movie like Tombstone, but could have been a distraction in Free State which fortunately kept it real.

Matthew McConaughey was excellent in the lead as the gritty Newton Knight. Not as gritty as his brother Rooster, but the grit suits him. Very believable. But this is not a movie that shines due to his good looks, rather from his good acting.

Some of the more critical reviews made comment about FSoJ as "hopelessly adrift", "trips over its own themes as it stumbles aimlessly," "is confusing", and "It's not that the story itself is hard to follow, but Gary Ross' script and direction fail to make clear key personal relationships in the film, and throughout its 2 ¼ hours, it makes the audience wonder where the story is going and whether this movie has much of a point at all."

Wow! All I can tell you is that I did not know the story, and there were some moments where it fumbles, but I kept up with it just fine. For me the movie's strengths far outweighed its weaknesses. Definitely not an average or sub-par movie — the subject matter alone puts it ahead of so many other films.

At times I questioned the casting on some of the supporting roles, but that may be Hollywood conditioning thing, and on reflection this cast probably showed what people were like back in that day.

After the movie I read up on the Davis Knight story. He was the great grandson who was embattled in a miscegenation trial in 1940s Mississippi. He was 1/8 African American, looked white (in the movie) and married a white woman; a crime back in the day in Mississippi. Have to wonder why they didn't prosecute the white wife. Hmm.

It goes to show you how much times have changed: now days in Mississippi Batman can marry Superman, dogs can marry cats, and democrats can marry republicans. You won't see any of that in Raqqa. It's a crazy mixed up world folks.

To sum things up, it's not a perfect movie, and there were some issues making it hard to track at times, but a fascinating sub-plot to the real Civil War, it kept my interest, and the acting was good. Any movie that has me reading up on its story after the film has got to be worth seeing.

I have always enjoyed movies based on actual events or real people, so I was anticipating going to see this movie. I did a little research on the history it depicts and it was a part of the Civil War that I knew nothing about. I was quite disappointed when the reviews came out and most of the critics rated it very low. If you are looking for a war drama that is non stop action with lots of battles, massive explosions and bloody scenes from start to finish, you will be disappointed. If you like a movie that has good writing, an actual story and good acting, you will like it.

The movie starts pretty much like any Civil War movie with battles, death and bloody bodies, but it progresses past that to the point where some people rebel against the Confederacy for the atrocities they commit against the southern farmers. The story is well told with some actual dates and facts flashed on the screen from time to time which sort of gives it the feel of a documentary. It helps keep things in perspective without being intrusive.

If I had anything to complain about, it would be then length and scope of the film. The movie ran about 2-1/2 hours. At about 2 hours, I thought it was over but then it moved into the Klan, voting intimidation and general mistreatment of the freed slaves as well as having a 100 year tie in to future generation. It was as if they tried to jam these events in to make it more politically acceptable to Hollywood. I just felt that they went beyond what the movie was actually to be about.

This is a movie that got a lot of attention when it came out a few years ago, yet somehow it never connected with audiences. And critics didn't seem to want to go to bat for it either.

It's easy to see why the mass audience didn't like this movie. It's too long, it covers too much ground, and while Matthew McConaughey gives the role of ex-Confederate freedom fighter Newton Knight everything he's got, the character just doesn't jump off the screen like Charlton Heston in BEN HUR or Mel Gibson in BRAVEHEART. Newton Knight is just a lovable guy from the word go (we first see him hugging a scared boy on the battlefield, then holding him while he dies) and he has no personal demons (or prejudices) to overcome. He's not driven by personal anger or passion, just by an abstract love of justice.

Related to that problem is the fact that Newton Knight doesn't square off with one single baddie who's tough enough to make it a real fight. Judah Ben Hur goes up against Massala in the chariot race, and they have a whole lot of personal history. William Wallace goes up against Longshanks, Edward I of England, who is so terrifying he almost jumps off the screen. But Newton Knight just fights a bunch of no-name dastardly Confederate officers, most of whom are portrayed as cowardly or incompetent. None of them have any personal grudge against him and no personal magnetism of their own.

So the bottom line is that the general audience was bored to death.

Now with critics I think the story is a lot more sinister. A lot of left wing critics tried to put this movie down as a "white savior" movie in which a perfect white guy has all the answers and saves everyone. The problem with that argument is that it would apply equally well to a movie like GLORY which covers similar events in the exact same time period. But none of the critics ever attacked GLORY or patronized the personal story of Robert Gould Shaw the way they patronized the story of Newton Knight.

And there's a reason why. Robert Gould Shaw, the hero of GLORY, was a real life officer in the Union army. He was a Harvard graduate from a very genteel, distinguished Boston family who volunteered to command black troops and died leading them in a desperate charge against hopeless odds. Nothing wrong with that man's story. But did you notice the words "Harvard" and "Boston" and "distinguished family?" THAT'S the kind of white savior a left-wing film critic can love.

Someone just like them!

The thing about Newton Knight that turned off a lot of big name critics, (like Richard Brody of the New Yorker) is that he's not Robert Gould Shaw. He's not Harvard. He's not Boston. He's not even a West Point man like Grant or Sherman. Newton Knight isn't a white savior, he's poor white trash. Those kind of people are trash -- and they're supposed to ACT like it!

The idea that a poor redneck farmer would make common cause with a bunch of runaway slaves (without government supervision or a liberal college degree) is just as frightening, just as terrifying, to a New York film critic as it would be to a Mississippi planter. Without poor whites to blame for racism, privileged white liberals have no way to justify their privilege. So it's a fundamental article of faith with them that all poor whites are beyond redemption -- a basket of deplorables, as it were.

If you don't believe me, look up a piece Katha Pollitt published in THE NATION in November 2018. It's called "Conservative White Women Won't Change Their Minds," and it's basically a hate-filled rant against all the white women who voted for Trump. But the real point of the article is that changing their minds is a waste of time. Katha Pollitt needs the white trash to stay trash. All her self-esteem depends on the belief that poor whites were and are and will be trash, now and forever.

This movie proves that isn't true -- and that's why leftist critics had to bury it.

'FREE STATE OF JONES': Three and a Half Stars (Out of Five)

The new Civil War drama flick, starring Matthew McConaughey and directed by Gary Ross (who also helmed 'THE HUNGER GAMES', 'PLEASANTVILLE' and 'SEABISCUIT'). Ross also co-wrote the movie, with first time feature screenwriter Leonard Hartman. The film is loosely based on the life of Newton Knight; who lead a resistance group, of deserters and slaves, against the local Confederate Government (during the Civil War). It also costars Gugu Mbatha-Raw, Mahershala Ali, Keri Russell and Jacob Lofland (who also costarred with McConaughey in 2012's outstanding 'MUD'). The film received poor reviews from critics, and it also bombed at the Box Office. I found it to be good, but somewhat disappointing as well.

The film is set during the Civil War, and it tells the story of Newton Knight (McConaughey). Knight was a Southern farmer, who deserted the army and fled into the Mississippi swamps (in Jones County). There he befriended several runaway slaves, and later lead a militia (of other deserters and slaves) against the corrupt local government. The movie is a fictional account of his dramatic adventures.

The film has several great scenes, scattered throughout a meandering (and very depressing) historical fiction tale. It's either too long, or the producers cut too much out of the movie; because (either way) the film's pacing is severely off. It does have many exciting action scenes though, some hard-hitting drama, and some inspiring rebellious moments. McConaughey (once again) gives a great performance, and Ross's direction is decent. The script and editing could have used a little more work though.

Watch our movie review show 'MOVIE TALK' at: https://youtu.be/YnZSF_6sbsA

I had read Prof. Bynum's excellent books about the Jones County rebellion and so had been looking forward to the movie. Though it, inevitably, changes the story (you'd need a dozen hours to tell it completely), it remains faithful to the spirit of the rebellion and the characters of Newton and Rachel Knight.

There were a number of Unionist uprisings in the South during the Civil War (a fact that was carefully expunged from my history textbooks, growing up in the South, maybe to justify all the monuments celebrating the glorious Olde South that lurk around public parks and buildings to intimidate black Southerners - I guess). What other purpose could they possibly serve? To celebrate a defeat?

This movie finally points out the obvious: the Confederacy lost the war, but the planter class which owned the Confederacy did their damnedest to win the peace. Instead of being lynched like Mussolini, Confederate leaders returned to their lives, their plantations, just like the war had never happened. Even the slaves they lost were returned to them in the form of unpaid sharecroppers. The misery of the lives of freedmen is one of the strongest images to take away from this film, their alleged freedom snatched from them. No 40 acres and a mule to serve as some form reparation, they went on to endure a century of domestic terrorism at the hand of the KKK.

The movie itself is beautifully and sensitively acted and filmed. There are scenes of great brutality but which are never gratuitous. There are also scenes of great beauty. There are scenes which have enormous relevance to politics in America today where racism is the hallmark of one Presidential candidate and income inequality the hallmark of another.

Claims by the radical left that this movie is about a "white savior" are just silly. If anything, Gary Ross has eliminated most of the real-life incidents which dealt with Newton Knight's own actions on behalf of freedmen, probably to make the film more palatable to the radical left who, like the extreme right-wing can never be satisfied anyway. I do wish the radical left, rather than criticizing well-intentioned liberals like Gary Ross, would attack the real enemy. The State of Mississippi still incorporates the Confederate flag in its state flag... and social justice warriors are quibbling about degrees of "white saviordom"?

Matthew McConaughey hasn't put a foot wrong since Lincoln Lawyer and his performance here is among his best work. American actors are rarely convincing playing period roles but he totally inhabits the role - scraggly beard, greasy hair, terrible teeth and attitude. He looks like the daguerrotype of a tired and desperate Civil War soldier. Gugu Mbatha-Raw has flown too long under the radar: stunningly touching as an early 19th century biracial heiress in Belle and totally believable as a pop star headed for a nervous breakdown in Beyond the Lights, she brings a luminous quality to Rachel a resourceful woman who defined her own path despite the oppression of racist Southern culture.

Mahershala Ali's character won't be found in Prof. Bynum's books. The names of the maroons who fought with the Knight Company have been lost to history, so he is a composite character invented by Gary Ross. His character travels from runaway slave to armed insurgent to voting rights activist in Reconstruction. Ali imbues his character with wit, charm, warmth and extraordinary courage.

Keri Russell is fine in a small role. She gives her heartbroken character dignity and resilience.

Highly recommended.

9.25 of 10. The many shades of slave and involuntary servitude come to light in this story. A film that's true enough that it deserves to be something shown to students to help their interest and expand their understanding of American history, but too gruesome, violent, and explicit in language for the typical school.

It may also be a little too quiet and slow moving for some, but the depth to which the film explores obscure American Civil War facts and events, both during and after, makes one curiouser and curiouser to see where it goes.

This is a rare film that you can watch a trailer of, or not, and not have it ruin the film. In fact, it would be very difficult to anyone to write a spoiler for this. It's also something you want to watch from beginning to end, or at least until the credits shift to white text on black. It may not be the ideal theater film, but it definitely is worthy of a hard copy for your book/DVD shelf.

I was quite surprised with this because I saw quite a few bad reviews and it lost a lot of money. However truthfully it's a very good well made film with some solid acting all round. Matthew mcconaughey was the obvious stand out as you'd expect. I also had no idea about the true story so I found this really knowledgeable. Would highly recommend, ignore the bad reviews.

"Free State of Jones" is a moving, authentic, important film. Matthew McConaughey gives an Oscar-worthy performance as Newton Knight, an historic figure. I forgot I was watching Matthew McConaughey and felt that I was watching Newton Knight. I've really never seen a performance quite like McConaughey's here. His Newt Knight is the most manly man in any room – or swamp – and yet he is also as tender as a mother.

In the early Civil War battle scenes, he plays a nurse. Knight is not shown mowing down the enemy with impressive, explosive gunfire. Rather, he is shown risking enemy fire in order to save men's lives, or to retrieve and bury the corpse of a boy shot in battle on his first day. My tears flowed freely during these scenes. Later, Knight himself cries after one of his men is hanged. But Knight gets his revenge, an eye-for-an-eye revenge scene that I won't soon forget.

Newton Knight was a white Mississippi farmer. He was the grandson of a slaveholder, but Knight owned no slaves himself. He served in the Confederate army, but deserted in 1862, after serving for almost a year. He was outraged by the Twenty Negro Law, that allowed families who owned twenty slaves to exempt one family member from service for every twenty slaves they owned.

Knight and other deserters formed The Free State of Jones, declaring their loyalty to the Union, and flying the stars and stripes rather than the stars and bars. After the war, Knight worked for Reconstruction and married Rachel, a freed slave woman. His children also married cross-racially. He died in 1922. As might be expected, he is a controversial figure in Mississippi. Fans of the Confederacy denounce him as a traitor. Others celebrate him as one white Southerner who had a conscience and resisted white supremacy.

Newt Knight was clearly someone with a bucketload of charisma. His power inspired men to fight to the death against their own nation. McConaughey radiates charisma in this role. He is masterful and yet intimate. I'd follow this Newt Knight into battle and feel proud to do so.

"Free State of Jones" is receiving negative reviews. It's easy to see why. There is something in this film to anger multiple grievance mongers.

First, race hustlers will hate this movie. Race hustlers want the official story to be that all whites are supremacists and all blacks are heroic. A film that depicts a white man who worked for black rights is taboo. Race hustlers anathematized "Mississippi Burning" and "The Help" for the same reason. Such a shame that the race hustlers' ideological blindfolds make it impossible for them to appreciate great art.

Liberals might hate this film for a couple of other reasons. I don't know if I've seen a movie where almost every scene hinges on how guns are used. Almost everyone is armed, and uses those weapons to keep breathing and to settle disputes. Even little girls have guns and use them heroically. Second amendment fans may love this film. It depicts what they dream of: oppressed citizenry taking up arms to defeat their own government.

In addition to clinging to their guns, these rebels cling to their God and their Bibles. This is one of the most religious American films I've seen in a while. It's an historical fact that Newt Knight was a devoutly religious Primitive Baptist – he didn't drink, for example. The film drives home Knight's Christianity. He is shown in a long scene using a quill to record a birth in his Bible. In one heartbreaking scene, a slave who has been sexually molested survives psychologically by reciting verses from Genesis. "Free State of Jones" practices a muscular Christianity. One eye-for-an-eye scene takes place in a church.

Republicans will be torn about "Free State of Jones." On the one hand, Knight, like many populist leaders, preaches against economic inequality. "No man should be poor just so that someone else can be rich." I can hear theater seats squeak as Republicans head for the exits. Knight's words, though, reflect the facts. Poor white Southerners were sabotaged by the slave economy and they knew it. That's why they deserted.

But Republicans, if they sit through the entire film, will see how the Republican Party was the favored choice of freed slaves in the post-Civil-War era.

There is a narrative problem in the film. The viewer expects "Free State of Jones" to end after the Civil War. I actually began tying my sneakers, readying to leave the theater. But the film keeps going in what feels like an anti-climax. Gary Ross, the filmmaker, wants to make a point: the Civil War was *not* the happy ending. The KKK rose up, and Jim Crow became entrenched. Black men who tried to exercise their right to vote were lynched. This is an important point, but the film should have been better structured so its narrative flow didn't stop before the film itself did.

"Free State of Jones" was clearly made by sticklers for authenticity. Everyone looks dirty and tired. The clothes look like clothes people wore in the nineteenth century. A confederate officer's uniform looks baggy and tacky, not sparkling and admirable. Scenes are shot in lamplight. I loved this aspect of the film, as will Civil War re-enactors.

Amazing. Totally worth seeing. The plot evolves smoothly in complete harmony between drama and biography. the script follows the struggle and the difficulties of black people when slavery was something normal for rich people in that generation and the story of one revolutionist who united them all and make them fight for their rights and their freedom.Back when racism and violence ruled the whole world.The author lays bare before our eyes the truth and speaks honestly without restrictions about our hero (who is well played by Matthew McConaughey) and his journey.I liked ,basically i loved the movie but i was quite disappointed at the end ...i was expecting something else I guess,a completely other ending ,something like a conclusion not something so abruptness

Writer/Director Gary Ross brings this Little Known event to the Big Screen in a Big, Laborious Fashion. So Big, it seems to many Critics, that the Power and Revelation of said Events is Lost in the Overall Overthinking of the Thing, and Diminishes the Message in a Meandering Montage.

The Film is Astonishing, Heartbreaking, Well Acted, and Mounted with Attention to Detail. Some Scenes are Visceral and Very Violent, others are Didactic and Dull. The Future Court Room Scenes, for example, are Not Needed and Bog Down an already Long Running Time. This bit of Exposition is Ill Advised in this Otherwise Engaging Exercise.

Matthew McConaughey is in Fine Form as the Real Life Confederate Deserter and Leader of other Like Minded Countrymen that Take Up Arms Against the Legalized Thievery and Brutality against the Poor Farmers by the Confederate Army. He and His Comrades Think They are Fighting on the Side of the Angels. "No one can own a child of God."

The Movie is Important as it is Another in a Recent Exclamation Point on the Obvious. Slavery is Not an Option in Any Way in Any Form. It's a Lesson that Needs to be Taught Again and Again, or so it Seems.

At Times it might Appear that Schooling in the Form of Film is Beating that Dead Horse a Time Too Many. But Beating a Metaphorical Dead Horse in Better than Beating a Fellow Human Being. Back to School Anyone?

Gary Ross Thinks so and His Efforts are Noble and Commendable. However, Box-Office Audiences and Critics have Turned this into a Monumental Flop. What a Shame! It Deserves a more Appreciative Applause because this is a Fine Film Full of Flaws. But Who and What Isn't?

"Free State of Jones" is set in the 1860s, during the American civil war, but it wasn't just another war drama. This movie was a combination of action, drama and part biography. An interesting combination of genres, for sure, but it worked out quite nicely.

For me it was the civil war aspect that initially drew me to the story. Despite not being American, then I have always found that particular war to be fascinating. So of course, I had perhaps hoped for a bit more focus on the war itself, but it turned out that it was unnecessary for the movie. And the movie turned out to be rather enjoyable nonetheless.

I felt that they had put a lot of effort into making the movie feel as authentic as possible to the age in which it was set. And they pulled it off quite well.

The story is about a Confederate deserter who returns to his home, where he takes up arms with other deserters and runaway slaves, forming a strong militia to stand in uprising against the Confederate government.

Despite running for over two hours, then "Free State of Jones" wasn't a drag to sit through, because the movie was cramped with action, great acting performances, and a good character development. So you weren't left out to feel bored at any time throughout this movie.

Normally I am not a big fan of Matthew McConaughey, but he really performance amazingly well in this movie. And I will actually go as far as to say that this is by far his best performance in any movie of his that I have seen so far.

Whether or not you have any interest in the American civil war, then "Free State of Jones" is a good movie, because it has a good story to tell and it is enjoyable.

The film starts out on a battlefield in the fall of 1862. Confederate soldiers grimly march toward their deaths. Cannons explode. Bullets fly.

In the next scene we are in a makeshift field hospital. A big tent in which the wounded and dying lie writhing in pain. Amputated limbs pile up as the sheets and floor become soaked with blood. A field medic is seen frantically pulling fallen bodies toward the overcrowded tents.

After the battle and the amputations, when the wounded are either treated or pronounced dead, comes the calm. The medic and his colleague chew tobacco and complain of "rich man's war, poor man's fight." That phrase sums up the motivation for the film: A group of discontented soldiers and their families decide to rebel against the rebellion.

The protagonist is Newton Knight (Matthew McConaughey), an erstwhile farmer and blacksmith turned army medic. After the first bloody battle a second ensues just in time for him to learn that his young cousin has been drafted. The boy is perhaps 18 and Knight vows to protect him, but alas the boy is shot. Knight determines to deliver the body to the boy's mother. In so doing he becomes a deserter.

Upon arrival at her house he learns that the confederate army has been raiding goods (corn, pigs, etc.) from the local population, leaving them without food. That is the moment when his thoughts crystallize.

The film is sad. There are moments of glory, but there are brutal deaths, even of well-developed characters, but you expect that in a war film.

One unfortunate aspect of the film is that it cuts forward 85 years in a jarring manner to a courtroom scene involving an unfair trial of one of the descendants of Newton Knight. By the end of the film we come to understand that it is because of this court case that the history of Jones is known. The defense and prosecution are forced engage in genealogical and historical research which brings the story to light. Unfortunately the back-and-forth is awkward and distracts from the main story.

But otherwise the directing is effective and the acting is superb. I recommend watching it and I think most will find it captivating enough to watch it in one sitting.

Beware: there is plenty of gore and violence.

I'm surprised to see that this movie is currently averaging 6.5/10 stars--I found it to be worthy of an eight, and I even flirted with ranking it even higher.

The movie tells of a counter-rebellion in a Mississippi town during the Civil War, and is based on a true story. The film is done in a style that emulates "Twelve Years A Slave", and as such it deals with topics of slavery and secession in a way that is poignant but also constructive.

In fairness, there are a few things that the film could be rightly critiqued for. The opening scenes of the film are fairly gory and filled with wartime violence, but fortunately that does not dominate the movie. As it progresses, the plot of the film does meander a bit, including a fast forward to a scene from some 85 years after the majority of the film that is interspersed throughout the rest of the movie. That technique felt a bit forced at times, but at the end of the film it made more sense why it had been used.

Additionally, the movie tells its main tale over the course of more than a decade, which makes for a bit of an odd cinematic journey--but, in my view, none of these issues are so problematic that they greatly take away from the movie. Rather, what we have here is a film that was desperately trying to be Oscar worthy, and that perhaps pushes the creative envelope a tad bit too far.

But again, there is more good here than bad. The story that the movie has to tell is both engaging and important--engaging in that it captures your attention and makes you care about the subject matter in a captivating way, and important in that it draws attention to historical facts that you probably were not aware of. I know it certainly highlighted some elements of Reconstruction that were new to me.

Regarding acting, this was perhaps not McConaughey's best role, but it's also not his worst. The supporting cast turns out a strong performance, and all in all the movie is well made.

That said, I'm going with 8/10 stars on this one. It's not the best Civil War flick ever made, and perhaps pales in comparison with other recent historical dramas like "Twelve Years" and "The Revenant", but it's nevertheless a great movie that deserves a "Very Good" score.

Newton Knight (Matthew McConaughey) serves as a medic in the Confederate army. He is disillusioned with a law that allows anyone with 20 slaves to avoid the draft. After a local boy is killed, he deserts to bring the body back for his mother to bury. The local farmers are suffering from a 10% tax and Newton starts to fight back. He gets hunted by dogs and rescued by slaves led by Moses Washington. He organizes a rebellion and declares the Free State of Jones with escaped slaves, deserters, and local farmers. He starts living with former slave Rachel (Gugu Mbatha-Raw) and they're later joined by Newton's wife Serena (Keri Russell). After the war, he fights for local blacks' civil rights. The movie is also interspersed with a modern court case against Davis Knight, a descendant of Newton, who is considered black tracing his lineage back to Rachel and therefore a criminal for marrying his white wife.

There is no doubt that this is a sincere film. It does try to cover too much story and fails to distill the movie to one compelling idea. There are a few ideas competiting at the same time. There is no real fault with the actors. The directions are fine in the sense that they move the story along in a functional way. This material may be more fitting for a longer mini-series or a shorter TV drama.

What is a society that knows the price of a man but not his worth as a human being? Probably that's the irony of being an industrial civilization. While it aims to improve the status of mankind, it also requires lot of labour. The cheaper it is, the better. That's where slavery comes into the picture. Slavery is a function of economics alone. Race, colour etc. are merely justifications for it. It's ultimately the conflict between empowered and the weak. Free State Of Jones puts it quite succinctly and with absolute conviction. There's no ifs and buts that blur the issue of freedom. It doesn't try to distract us with metaphors and confusing moralities. Its very clear in intention, much like Newton Knight, who's life this movie is based on.

Free State of Jones is a very entertaining film for its performances. Mathew McConaughey is often joked about for his intense style but in this role is where you can see why he's an Academy Award winner. Never mind those impersonations of him. He is John Woodroof, he is Newton Knight. There are also very astute performances from Gugu Mbatha-Raw and Mahershala Ali. It has a slew of characters like in any historical drama but thankfully all are in proper proportions. No wonder it comes from the director of The Hunger Games! Another striking quality of the movie is the soundtrack. Use of traditional as well as original songs bring a noticeable gravity to the narrative.

Apart from the brilliant cinematography and direction, this movie has a unique perspective to dealing with a subject as sensitive as this. It transcends the time and period when this story takes place. While the main thread of the narration tells the legendary story of Knight who goes absconding from confederate army and later creates the Free State of Jones in the midst of raging American Civil War, the other thread follows his great-great-great grandson Davis Knight undergoing trial for mixed-race marriage. Yes, even after 85 years, it was still an issue. When you watch it, you'll find the ridiculousness of it, all the more blatant. Well, this review does not mean to judge the laws of the land nor the way of life of the society. However, if at all you are concerned about the historical accuracy of the film then you should know that its one of the very few period dramas that carries this impressive a list of academic consultants to its credit.

The story of the Free State of Jones is not merely fascinating. It's a glorious story of a glorious man. Much like his namesake who discovered theory of Gravity, Newton Knight discovers something about man. You may understand why it could be discomforting to watch if not with an open mind. It is a jab at the ages of segregationist politics, but unlike most films with liberal agendas, it is not cryptic and morose. Its too direct. Too simple to fathom. It doesn't paint Newton Knight as the saviour but only as a hero that he is. He is as deceived and victimized by the system as everyone else. Only difference is that he had an idea way ahead of his times and he had a chance to implement it. Nature was in favour of the man and even when the times were exceptionally odd for his principles to find ground, he endured. Newton Knight went on to live to a ripe old age of 84 which in itself is astonishing in the 1800s. Thank you Gary Ross for sharing this incredible story on silver screen. Too bad it didn't do well commercially.

, directed by Gary Ross and starring Matthew McConaughey as Knight. After surviving the 1862 Battle of Corinth and being told of the Twenty Negro Law, Newton Knight, a disillusioned Confederate army deserter returns to Mississippi and leads a militia of fellow deserters and women in an uprising against the corrupt local Confederate government. He was an American farmer, soldier and Southern Unionist in Mississippi, best known as the leader of the Knight Company, a band of Confederate Army deserters who resisted the Confederacy during the Civil War. Local legends tell of Knight and his men forming the "Free State of Jones" in the area in and around Jones County, Mississippi, at the height of the war. The nature and extent of the Knight Company's opposition to the Confederate government is disputed among historians. After the war, Knight joined the Republican Party and served in Mississippi's Reconstruction government as a deputy U. S. Marshal.

This wonderful film with an enormous attention to period detail is full of thrills , with battle scenes are truly breathtaking , historical events and moving scenes . Intelligent in its storytelling drama , it turns to be a thought-provoking and powerful story with several emotive moments . The picture's strength belongs to the powerhouse main and secondary casting with top-notch performances. Set during the Civil War, Free State of Jones tells the story of defiant Southern farmer, Newt Knight, and his extraordinary armed rebellion against the Confederacy. Banding together with other small farmers and local slaves, Knight launched an uprising that led Jones County, Mississippi to secede from the Confederacy, creating a Free State of Jones. Knight continued his struggle into Reconstruction, distinguishing him as a compelling, if controversial, figure of defiance long beyond the War.

Matthew McConaughey gives an acceptavle acting as a poor farmer from Jones County serving as a battlefield medic in the Confederate Army, deserts and returns home to his farm and his wife. Being well accompanied by a good cast , such as : Gugu Mbatha-Raw , Mahershala Ali , Keri Russell , Christopher Berry, Sean Bridgers , among others. Films about Knight have included Tap Roots (1948), directed by George Marshall, and this Free State of Jones (2016). It contains long-standing and emotive score , as well as colorful cinematography shot in location. The motion picture was well directed by Gary Ross.

Based on historical events , this is as follows : Jones County elected John H. Powell, the "cooperation" (anti-secession) candidate, to represent them at Mississippi's secession convention in January 1861. Powell voted against secession on the first ballot, but under pressure, switched his vote on the second ballot, joining the majority of whites in voting to secede from the Union. In an interview many years later, Knight suggested that many voters of Jones County, not understanding how limited Powell's choices were, felt betrayed by his action. Knight joined the Confederate Army in July 1861, enlisting in the 8th Mississippi Infantry Regiment. Six months later he was given a furlough in order to return home and tend to his ailing father. In May 1862, Knight, along with a number of friends and neighbors, enlisted in Company F of the 7th Mississippi Infantry Battalion. They preferred to serve together in the same company, rather than with strangers. Throughout the summer and fall of 1862, a number of factors increased the rate of desertions from the Confederate Army. There was a lack of food and supplies for soldiers in the aftermath of the siege of Corinth. The men of Jones County and the region were disturbed by news from home reporting the poor conditions, as their wives and children found it hard to keep up the farms. Knight was enraged when he received word that Confederate authorities had seized his family's horses for their use. However, many believe Knight's principal reason for desertion was his anger over the Confederate government's passing of the Twenty Negro Law. This act allowed large plantation owners to avoid military service if they owned 20 slaves or more. An additional family member was exempted from service for each additional 20 slaves owned by the planter. Knight had also received word that his brother-in-law, Morgan, who had become the head of the family in Knight's absence, was abusing Knight's children. In early 1863, Knight was arrested and jailed for desertion, and possibly tortured, by Confederate authorities. They burned his homestead and farm as an example to others, leaving his family destitute. As the ranks of deserters swelled after the Union was victorious in the siege of Vicksburg, Confederate authorities began receiving reports that deserters in the Jones County area were looting and burning houses.night had taken to the swamp on the Leaf River to evade authorities, finding other deserters and fugitive slaves there. He and followers organized what they called the Knight Company on October 13, 1863. It was a band of guerrillas from Jones County and adjacent counties of Jasper, Covington, Perry and Smith, who intended to protect the families and farms from Confederate authorities, including high takings of goods for taxes. Knight was elected "captain" of the company, which included many of his relatives and neighbors.

A nice piece of American History and probably the best role of the great actor Matthew Mcconaughey.

The Casting is also very good, Specially Gugu Mbatha-Raw or Mahershala Ali (seen in "Hunger Games" or "Predators" in 2010).

Even if some images are really violent, the film keeps a lot of beauty and show the real courage of the mens who decide to fight for the right things.

Don't miss this film under any circumstances!

Much more interesting than the movie "Lincoln" signed by Steven Spielberg and more instructive than " 12 years a slave " of the director Steve McQueen.

If you make a movie about a legendary individual, why does Hollywood have to add so much fiction to an already great story? Daniel, Moses and Lt. Barbour did not exist in Newton Knight's extraordinary life and all scenes involving them are FICTION. The Confederate commander pursuing Knight and friends was not shot near any church and then manually strangled. He was shot while dining at someone's house. I urge people to do their own research before wasting their time on fiction posing as fact and that is why I rate it a five. It's a shame because there are many incidents inserted into this movie that are truly believable and I'm sure are based on some other historical events but why package this movie as being about the historical Free State of Jones when it really is "history" turned into a morality play and not as advertised.

1862. A Confederate Army solider, Newton Knight, is disillusioned with the war and its causes and deserts, going back to Jones County, Mississippi. There he finds even more reasons to despise the Confederate cause. Over time he amasses an army of deserters, women and runaway slaves and turns Jones County, and a few neighbouring counties, into an independent region, the Free State of Jones.

Based on a true story, a powerful story of defiance and tolerance against a backdrop of bigotry and hate. These great themes, plus some excellent, gritty action scenes and solid performances make this a solid historical drama.

Far from perfect though. With all this historical information to work with, the writer and director find it hard to turn it into a concise, coherent, point-making film. You get the feeling they didn't know when to end the story, so keep going long after the natural end. While the story of African-Americans in the post-Civil War South is a sad one, especially in the light of the hope that the result of the Civil War promised, by tacking this on it feels like an over-extension of the story.

Moreover, that part of US history is not unique to Jones County. It feels like the writer and director were just trying to milk an already-known part of history, rather than add anything new to the conversation.

This clumsiness is not limited to the final few scenes. The story set in 1947 seemed unnecessary and there are scenes near the beginning that do nothing but slow down and draw out the movie.

Overall: good, but with better focus, better editing and a tighter script this could have been brilliant, and done in 20-30 minutes less.