I read the first four reviews of this production. The first three seemed to be fair and measured. I don't really understand the fourth. It appears the reviewer had some other issues with the maker of the film rather than the film itself. In any event I thought it was a good representation of the events at the Constitutional Convention. I've read a number of books written on the subject and this film seems to be true to the events that took place. This was a docudrama and as good as any that I have seen on the History Channel or PBS. I recommend it to anyone interested in the founding of this nation and if you're interested in reading more on the topic one of the better books but by no means the only one on the subject is The Summer of 1787:The Men who Invented the Constitution. I especially recommend this book for pre- teens and teenagers. Bribe them if need be but they won't find this information in Jr. high or high school.

This is not the worst movie I have ever seen. That said, it was awful. Rarely do I find myself laughing at a drama, but I can point out at least six times when I erupted into cackles. This film is about as subtle as a billboard.First of all, the acting is SO forced and overdone (with the one grand exception of Ben Franklin, who has no idea what he's doing). James Madison is such an unstable cry-baby that one solid "Yo' Mamma is so fat" joke from Roger Sherman would have had him weeping all the way back to Virginia. In the music scene in the garden, I wanted so desperately for General Washington to say, "You know Jimmy, most men have been weened by your age...." A huge problem with the film is that the main drama swirls around if the Senate should be represented based on the population of the state or if each state should have an equal voice. Call me crazy, but I never had a problem with the way congress is set up. I remember being a fourth grader in Ms. Pinder's class and thinking it was fantastically brilliant. So unfortunately, lines like "History will never forgive us for this" ("this" meaning equal representation in the senate) uttered by the protagonist of the film seem WAY over the top and ridiculous.As a connoisseur of Mormon movies, I got a huge kick out of the casting. There were so many times when I was like, "Who IS that guy? Oh..... He's Pilate, from the 'Lamb of God.'" My personal favorite was how Doubting Thomas from "Finding Faith in Christ" plays a doubting Thomas. In fact there were so many actors from "The Lamb of God" and "Finding Faith in Christ" that I half expected the titular character of both films to walk on at any moment and hand them the Constitution.Now let's talk about accents. The one pro-slavery southerner was the laziest accent actor I have ever seen. His idea of a drawl was clipping is -ing's into -in's. And he left it at that. Or how about the dude at the end who reads the constitution? He had a HORRIBLE Utah valley accent. (The fortunate thing about Utah-valley-dwellers is that they are totally unaware that they speak a variant form of English, so most of the people watching the film will be clueless on this point.) Also, a personal note to Kurt Bestor: I expected much, MUCH more from you, sir. That score was like being hit with an ironing board. We know 15 seconds in advance before anyone says anything important because there's always an oh-so-subtle orchestra crash.But I have to admit, as heavy handed as the script is on civic and theological points, it really has its moments. The tragedy is that each of those moments meets a massacre from the director and cast. Ben Franklin was SOOOOOO bad. I got the feeling he didn't really understand his lines--like he was ESL or something. I hated him before he was even on camera in the scene where Washington knocks on his gate and he fumbles on an otherwise funny line about women.Or how about the concluding American Agrarian Montage? Look at us in our cute little montage! We're so American and agrarian! Heck, we're even equestrian!So in conclusion, I loved the heck out of this movie in none of the ways it intended. It's horrible, and for that reason I would buy it in an instant if I could. BYU is capable of producing a great historical film, by the way. I recommend watching "Truth and Conviction" as soon as you're done with "A More Perfect Union" for a potent reminder as to why the institution is still accredited after producing such a piece of doo-doo.

A Congress of the United States was never so well portrayed, was it? I wish there were more hours of this.I am a fan of "The West Wing" and "1776" and in some senses, this film is even better. The acting is excellent. Documentary logic (the writing) and production values are too. Artistic sensibility -- same. Nuances: same, I think! The film was produced by a university film department while its actors are talented career actors. The topic was so large that I think we must forgive the shortage of scenes with women because they were not delegates to the Constitutional Convention. It is a movie that can seem too long only if one does not take breaks to move around.Among the high points of this film are portrayals of the delegates. The actor's so-so resemblance to George Washington is bridged by a successful portrayal how grave and lovable he was remembered to be. Benjamin Franklin and others are brought to life, it seems.

In high school I would have rather watched paint dry then study some of the "boring" details of the formation of our government. This film is long in places but I have to admit it helped me understand the background and differences of the founding fathers and how they created the Constitution. It does a great job of showing what a difficult task it was to have all the states work together despite their differences and special interests. It also highlights the different philosophies and and beliefs of the founding fathers who were anything but cooperative and agreeable during this process. It was very insightful and I actually enjoyed it. I think it should be required viewing for American history classes.