Becoming a writer forever changed the way I watch TV and movies. I’m not hard to please (stop laughing!) but as someone who’s striving to be a better storyteller, I do have a few requirements.

A plot, for starters — an actual coherent storyline, not just a series of loosely connected spectacular stunts and special effects with the occasional pause for reflection, recovery, and/or making out. A story arc — a beginning, middle and end. Slice-of-life movies drive me nuts because they’re just the middle. A growth arc for at least one of the main characters – they need to learn and change in some way, even if it’s just acknowledging the need and exhibiting the willingness to do so by the time credits roll. A satisfying ending –- not necessarily a happy ending (though those are preferred) but it has to make sense and tie up loose story threads. (A romance writer would have been able to come up with a happy and satisfying ending for Sommersby, starring Jodie Foster and Richard Gere.)

Bonus points if the actors, script and technical things like continuity allow me the willing suspension of disbelief to enter and stay in the story world. (“Wasn’t her skirt slit on the left when she got in the elevator, and now it’s on the right?” “Why is his hair still blowing backward even after he turned around to face the beastie?”)

Friday I went with a friend to the opening matinee of Amazing Grace. Since we both write novels set in England’s past and share an appreciation for the leading man, Ioann Gruffudd, this was a must-see movie. (For the uninitiated, he’s Welsh, his name is pronounced YO-an GRIFF-ith, and he’s best known for playing Horatio Hornblower. Apparently I have a thing for guys who can wear pumpkin-butt breeches and a cravat with panache.) Grace begins in 1797 and chronicles the true story of William Wilberforce’s more than 20 years of efforts to get Parliament to abolish the slave trade in England. (And I thought it was rough going through a mere ten years of rejection before I sold my first novel.)

The movie has no sex, violence, foul language, car chases, shoot-outs or explosions, so its audience is limited from the get-go. While we don’t see slaves on-screen, those images are conjured up, so it’s a bit disturbing at times. Historical figures are brought to life, such as William Pitt the Younger, who became Britain’s Prime Minister at age 24. (Wilberforce, no slouch himself, was first elected to Parliament at age 21.) We also get to meet Lord Charles Fox, Hannah More, and other people I’ve encountered in my research. A lot of the funny one-liners will, alas, go over the head of those who haven’t studied British history. There’s a crack about Jacobites near the end that had my friend in stitches – she’s written a novel set in the midst of the Jacobite rebellion of the mid-1700′s – while no one else in the audience but me was so much as snickering.

Barely an hour into the film I decided I have to own the DVD, if only to be able to study the costumes and backgrounds, especially the dockside scenes. At one point we both whispered “Wow, look at his boots,” at the same time. Reading descriptions and looking at pictures in reference books doesn’t hold a candle to seeing it brought to life on a big, big screen by a costume department with a decent budget.

I won’t give away more of the story because I hope you’ll take the time to see it for yourself. There’s a charming romance sub-plot, and I warn you to have a tissue at hand because the film’s title comes from the hymn of that name, something that can make me cry all on its own. And now knowing the story behind those moving words… sigh. (We debated whether that’s really Ioann’s voice we hear singing the hymn or someone else. His bio says he was an accomplished singer and oboist by age 13, so maybe…)

As we walked out of the theater we discussed how amazing the film was (yes, pun intended) and that we must see it again. But I wonder – do I think it’s so good because of my love for the time period, the historical characters brought to life, the fantastic sets and costumes, witty script, and always-delightful-to-watch Ioann? Does it stand on its own merits as a movie if one is not already fascinated by these things?

We puzzled over the same question last year after viewing The Libertine, a little-seen movie that chronicled the life and death of John Wilmot, Earl of Rochester, a brilliant though bawdy writer and poet. Being set in the Restoration era (late 1600′s), the film was already difficult for modern audiences to follow, and was grievously injured (in my opinion) by the cutting of key scenes in which audience members who don’t know Wilmot’s story find out the motivation for his self-destructive behavior. (His best friends were blown to pieces, literally, at his side during battle while Wilmot escaped without a scratch. Having no therapists to help him cope with a massive case of survivor’s guilt, he self-medicated with drugs, booze and sex, and died horribly at 33.)

So, back to my thoughts at the beginning. Both movies have a plot, story arc, character growth, and a satisfying ending (one happy, the other decidedly not). But am I still overly influenced by my predisposition to like these particular projects? Entertainment Weekly called Grace an “unstirring” history lesson. (Then again, they gave both Pirates movies a C, so what do they know? )

But since it’s just my opinion, does it really matter that I can’t be impartial?