The Sons of Katie Elder

The Sons of Katie Elder
"First, we reunite, then find Ma and Pa's killer...then read some reviews."
Showing posts with label Alan Rickman. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Alan Rickman. Show all posts

Thursday, March 13, 2014

Lee Daniels' The Butler

The names of the U.S. Presidents are instantly recognizable, names synonymous with the history of the United States, especially that building where the president leaves, whatever it's called. The White House I think? What about all the people who work at the White House, who keep the place running? And no, it's not just the nameless/faceless individuals who get killed during terrorist attacks in movies like White House Down and Olympus Has Fallen. I kid of course as we jump into 2013's Lee Daniels' The Butler, the true story of one of the White House's longtime butlers.

Growing up as a young boy with his sharecropping family in 1926 Georgia, Cecil Gaines has his outlook on life forever impacted when his father is shot down by a white man, the land owner where the family work, after raping his mother. Cecil is taught to be a house worker, a butler, and grows up finding jobs here and there working as a butler for the rich and well-to-do, eventually ending up at a Washington D.C. hotel. It isn't long before a grown-up Cecil (Forest Whitaker) has created quite a reputation for himself, earning an interview and eventually a full-time job at the White House, working with the sizable staff to make sure the President's home is a crisp, clean operation on a day-to-day basis. It's the late 1950s though, America heading into a turbulent time in its young history. Cecil has an inside look at America's involvement at home and internationally, all the while trying to raise a family with his wife, Gloria (Oprah Winfrey).  

This wasn't a movie I was dying to see, but I was nonetheless curious, even intrigued to see it. Loosely based on the true story of Eugene Allen, 'Butler' is director Lee Daniels' second film since his 2009 movie, Precious, that really put him on the map. It received pretty solid reviews and was a surprise success in theaters, earning over $167 million. I'm not really sure what to take away from it overall. I can appreciate what the message is going for, what it's trying to stand for and say about American history, yet that said, I didn't especially like it. What it's trying to do is admirable. What it accomplishes? Still mulling that over. Some of that can be chalked up to the script which tries to accomplish a ton in a 132-minute movie.

What I didn't question was Forest Whitaker in the lead role. Playing Cecil Gaines, Whitaker is our window as an audience into a whole lot of American history. We see his mindset, his frustrations, his motivations, his friendships, his rivalries, all of it. It isn't a flashy part, far from it, just a very straightforward, effective part. Whitaker's Cecil is a family man who wants to provide for that family, especially his wife, Gloria, struggling with alcoholism as she misses Cecil, his oldest son, Lewis (David Oyelowo, a good performance with some odd moments as a 37-year old playing a 15-year old), who dives headfirst into the civil rights movement, and his youngest son, Charlie (Elijah Kelley). His narration as a lead characters gets to be a little heavy-handed at times, but that's the script and not on Whitaker's shoulders. A very solid performance for Whitaker, a man trying to get by and live in some extremely turbulent times.

Beyond the family though, the supporting cast is mostly a long list of historical characters and bit parts that aren't around long enough to resonate. We meet a handful of Presidents including Dwight Eisenhower (Robin Williams), John F. Kennedy (James Marsden), Lyndon B. Johnson (Liev Schreiber), Richard Nixon (John Cusack) and Ronald Reagan (Alan Rickman), even meeting Nancy Reagan (Jane Fonda). These little episodes are pretty cool, but they're also gone as quick as they started. Because of that pacing issue, these scenes, appearances and story developments aren't as effective as they could and should have been. In storytelling technique, 'Butler' reminded me of the classic Forrest Gump, bouncing around to a lot of stories, a lot of key moments in American history, the story giving us a window into those moments. Where Forrest Gump blended the humor and drama though, 'Butler' stays on the dramatic path, and it wore on me. This can be a heavy, dark movie to get through at times.

Give the movie credit. It tries to do a lot. Ultimately though, I felt like it tries to do too much. A story focusing on Cecil's 30-plus year career at the White House would have been fascinating in itself. The same for a man trying to care for his family through the turbulence of the Civil Rights movement, into Vietnam and beyond. Doing both ends up making things too bouncy to the point neither story gets the attention it deserves. Much time is spent with Oyelowo's efforts in the Civil Rights movement, Cecil and Gloria worried and angry back home. Moments that feel like they should resonate well and carry the movie feel rushed, not letting those moments breathe. Much like the recent The Monuments Men, this feels like a story that would have been better suited to a miniseries. The effort is admirable, the execution tolerable. Moments like Cecil interacting with his fellow butlers (Cuba Gooding Jr. and Lenny Kravitz) ended up resonating more with me than most of the far-more dramatic scenes. Also look for Terrence Howard , Mariah Carey, Alex Pettyfer, Vanessa Redgrave in odd, out of place parts.

That's the biggest issue. It doesn't pick a route and stick with it. Moments that work among portions of story that drift too much, kinda a necessity with a story that covers six decades in a man's life. I also resented something from the final scene, a written, on-screen message thanking all the men and women that have helped gain "our freedom." As a white individual, this message hit me the wrong way, and I admit I may be over-analyzing. Is this a movie meant solely for an African-American audience? Should I not be watching this movie? It's a mixed bag in the end, a generally interesting movie that ultimately doesn't live up to its potential.

Lee Daniels' The Butler (2013): ** 1/2 /****

Wednesday, August 3, 2011

Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone

First released in 1997 from author J.K. Rowling, the Harry Potter franchise in both literature and film has taken the world by storm. The seven Potter books have sold 450 million copies -- actually think about how many books that is -- and the films to date (I'm writing this before the final film is released) have grossed six billion dollars worldwide. Now partially because I don't like being told to read/watch something, my only experience with the Potter books comes from reading the first story during a college English class.

While there was nothing about the series that turned me off, I just wasn't pulled in like so many of the devoted fans that love everything about the character(s), the series and this whole new world. I enjoyed the first book -- Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone -- but got through it more because I needed to for the class as opposed to wanting to read it.  So now 14 years later as the final movie is about to hit theaters tomorrow, I finally looked into the first movie, watching 2001's Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone. Better late than never, right?

Growing up with his aunt, uncle and cousin after his parents died when he was a baby, 11-year old Harry Potter (Daniel Radcliffe) has always been a little different, but he has no idea why. As weird things start happening around him, he gets a strange visitor, an immense man with a gigantic beard, Hagrid (Robbie Coltrane), who tells him he should get ready to travel to Hogwarts, a school for young wizards. Not sure what to make of everything, Harry goes along, thrust into a world of oddities, magic, and spells where everyone seems to know him, but he has no idea why. He meets Ron Weasley (Rupert Grint) and Hermione Granger (Emma Watson), fellow first year wizardry students, and starts to learn the ways of being a wizard. As he learns all he can though, Harry begins to see that there's more to his past than he knows, and he may be destined for bigger and better things.

A whole new crazy wizard world aside, I think a big selling point of these movies/books is actually the simplicity of the Harry character. He's a young kid trying to find out who he is and what he should do to grow up. Granted, he's going to a wizard school and not just grammar school, but what person in the audience can't appreciate that feeling of butterflies as you step into something new?  Over the last 10 years and all the movies that followed, Radcliffe has grown up in front of our eyes, and as a 12-year old here in the opener, he shows what a great actor he can be.  Child actors are incredibly hit or miss, but he shows off his impressive talents.  The same goes for Grint as Ron, Harry's best friend and partner in crime, and Watson as Hermione, the know-it-all who wants to be the best wizard ever. It's this friendship among the three youngsters that keeps the movie grounded in the coming movies because through all the craziness, they're still just three good friends.

On to bigger and better things though, a whole world devoted to being a wizard. Director Chris Columbus has the unenviable task of turning a hugely popular book into a movie that fans will approve of, and more than that, live up to expectations.  Visually, the movie is a stunner, a beautiful story to watch all the way through. Hogwarts looks like an English castle from the Middle Ages as the wizard students are separated by house. It's a clean slate though to create this world because Rowling creates everything from the ground up. We're introduced to the game of Quidditch, a cross-breed of hockey and soccer on brooms, school houses with names like Griffindor and Slyterhin, a school that literally moves around in its architectural form as needed, teachers and professors with all sorts of specialties, creatures and objects that are unique and interesting in their weirdness. It's fun to watch and easy to keep up with, the movie almost serving as a guide for what is to come in the series.

Credit goes to the child (and now adult) actors in Radcliffe, Grint and Watson for making the series what it is over the last 10 years. But one of the things that helped legitimize the series in its film form was the ridiculous talents involved in filling out all these great supporting roles.  Ready to get some serious acting chops dropped on you?  Start with Richard Harris as Professor Albus Dumbledore, the head master of Hogwarts and wisest of all the professors. Some of the other professors include Maggie Smith as Minerva McGonagall, Ian Hart as the squirrelly Prof. Quirrell, John Cleese as Nearly Headless Nick, and Alan Rickman as Severus Snape, head of the Slytherin House. Coltrane is a scene-stealer as the gigantic, somewhat dim Hagrid who is almost Harry's guardian angel, and John Hurt even makes a one-scene appearance as Olllivander, a wand maker. What works though is that these don't feel like unnecessary cameos, instead being little parts brought to life by immensely talented actors and actresses. They're characters, not movie stars.

Having not seen the rest of the movies -- yet -- I've still kept up with the series over the years. It was hard not to keep up even by accident with the wave of media attention devoted to Harry Potter. The series has changed quite a bit in the years since its debut, and mostly for the better. I read a surprising amount of critiques that ripped this movie pretty good because it was aimed so much at kids while the later movies went to a darker, more cynical place. This is the movie that had to be made to introduce the series though, a fun, exciting adventure that introduces all the players and puts everything where it needs to be.  I've tried to keep the review tight and know I missed a fair amount of stuff that I could have mentioned.

What's worth knowing? It's a good movie, and a great introduction to an extremely popular series that has gotten bigger and better since.  A very good start.

Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone <---trailer (2001): ***/****