John Travolta | Kevin Barrett's Blog

Posts Tagged ‘John Travolta’

You’ve Got To Learn To Laugh. That’s The Way To True Love…

Posted in General Comments, Movie Review, Movies, Reviews, tagged Andie MacDowell, Angels, Bob Hoskins, Chicago, Dorothy Winters, Frank Quinlan, General Comments, Heaven, Huey Driscoll, Iowa, Jean Stapleton, John Travolta, Michael (1996) — movie review, Movie Reviews, Nora Ephron, Pansy Milbank, Pulp Fiction, Reviews, Robert Pastorelli, Strong To Highly Recommended Movie, The National Mirror, Vartan Malt, William Hurt on May 12, 2026| Leave a Comment »

“Michael” (1996) — movie review
Today’s second film review is for the mid‑90s fantasy / rom‑com “Michael”, directed by Nora Ephron and starring John Travolta as Michael, a rumpled, cigarette‑smoking archangel on temporary leave from Heaven; William Hurt as Frank Quinlan, a burned‑out tabloid reporter trying to keep his job and his patience; Robert Pastorelli as Huey Driscoll, Frank’s more excitable partner who believes every weird story they chase; Andie MacDowell as Dorothy Winters, a would‑be “angel expert” with a secret of her own; Bob Hoskins as Vartan Malt, their editor back in Chicago trying to keep the National Mirror afloat; and Jean Stapleton as Pansy Milbank, the elderly Iowa woman whose letter claiming she lives with an angel kicks off the whole adventure. The film mixes light comedy, mild romance, and a road‑trip structure as this odd group travels with an angel who seems more interested in pie, dancing, and mischief than anything holy.

Background: This is a re‑watch for me. I’ve seen it well over a half-dozen times, but it’s been a few years since I last enjoyed it. I mainly remembered it as “the one where Travolta saves the dog” and as part of his post‑“Pulp Fiction” run of star vehicles. Released in 1996, “Michael” was a modest box‑office success, but it didn’t receive any Academy Award nominations. Historically, it sits in that 90s space where studios were still making comedies with a light fantasy hook. It’s not a “prestige” film, but it’s a above average title from the mid-90s.

Plot: The National Mirror receives a letter from Pansy Milbank claiming she has an angel living with her. Editor Vartan Malt sends reporters Frank Quinlan and Huey Driscoll to Iowa to check it out, and he insists they bring along Dorothy Winters to give the story a “spiritual” angle. Malt touts Winters to be an expert on angels. When they arrive, they actually meet Michael: wings, feathers, cigarettes, beer, and all. Michael agrees to return to Chicago with them, but only if they drive. The rest of the film is a road trip: diners, motels, bar fights, tourist traps, and a lot of Michael nudging the humans toward dealing with their own emotional baggage. Frank and Dorothy bicker and circle each other, Huey tries to keep up, and Michael alternates between being a mischievous tourist and a being who knows exactly what each person needs. By the time they reach Chicago, relationships have shifted and Michael’s real purpose becomes clear.

So, is this movie any good? How’s the acting? The filming / FX? Any problems? And, did I enjoy the film? Short answers: Mostly; decent; clean and simple; several; yes.

Any good? Mostly. “Michael” is a gentle, slight road movie with a fantasy hook. It’s not a deep film and it doesn’t pretend to be. The story is episodic — you can feel the “now we stop here, now we stop there” structure — but the tone stays light enough that it doesn’t become a slog. When the movie works, it’s because it leans into the idea that Michael is here to fix the people, not the world. When it doesn’t, it feels like a series of skits loosely tied together by car travel and pop songs. By the way, the songs / music are / is outstanding!!

Acting: Travolta carries the film. His Michael is physical, playful, and deliberately un‑angelic: he eats too much, drinks, smokes, flirts, and gets into trouble. Underneath that, though, there’s a sense that he knows exactly what he’s doing with each person he meets. Hurt plays Frank as a man who’s tired of his own cynicism, and he gives the character enough weight to make his gradual softening believable. Pastorelli provides the broader comic reactions, which fit the tabloid‑sidekick role. MacDowell plays Dorothy with an earnest awkwardness that works for the character. Hoskins, mostly back in the office, still manages to give Vartan a sense of desperation and affection for his staff. Jean Stapleton is warm and matter‑of‑fact as Pansy, grounding Michael’s introduction.

Filming / FX: The filming is straightforward mid‑90s cinema: small towns, diners, and roadside attractions all look like the real thing. The cinematography leans into warm daylight and cozy interiors. The visual effects are minimal — mostly Michael’s wings and a few small touches — and they hold up well enough because the movie doesn’t lean on them. The soundtrack is very of its time, but it fits the “easy road trip” vibe. Actually, it’s pretty excellent! LoL. There are really only two FX: Michael dies and fades away surrounded by the three “reporters” and (at the very end,) just before the credits roll, Michael and Pansy dance down a Chicago street and “glow-off” into Heaven.

Problems: Several. The film never fully decides how seriously it wants to take its own premise. Sometimes Michael feels like a genuine spiritual presence; other times he feels like a plot device to move the humans from one emotional checkpoint to the next. The road‑trip structure means some scenes feel like filler. The romance between Frank and Dorothy is predictable and not particularly deep. The tone also wobbles between broad comedy and gentle sentiment.

Did I enjoy the film? Yes (very much). “Michael” is not a great movie in a classic cinema sense, but it’s a pleasant one. It’s the kind of film you can put on, watch in pieces, and still follow without much effort. Travolta looks like he’s having fun, and that goes a long way. I appreciated the small moments where the film lets Michael be quietly kind instead of loudly quirky. It’s not laugh‑out‑loud funny but it does have moments where it is deeply moving (with both miracles and gentle charm).

Final Recommendation: Strong to high recommendation. “Michael” is a light 1990s fantasy / rom‑com with a big‑name cast, a simple premise, and a warm, easygoing tone. It has no Oscar pedigree and only modest historical significance, but it’s an easy watch if you’re in the mood for something fun. Watch it for Travolta’s playful performance, the mild humor, and the reminder that sometimes an angel can still point people in the right direction.

.
Click here (12 May) to see the posts of prior years. I started this blog in late 2009. Daily posting began in late January 2011. Not all of the days in the early years (2009-2010) will have posts.

Read Full Post »

The Cost Of Deferring Justice

Posted in General Comments, Movie Review, Movies, Reviews, tagged Bouncing Betty, Boyd Kestner, Broken Arrow, Captain Elisabeth Campbell, Chief Warrant Officer Paul Brenner, CID, Clarence Williams III, Colonel Kent, Colonel Robert Moore, Criminal Investigations Division, Daniel von Bargen, General Comments, James Cromwell, James Woods, John Travolta, Leslie Stefanson, Lieutenant General Joseph “Fighting Joe” Campbell, Low to Moderate Movie Recommendation, Low to Moderate movie review, Madeleine Stowe, Movie Reviews, Reviews, Taps, The General’s Daughter (1999) – movie review, The Last Of The Mohicans, Timothy Hutton, United States Military Academy at West Point, Warrant Officer Sara Sunhill on September 14, 2025| Leave a Comment »

“The General’s Daughter” (1999) – movie review
Today’s review is for the military mystery thriller: “The General’s Daughter” (1999), starring John Travolta as Chief Warrant Officer Paul Brenner (a CID investigator with charm, grit, and a knack for uncovering buried truths), Madeleine Stowe as Warrant Officer Sara Sunhill (a rape specialist and Brenner’s former lover, brought in to assist the case), Leslie Stefanson as Captain Elisabeth Campbell (the titular daughter, a psychological operations officer whose murder exposes a web of secrets), James Cromwell as Lieutenant General Joseph “Fighting Joe” Campbell (Elisabeth’s father, a revered military figure with a hidden past), James Woods as Colonel Robert Moore (Elisabeth’s superior officer and mentor, he is evasive and entangled in the investigation), Timothy Hutton as Colonel Kent (the base provost marshal, protective and politically cautious), Clarence Williams III, Daniel von Bargen, and Boyd Kestner round out the supporting cast as officers with varying degrees of complicity.

Background: I picked this film up expecting a standard whodunit with a military slant. What I got was a layered, emotionally charged drama that blends procedural investigation with psychological trauma and institutional (military) cover-up. It tries to speak to a culture in which absent justice allows crime to happen by failing to address first causes. Basically, if you don’t deal with problems now, increasingly bad things will happen in the future.

Plot Summary: While undercover in Georgia, CID agent W.O. Paul Brenner crosses paths with Captain Elisabeth Campbell, daughter of a high-ranking general. When she’s found murdered — her body staked to the ground at a training facility — Brenner is assigned to investigate. He is joined by rape specialist W.O. Sunhill (with whom Brenner has shared some unspecified prior personal relationship). As they dig deeper, they uncover a disturbing psychological warfare campaign Elisabeth has been waging against her father, which was rooted in a traumatic event (“gang” rape) during her time at West Point Military Academy. The investigation of her personal residence reveals a hidden room filled with BDSM equipment and secret videotapes recording a string of sexual encounters with fellow officers. In the film, Elisabeth’s death becomes a symbol of institutional failure, personal vengeance, and the military’s struggle to reconcile honor with truth.

So, how’s the movie? The acting? The filming / FX? Any problems? And, did I like / enjoy the film? Short answers: So-so; much better than expected; the cinematography is good and there is very little FX (mainly the effects of one landmine explosion); multiple problems in the story and characters; the movie was interesting, but I can’t say I “enjoyed” it.

Acting: Travolta delivers a surprising performance — definitely one of his better ones, even if not always (or even mostly) believable. His chemistry with Stowe adds interesting interactions in what is a cross between a “buddy-cop” and “ex-relationship” genre film. Stowe is effective as the wily partner in the duo. But, though her character (Sunhill) plays a major part in breaking the case, she really isn’t given enough to do in this film. Stefanson is convincing in some of the film, but not so for most of the film. She is better as the victim than as she is as the emotional “strategist” / manipulator she’s made out to be. I like Cromwell as an actor, but in this film while he is convincing as a General, he is unconvincing as a father. I’ve never been a fan of Woods, but he was okay in this role. I’ve liked Hutton in some of his past roles (particularly “Taps“), but he was only so-so in this role.

Filming & FX: Visually, the film is cleanly shot (focused), but it is occasionally too dark (frequent night scenes) visually. The flashbacks and a video are injected in the story appropriately (timing in the story arc), but seemed to me to be more for audience voyeurism than for improving the film’s realism. (Spoiler Alert:) The most notable FX is a landmine (“Bouncing Betty”) explosion which kills the actual murderer; it blows him into pieces. It looks good in the film, but that’s not what would happen in real life. The weapon is designed to severely injure and kill using hundreds of pellets for up to 25 meters, but not blow someone into small pieces and mist.

Problems: The film is chock-full of scenes that stretch credibility (test your gullibility). Travolta trying to loosen tire nuts with a set of pliers. LoL. Stefanson stops to assist, but instead of handing him the tire wrench, she proceeds to change the tire herself (while in a dress uniform no less) – and he just watches. Yeah, right. Later, they fraternize when he thanks her with flowers. Not gonna happen – flowers, maybe; fraternize, nope. While undercover, Travolta runs across the roof of motor-boat home, but the man trying to kill him can’t shoot him with an automatic machine-pistol. They fight underwater. I’ll just say it: Travolta really just looks too old and too overweight to play this role convincingly – and that was 25 years ago. LoL. All of those are minor to the biggest “problem”: I just don’t believe a father would agree to cover up a gang-rape of his daughter to protect his job / career, let alone a university – and I don’t care if it is West Point!

Enjoy the film? So-so – and only mildly. The film tries to be a gripping, morally complex mystery-thriller that asks hard questions about power, trauma, and silence (cover-up). It really didn’t succeed for me. Sometimes I can “enjoy” a movie because I like the actors and their interactions in a film, even if the film itself really isn’t / wasn’t a very good film. That’s the case here. I really disliked early Travolta (mainly TV and “dance” movies), but I’ve liked him a lot more since he started sprinkling “bad-guy” roles into his career (circa 1996 “Broken Arrow“). I’m not real familiar with Stowe (other than “The Last of the Mohicans“), but I will start to look for her in more films from the 1980s onwards.

Final Recommendation: Low to Moderate. “The General’s Daughter” is a film that wants to blend mystery, military culture, and psychological trauma into a compelling “who-done-it”. I liked the actors, but not the film. The film is rated “R” for violence, sexual content and language. It is not appropriate for young viewers. Now that I’ve seen it, I doubt I’ll ever watch it again. I’m glad I didn’t shell out my normal $5 for it (only $3).

.
Click here (14 September) to see the posts of prior years. I started this blog in late 2009. Daily posting began in late January 2011. Not all of the days in the early years (2009-2010) will have posts.

Read Full Post »

A Ranger Story Better Left Lonely

Posted in General Comments, Movie Review, Movies, Reviews, tagged Alex Tyree, Dean Jagger, Declan McBride, Deep Blue Sea, Dominique Tipper, General Comments, IRA, Irish Republican Army, Jennifer Smith, Jess Liaudin, John Malkovich, John Travolta, MI6, Movie Reviews, Oleg Jakovenko, One Ranger, One Ranger (2023) -- movie review, One riot - one Ranger, Poor to Low Movie Recommendation, Quigley Down Under, Rachel Wilde, Reviews, Texas Rangers, The Punisher, Thomas Jane on August 24, 2025| Leave a Comment »

“One Ranger” (2023) — movie review
Today’s review is for a wanna-be combination modern-day Western / international terrorist fighting action “thriller”: “One Ranger” (2023), starring Thomas Jane as Ranger Alex Tyree (a grizzled, gravelly voiced Texas Ranger), Dean Jagger as Declan McBride (a rogue IRA terrorist turned international criminal), Dominique Tipper as Agent Jennifer Smith (a British intelligence operative with MI6 tasked with partnering with Tyree), John Malkovich as Geddes (Smith’s superior in the agency), Jess Liaudin as Oleg Jakovenko (McBride’s muscle-bound enforcer), and Rachel Wilde as Angel (a “reformed” IRA terrorist).

Background: I “discovered” Jane in “Deep Blue Sea” which was an implausible “super-shark” movie which I thought he acted well in. I was equally satisfied by his lead role in “The Punisher” as the “good-guy” opposite John Travolta (the bad-guy). I bought this film hoping it would be at least close to as good as either of those films. As it turns out, Jane has a wide variety of roles in his career and his “action” roles are considered his least impressive. I’ve never seen any of his “impressive” roles. I still haven’t…

Plot Summary: Texas Ranger Alex Tyree is tracking a parole violator in the desert when he is called to assist in catching a group of bank robbers. The parolee has stolen a valuable long range rifle. One of the robbers is a former IRA terrorist, now gun-for-hire Declan McBride. Tyree uses the conveniently recovered rifle to capture McBride, who later gets away after killing Tyree’s partner. Agent Smith of British Intelligence recruits him to help her and her boss Geddes find and catch McBride. As they chase McBride across borders and through layers of criminal networks, Tyree’s old-school “cowboy” cop instincts clashes with modern espionage protocols. The film culminates in a (another) desert shootout that brings the story full circle — back to Texas, where justice is served with a rifle and a gravelly Ranger growl. In summary: shoot, fight, shoot, fight, blow stuff up, shoot and fight. (And, yes, I left out a few “Shoot, Fight” sequences…)

So, is this film any good? How’s the acting? The filming / FX? Any problems? And, did I like / enjoy it? Short answers: No; pretty bad; average to poor; where do I start…; almost, but not quite entirely forgettable.

Acting: Given the limited plot, the actors do the best they can. Jane has the desert squint down pat, but he’s borderline geriatric and he’s not that good a fighter. Malkovich in particular mails it in for this paycheck. There is nothing special about Jagger or Tipper, but they are both at least trying to act. Liaudin is the only character who was fun to watch (or interesting).

Filming Tricks & F/X: The fight choreography is amusing to watch even if it is totally unbelievable. With all the shooting and exploding, the F/X are there. They don’t get in the way of the plot because there is not much to get in the way of.

Problems: Start with the plot… Little to no backstories on any of the characters. Unbelievable fight choreography. Little to no character development. I could go on, but why bother? One question: How on earth do you get T-boned by a big-arse truck when you are driving on a dirt road in the middle of a flat desert?

Final Recommendation: Low. If you REALLY like Thomas Jane it is watchable. I paid for it, so I sat through the whole 90 minutes of it. If you enjoy shootouts, desert vistas, and lone-wolf justice, you might enjoy it more than I did. I wanted it to be action and interesting. I guess one out of two isn’t too bad…

Last thoughts: I am not a gun aficionado and had never heard of the “Sharps” rifle before… Now, I’ve seen it in two movies in one week: “Quigley Down Under” and “One Ranger“. What a small world of coincidence… By the way, the movie title comes from the Texas Ranger “unofficial” motto / slogan: “One riot, one Ranger.“

.
Click here (24 August) to see the posts of prior years. I started this blog in late 2009. Daily posting began in late January 2011. Not all of the days in the early years (2009-2010) will have posts.

Read Full Post »

Still Searching For The Perfect Chord

Posted in 2025 Book Review, Book Review, General Comments, Music, Reviews, tagged Alzheimer's Disease, Biology, Brain Plasticity, Daniel J. Levitin, Depression, General Comments, Hallelujah, I Heard There Was A Secret Chord: Music As Medicine -- book review, John Travolta, Leonard Cohen, Lucy, Music, Parkinson's Disease, Phenomenon, Science, Scientific Reductionism, Strong Book Recommendation on April 5, 2025| Leave a Comment »

“I Heard There Was A Secret Chord: Music As Medicine” (2024©) — book review
Today’s book review is for a “general public” book written by Daniel J. Levitin. It is a survey of the status of studies on the use of sounds (specifically music) in the general science of biology (specifically medicine). Even with a limited knowledge of science and music, pretty much all of us “know” that music can effect us on multiple levels – emotional, physical and psychological – frequently for good, but sometimes not so “good”. The author has spent many years studying this effect as a neuroscientist and has also been a working musician. I feel this has offered him an opportunity to accumulate and catalogue a fair number of anecdotal stories and the results of some actual controlled experiments in order to provide his analysis of this status of knowledge / summary for the general reader. Specific illnesses referred to include: Parkinson’s disease, Alzheimer’s, depression, and chronic pain, but this really isn’t a book about specific illnesses. Levitin tells us about how music (sound) has been used as a form of treatment (medicine) across many cultures and for all of known history.

The first part of the title is a lyric from the song: “Hallelujah” written by the late Leonard Cohen. As mentioned, the author has spent time as a working musician and many of his anecdotes walk a thin line between being interesting / informative and kind of “just” name dropping. I, personally, like this song a great deal, so it’s use in the title was more of a hook than an annoyance.

Is this a good book? Is it thought provoking? Is it entertaining? Interesting? Yes. Yes. Not really. And, yes.

Good: I found the book to be a reasonably fast and enjoyable read. I tended to read it in blocks of 10-15 pages or a single chapter at a time as this allowed me to “process” / internalize what was covered. I was not particularly interested in the names and various parts of brain anatomy – mainly because the parts don’t really have much significance for me. This was a fair chunk of the early sections, so this was a bit of a slog for me. As it got going, more thought provoking snippets about music were introduced and I started to get more “into” the book. I’m not sure if this was just the author’s style or if he felt he needed to lay some biology groundwork before getting around to the less “firmware” topics.

Thought provoking: The brief statements about the history of brain imaging were definitely more interesting to me, but they got significantly less coverage / explanation. I did like Levitin’s weighing in on the “Lucy” question. The “Lucy” question refers to the SciFi movie trope of what percentage of our brain is in use at any point in time. The general trope is: “We only use 10% of our brains at any time, and if only we could use 100% we’d be able to…” The movie “Lucy” is about a lady who accidentally gets a drug which gives her increased simultaneous access to a greater proportion of her brain. It’s similar to the John Travolta movie “Phenomenon“, where Travolta’s character gets a form of brain cancer which has the same effect. Interestingly (to me) the increased access leads to the deaths of both main characters. Anyway, Levitin says we now know we all use all of our brain at the same, just for different things. Modern science tends to “reductionism” analysis as a means of trying to find a direct and specific cause of something. Medical science indicates the human brain doesn’t assign tasks / responsibilities in this “exact” way. There is “some” of it (targeted brain function), but the brain has remarkable “plasticity” and can pull in other parts of the brain to “cover” for when a normally assigned area is damaged (injury or illness).

Entertaining: No. Not so much really. This is not a book I’d describe as: “Wow! I really want to go back and read that again!” But, then again, there aren’t many books I can say that about…

Interesting: Definitely. When I think about “Science”, I always have to define in my mind whether I mean “real” science or “mathematically supported” science. The difference being: is there a control and a repeatable process or do we need to use statistics to establish degrees of confidence. While biology is normally referred to by the public as a “science”, when you talk to a practitioner, they frequently speak of the “art of medicine”. In general, most of modern Western medicine is emergency / fix-it stuff (broken bones and surgery) while therapeutic medicine tends more to the “art” side. Levitin almost specifically concedes “music as medicine” is therapeutic art and not controlled science. Music makes many of us feel better. But no specific music makes ALL of us feel better. Further, the specific music which helps you now – today, may not help you later – today, or even tomorrow – next week; let alone at relatively distant points in each of our lives. We change and our tastes in music changes. Therefore, we can lean towards our favorite songs / music, but we can never absolutely rely on music to help us in a specific way. And, so, the controlled methodology of science eludes us…

Final recommendation: strong recommendation! As popular science written for the general population goes, I found this an interesting book. I’m a little disappointed I didn’t learn the specific “secret chord that pleased the Lord“, but that was probably a bit too much to hope for. Oh well, back to practicing my chords and scales…

.
Click here (5 April) to see the posts of prior years. I started this blog in late 2009. Daily posting began in late January 2011. Not all of the days in the early years (2009-2010) will have posts.

Read Full Post »

Twice Moved

Posted in 2013 Book Review, Book Review, Faith Family and Friends, Movies, Philosophy, Quotes, Reading, Reviews, tagged 2013 Book Review, André Maurois, Émile Salomon Wilhelm Herzog, Benjamin Disraeli, Cecil Gaines, Disraeli: A Picture of the Victorian Age - book review, Eugene Allen, Forest Whitaker, Forrest Gump, Highly Recommended Movie, Highly Recommended Reading, John Travolta, Kyra Sedgwick, Lee Daniels The Butler - movie review, nom de plume, Oprah Winfrey, Phenomenon, Philosophy, Quotes, Time-Life Reading Program Special Edition, U.S. Civil Rights Movement on August 24, 2013| 11 Comments »

Today’s posting is about a book I’ve just completed last night and a movie I saw today.

The book is titled: “Disraeli: A Picture of the Victorian Age“, (1936©) reprinted in 1980, and written by André Maurois. Maurois is actually the nom de plume for Émile Salomon Wilhelm Herzog, but interesting enough, he legally changed his real name to that for which he was famous. Maurois was in the French military when he wrote his first book and the military was banned from publishing.

This book is the second I’ve read from the Time-Life Reading Program series which I collected back in the 1980’s. More specifically, this is the book upon which I based my decision to begin purchasing the series. I originally read this book in my young teenage years. I don’t recall if I was in the eighth grade of grammar school or a freshman in high school. At any rate, it was a fantastic look at another time (Victorian Age) and political system (British Parliament) which combined political maneuvers with a true romantic background story and it captivated me.

After his wife (Mary Anne) dies from old age (and cancer), Disraeli begins going through their effects in preparation for moving out of her ancestral home which must be passed on to its inheritor:

“Every fortnight for thirty-three years, Mary Anne had cut her husband’s hair, and every time the harvest had been garnered in a small sealed packet. He found hundreds of them.”

This struck me, even as a teen, as such a personal and loving act (both the cutting and the saving of the cuttings) that I believe it set a standard for me to judge male/female relationships. To this day, when I watch the movie “Phenomenon“, starring John Travolta and Kyra Sedgwick (and Forest Whitaker), I am reminded of this book. If you’ve never seen the movie, there is a tremendously sensual scene in the movie where Sedgwick shaves Travolta and cuts his hair. By “sensual” I mean it exudes sexuality without having any “sex” in the scene at all.

By way of contrast, I discussed the above quote with my daughter and she felt is was “creepy” and “like a stalker”. She felt there was no romance / affection in either act, at all.

Another point, which may be of interest to only me – I’ve been “saving” this book for almost 40 years, knowing I was going to re-read it, but in no hurry, because it was going to be like re-meeting an old friend. I don’t often re-read books because most of my reading tends to be technical in nature. I do enjoy re-reading some books – novels in particular. I assume it is because they engage me without trying to teach me. (That’s just a guess…) In this case, I was waiting for the above story, but I did not recall it was told after the wife’s passing. When Mary Anne died from cancer, I briefly convinced myself that I must have read a different book when I was young and I had purchased the series based on a complete mistake! Not that it would have mattered so much, but it seemed an irony that I was looking forward to meeting my old friend, only to find out I would be meeting a distant relative (a book about the same topic, but by a different author). So I got a chuckle (to myself) when I found it was the correct book.

No, I haven’t said much about the book – by way of review, anyway. Suffice it to say, it’s a very well written book, a fast read, a romanticized biography, and a fascinating story of a man who rises to great stature on the strength of his intelligence, ability and determination. Highly recommended!! As an aside, on researching Maurois, I found dozens of great quotes which you will no doubt be seeing over the coming months.

Today’s movie was: “Lee Daniel’s The Butler“, which depicts a fictionalized version of true story about a man (Eugene Allen) who served eight U.S. President’s over a 34 year period of working in the White House. The story is one of quiet dignity and strength contrasted against a turbulent period of time which covers the “Civil Rights” movement during the latter half of the 20th century. The main character (Cecil Gaines is the name used in the movie) is played by Forest Whitaker who I feel will almost certainly get a Best Actor nomination, if not win the Oscar, for this performance. He is brilliant! Oprah Winfrey does a very good job in playing the spouse and there is an all-star cast filling out many of the other roles.

In a manner similar to “Forrest Gump“, the movie intersperses historical TV footage with acting. To this extent, the film is certainly not original, but it is no less powerful. If anything, there is almost too much happening in Civil Rights for one to take it all in. Young viewers may be surprised to see how far the nation has come in just the single life-times of their parents or grand-parents. Having grown up and lived through the period, I was profoundly moved by the entire film.

Is this a “made for Oscar” movie? Yes, blatantly so. It vividly shows the horrors of racism and contrasts that with the dignity of a working man who only seeks a safe life for his family and a better life for his children. The cast is strong and the story is accurate chronologically (if not entirely factual to Allen’s life). More importantly, it touched me as a father, a working man and a family man with similar goals. I saw this movie with my mother, sister and nephew (Kyle) and my mom and sister were tearing up just as much as me. This is a MUST see movie and I highly recommend it!!

.
Click here (24 August) to see the posts of prior years. I started this blog in late 2009. Daily posting began in late January 2011. Not all of the days in the early years (2009-2010) will have posts.