The Butler (I) (2013) User Reviews

Ho-hum

[B24 · 7/10 · 17 August 2013]

A great and talented cast is largely thrown away on a script that starts and stops relentlessly. As one who has lived through all the historical periods portrayed, I was regrettably bored by large segments of the narrative, which seemed didactic in the extreme. That is not to diminish its important social and cultural significance to a younger audience, only that I personally found all the Presidents as played much smaller than in life than I remember them. Robin Williams as Eisenhower and Alan Rickman as Reagan seemed oddly miscast, though John Cusack as Nixon caught the essence of the man nicely. The parts showing home life among the main characters was a highlight, however.

In short, a good but not great film, perhaps better with fewer intrusive star-studded cameos and less overt moralizing.

In a timid year, this film is a flawed, but essential, jolt to the system

[MovieDude1893 · 8/10 · 21 August 2013]

The Butler (Daniels, 2013, B+)

This should have been a punchline. At least, that's what I was walking in expecting. From the overblown marketing to the downright bizarre cast, it had all the trimmings of a pure turkey. Here's the thing, though... It's not. The film is not a facsimile of historical events, it is an invigoration of them and despite the relatively classical style on display, Lee Daniels brings a real brio to the proceedings. It helps that he has Whitaker to make it all stick as the film's unfailingly warm and engaging center. Even in the first 20-30 minutes when the film is struggling to find its legs, his performance is an unmannered beauty. The rest of the actors are also galvanized into action, proving that verisimilitude is not the highest criteria for historical fiction. This is a film as powerful, as beautiful, as unlikely, and as raggedly imperfect as the country it chronicles.

The Butler has two faces and excellent acting

[herbqedi · 8/10 · 17 August 2013]

In the first 15 minutes spanning 30 years, the title character learns the hard way how to cope in white man's world by having two faces and being quietly competent and otherwise invisible. He does this so well he lands in the White House. He is successful at building functional but not fully honest relationships. This goes for his work relationships and for his home relationships. Unsaid is that he never has had an honest relationship with himself and his own feelings. That leaves his wife needing more and not knowing what or why, so she turns to alcohol. That is the underlying story that Lee Daniels tells by not telling it explicitly just as The Butler never could communicate explicitly even to himself what really has meaning to him or who he is - he just copes and dutifully does his jobs and raises his own family the best ways he knows how. His son Louis is the opposite and expresses loudly and at great personal consequence, his thoughts, feelings, pains, and emotions. The Butler's internal defense network and coping mechanisms preclude his ability to accept Louis in this way. Charles, on the other hand, is the dutiful son who loves his country and dies serving it in Vietnam. At the same tine the Butler is a dutiful and responsible but aloof observer in his own life, he is doing the same at the White House. He observes remarkable things but is always cognizant that he must not show it - he is invisible and competent. Period.

I thought all the Presidential portrayals were compelling. It is an interesting juxtaposition as these men also must have distinct private and public faces. The backdrop for all of this was the Civil Rights Movement in the South where two faces was not a choice but were forced on African-Americans explicitly until they were no longer tolerated.

Throughout, all the acting is uniformly excellent. I found some jarring contrasts between where the movie is making its points subtly and where it chooses to make its points with sledgehammers. Whitaker's character's narration also at times seemed in the period he was showing and in others seemed totally retrospective.

Altogether, this is terrific way to spend 2 hours and 15 minutes. If you are open to these studies in duality, you will be rewarded with top- flight entertainment and some things to think about.

Forest Whitaker As An Uninteresting, Overly Maudlin Forest Gump

[jaxsky · 11 August 2013]

You'll feel emotions throughout "Lee Daniel's The Butler," but you'd also cry if someone kicks a kitten on TV. Dropping in simplistic scenes of hardship and meager triumph does not a good film make. This is not a good film.

Technically, it's fine. And it's got a lot of stars. Some are hard to spot such as Vanessa Redgrave as a racist Southerner and Jane Fonda as Nancy Reagan. But, it's overlong even though the story spans nearly nine decades. In all those years, very little actually seems to happen.

Nothing really happens with our hero, Forest Whitaker as White House butler Cecil Gaines. He does his job quietly. He has very little impact on those around him either at home or in the House. The film is named for this person. It would be nice if he was interesting.

The only real action comes from Cecil's son Earl Gaines (David Banner). Earl takes up the fight for civil rights. But, even he's mostly along for the ride, so while he's not substantial enough for his own movie, without him in this one, I probably would have fallen asleep.

And that's the thing. For all the dramatic tension offered by the subjects of fighting for civil rights in the South and working in the White House, this film is surprisingly boring. Sure, I got to see lots of cameos by famous actors as Presidents of the United States, yet even Robin Williams as Dwight Eisenhower did little to elevate my interest.

Like Forest Gump, the events of history pass by around Forest Whitaker's butler. He is alongside every president from Ike to Reagan. Unlike "Forest Gump," it's never that entertaining.

"Forest Gump" and "Lee Daniel's The Butler" also share a feeling that they take themselves to be significant films saying important things, but I am hard-pressed to say just what those things are. Putting powerful, historical events on screen is not the same as saying something insightful about them.

Better had it been a mini-series.

[planktonrules · 7/10 · 19 January 2014]

This film is about the life of a White House butler (Forrest Whitaker) from the Eisenhower era through the Reagan era. During this time, lots of changes occur in America--particularly in regard to civil rights. This is seen in snippets as well as its effect on the butler's family.

"The Butler" made a lot of money and a lot of folks enjoyed it--so it was clearly successful. However, as I watched the film, I kept thinking how much better it all could have been had it been a mini-series. After all, about 25 years pass in the film and a HUGE amount of important history transpire....and it's all crammed into only a little more than two hours. As a result, it seems a bit episodic and disconnected--plus a couple presidents weren't even mentioned. The characters, at times, seemed a bit one-dimensional. Plus, an infusion of energy sure would have been appreciated. However, overall, it IS worth seeing but also could have been better. My guess is that some of these factors might be why this odds-on favorite for the Oscars eventually ended up being skunked. Good but not great. For a more detailed look at much of this same material, try watching the great 9-hour mini-series "Backstairs at the White House" from 1979.

By the way, I do think this film SHOULD have received an award. So, I am awarding it the 2014 Planktonrules Award for the stupidest casting of US presidents. Who thought having John Cusack playing Nixon made any sense at all? It was so badly miscast that it made Robin Williams as Eisenhower seem almost plausible!

highest accolades

[marfrie56 · 9/10 · 18 August 2013]

I'll start by stating that I'm a 62 year old white male. I did not grow up in the South - but I did live for a year in Louisiana in the early 70's. I lived through every news event that was portrayed in the movie - that is, I saw and read about them in the actual news when these things happened. Many posters on the boards say that the movie is inaccurate. Then they go on to say things like: His name was changed, he didn't have 2 sons, he didn't look anything like Forest Whitaker, Nixon was miscast, etc. True, the details of The Butler's family life have been dramatized. That is called movie making. The movie was historically accurate in every important way. I don't say that every single detail was true, nor am I saying the portrayal of these historical events was 100% exactly as portrayed. But it is far more accurate (and important) than your average popcorn POS that pervades the theaters these days. I want to state that I have rarely, if ever, been as emotionally affected by any movie. It is brilliant, provocative, artistic, and has a social purpose. Like it or not, persons of African descent have been victimized, downtrodden, brutalized, persecuted, tortured, lynched, raped, and murdered - and only because of their skin color. HOORAY to Lee Daniels for making this movie! Hooray to Forest for being a sensitive, intelligent, highly gifted actor. Hooray to Oprah, whose performance is beyond stellar. Hooray to anyone involved with this movie. Not to say that ALL movies have to take you to the places that this movie does. I guess there is a place for Pacific Rim and Wolverine. So if you think that movies have no business delving into our racist and brutal history, then see one of those movies. But to say that this movie is irrelevant or inaccurate - well, as I said I lived through it all. It is not. What it is, is an exceptional, mature movie for those that want a little more than monsters (the fictional kind). My wife and I went through a whole packet of tissues - we were blubbering like fools. BRAVO!!!!! 9 (rather than 10) stars only because the 10 star reviews are often discounted as over- the-top hero worship. But if Ironman, The Avengers, etc are 10 stars (and I liked those), this movie rates 100 stars - because it is 10X better, more important, more relevant, and more thought provoking.

Very Brief Review summed up in two points.

[jacob-m-ford97 · 7/10 · 18 August 2013]

The Butler was a serious disappointment, and it had two main problems. #1: The casting. Casting big-name actors in the role of the presidents or other minor parts was one of the biggest faults of the film. In this movie, there was never Dwight Eisenhower or Nancy Reagan on screen, it was always Robin Williams or Jane Fonda playing Dwight Eisenhower or Jane Fonda. This was especially a problem since all of these roles consisted of a combined two minutes or less. It was the same case with James Marsden, John Cusak, Alan Rickman, Terrence Howard, Liev Schreiber, Mariah Carey, etc. #2: The first point can be classified in this one as well: Throughout the film it never felt like you were in the life of Cecil Gaines, the entire time it felt like I was watching a movie. Beginning with all the big-name actors, down the directing. Every single scene you could see the directors intention with that scene - this scene I'm supposed to laugh, this scene I'm supposed to cry, I'm supposed to like this character, I'm supposed to like this president because I'm supposed to laugh in this scene where he's sitting on the toilet asking for prune juice. I never felt like I was allowed to make decisions for myself. I really wanted to like this movie because of the great story that was in it, but it was very poorly done.

If you have the guts

[nancygoldsen · 10/10 · 22 August 2013]

Go see this movie..It shook me to my core..As a white person I've never been more ashamed in my life..And saddened.. We are in the midst of racial struggle for equal rights right now..I sat in a packed theater with all white old people and you could've heard a pin drop.. It felt like a Forest Gump movie but with the racial history of our country as the topic.. and it was NOT a pretty picture. Thank you for doing this movie Lee, it is something we all need to see as Americans and we all have to face that we still have MAJOR racial bigotry. It must NOT be tolerated! I am white, 63 yrs old, born in Miami Fl and living in LA. Please go see this and then go about being an agent of change..we need to move on to better things and stamp out racism in America..it has NO place here..and we should all be ashamed of it's existence and allowing it to persist.. The cameos were priceless and OPRAH, (tho I am not a fan) was incredible!

Multiple Personalities

[ferguson-6 · 6/10 · 21 August 2013]

Greetings again from the darkness. So many personalities! Yes, there are a staggering number of characters played by a who's who of actors, but it's the movie itself that flashes the most personalities. It is quite a mixture of historical events, the Civil Rights movement, family drama, generational differences, Presidential evolution, emotional wrangling, and Oscar posturing.

Forest Whitaker portrays Cecil Gaines, the man who worked his way up from being a childhood plantation slave to the highest level of butler within The White House ... a gig that spanned 34 years and eight Presidents. The story is based on the real life story of Eugene Allen, who had a front row seat to dramatic historical events and major social changes ... all while wearing white gloves and tuxedo.

While the movie has plenty of emotional moments, in my opinion it could have been even stronger had it committed more time to either Cecil's long run in The White House or the father-son generational struggles between Cecil and his desperate-for-change son played with fire by David Oyelowo (from Freedom Rider to Black Panther). Instead there is much wasted time on superficial Presidential interactions and a needless side story of adultery involving Cecil's wife (Oprah Winfrey) and his friend (Terrence Howard).

Director Lee Daniels obviously has many friends who wanted to be part of this one. The incredible cast includes Mariah Carey (making up for Glitter), Alex Pettyfer (as a brutal slave owner), Vanessa Redgrave (Cecil's first serving trainer), Clarence Williams III (Cecil's ultra cool mentor), Nelson Ellis as Martin Luther King, and Cuba Gooding Jr and Lenny Kravitz (as fellow White House butlers). The most blatant slap in the face of Conservatives comes from the casting of extreme Democrat John Cusack playing Richard Nixon and Jane Fonda as Nancy Reagan. Other Presidents are played by Robin Williams (Dwight Eisenhauer), James Marsden (John F Kennedy), Liev Schreiber (LBJ), and Alan Rickman (Ronald Reagan). The constant game of spot the star is a bit distracting at times, but not as much as one might guess. It's just a shame that most get very little story or screen time.

As for Oprah Winfrey, she is getting much love for her performance including some Oscar chatter. What I saw was a performance that was solid, but distracting due to the lack of aging in comparison to her husband (Whitaker). She changes very little (except for costumes) from the beginning until the very end when she definitely goes into heavy make-up for the Obama election. On a personal note, watching 1970's era Oprah shaking her booty to "Soul Train" was an image I did not need.

Again, my favorite scenes were the ones between father and son ... Whitaker and Oyelowo. Seeing these two generations struggle so much to understand each other and interpret the world in such different ways proved quite powerful. It's always painful and embarrassing to re-live the horrible manner in which African-Americans were treated, but even moreso when it's tied to a father-son relationship.

"Those Who Ignore History Are Doomed to Repeat It!"

[TonyKissCastillo · 9/10 · 8 February 2016]

..........................................................from Pasto,Colombia...Via: L.A. CA., CALI, COLOMBIA....and ORLANDO, FL

******** POSSIBLE MINOR SPOILERS *********

There are, undoubtedly, scenes in Lee Daniel's The Butler that made me feel quite uncomfortable. Most certainly, many other viewers will echo similar discomfort experienced while watching this near great movie. Unfortunately, the existence of atrocities and flagrant injustices in our not too distant past doesn't mean that they should be whitewashed or airbrushed out of our collective memories! (Absolutely no pun intended here)

Don't let me give you the wrong impression about The BUTLER. In just over 2 hours until end credits, there are but a scant few minutes of images that some of us would, perhaps, just as soon forget. At the heart of this remarkable film, is a tale of a great generational divide between estranged father and first-born son; redemption, change, forgiveness, repentance and catharsis are also pivotal elements in this "Inspired by a True Story" drama painted on a historical backdrop canvass.

Although The BUTLER does highlight the tremendous progress our society has made in the past century toward fulfillment of Dr. Martin Luther King's "Dream", obviously, there is an undercurrent underscoring the fact that this area is one that involves constant self-reinvention to ensure continued improvement.

There are multiple noteworthy elements here. First, Oprah Winfrey's triumphant return to an on-screen leading role. Despite having done numerous voice-overs in recent years, BUTLER represents the end of a 15 year hiatus, when she participated in the ill-fated BELOVED. Her performance, although not quite Oscar nomination caliber, would win, without a doubt, an Academy Award for best "Billionaire Female Actor on the Planet", if such a prize existed! Accepting this role surely resulted in reduced income for Oprah in 2013. If that doesn't make her participation in this project a "Labor of Love", what would?

BUTLER is my pick for 2013 Best Ensemble Performance Golden Globe. Cast Credits give the impression of a page lifted directly from a Who's Who in Acting & Entertainment! Cuba Gooding, Jr.; Robin Williams, in a refreshing, but brief, appearance as a pensive and soft-spoken President Eisenhower; Vanessa Redgrave; Clarence Williams III; James Marsden as President Kennedy; John Cusack, as an ever brooding and duplicitous President Nixon; David Oyelowo, as the rebellious prodigal son; Terence Howard; Lenny Kravitz; Mariah Carey; Jane Fonda, who sparkled as Nancy Reagan and Alan Rickman as her careful-not-to-step-on-her-toes husband, Ronald! The only weak link, in my opinion, was Liev Schreiber as President Lyndon B. Johnson. His portrayal just did not resonate with me.

Quite frankly, despite analyzing carefully for any historical missteps, there were only a couple rather minor ones that were noticeable. About three-quarters into BUTLER, the story-line, focus and viewer interest level seemed to sputter a bit, but got right back on track rather quickly.

The film did attempt to provide moments of comic relief from the oftentimes somber on-screen events, most of them evoking healthy laughter but a handful of them kind of fell flat. If it weren't for these few mentioned flaws, BUTLER most definitely would have been rewarded with a 10*Star* rating! When released on DVD, rest assured it will be added to my 800+ collection!

….ENJOY/DISFUTELA!!

Any comments, questions or observations, in English o en Español, are most welcome!

Underrated!

[missvoon · 6/10 · 20 October 2013]

I will start as explaining, as opposed to many other people commenting this movie : I'm a young French woman so unrelated to American history and I watched this movie as a foreign person. I DO NOT GET ALL THE HATE ABOUT IT! First of all it is a movie, and for me very typically American! Do not take me wrong but a lot of American movies especially when it's about history love to make it more dramatic, more Manichean, that is what makes American movies entertaining! This time it's an African American perspective and that is why it disturbs most of the viewers! When I read all the critics, it's so ridiculous: "not all blacks were slaves, not all whites were slaves owners, black panthers were also violent, etc." Yeah duh! Don't you think we know that??? It's not the point of the movie, the purpose of the movie was to oppose the life of a black servant (actually sorry but for decades Blacks were mostly employed as servants) and some of the MOST memorable episodes or persons of the black history in the US (slavery, segregation, civil rights movement, Martin Luther King Jr. etc.) at no point it was against whites! It's part of the violence of history, of our worldwide history, but yes we know, thank you very much, that everything could be more complicated in real life than in a movie! Actually I was pleased to see that there was whites participating in the civil rights movement in this film, also the Black Panthers were definitely portrayed as violent, as the KKK (again duh!) then at the end, there was this Obama part, some will see it as propaganda, which to me is also dumb. Of course a black butler working in the White House for decades would be just excited to see a black president!! even we as french people were amazed so can you imagine what it would be like for him?? The thing that I did not like was maybe the fast changes with administrations at the white house again it was to follow the African American history evolution, but..I also did not like JFK and his wife : not believable! But to sum up : entertaining and moving! definitely not boring...

A different perspective

[hitek_dialekt · 10/10 · 18 August 2013]

From the opening scene of this film I was viscerally affected.

Let's just get this out of the way: Forrest Whitaker gives a magnificent performance in this film. Whitaker can dial it back (as he does in this film) or dial it UP as he did in "The Last King of Scotland" and play either with equal aplomb.

In terms of regard per performance, he's actually criminally underrated.

I thought Oprah's performance was very good, but I also enjoyed Cuba Gooding, Jr's return to a substantive role. It is nice to see him doing something poignant and relevant again.

The pace of the film is good and keeps you interested despite the flick's non-trivial running time.

It's not always an easy watch, but it wasn't meant to be.

This film is NOT meant to be a point-for-point reenactment of "the real" butler's life, but a weaving together of vignettes and actual historic occurrences. (It is BASED ON a true story, but not a biopic.) In this vain, the movie succeeds flawlessly.

There are clever casting choices (Jane Fonda as Nancy Reagan REALLY IS a hoot for anyone who knows their history) and while admittedly some of the actors playing presidents lack the visages of their famous characters, the acting itself defeats these deficiencies. (I found Liev Schriber's LBJ hysterical AND accurate.)

From the opening scenes of brutal rape, murder and disregard for human life, to the struggle to maintain a semblance of decency and the fight for basic quality of life, this film depicts the struggle of MANY black people of the time - told through the prism of this butler.

I know this to be true because there are similar tales of these occurrences in my OWN family. I don't have to look far.

This film won't play well with the "get over it" set - or anyone who has ever used the term "race baiter." These folks are already approaching this flick with a certain agenda - and they aren't ready for it's truisms. Unfortunately, there are enough of them to result in the ridiculously low rating this film has so far undeservedly garnered on IMDb. Even the most ardent detractor who GENUINELY disliked this film without political agenda would have to admit that this film isn't a 1 star offering.

A rating that low is downright silly.

That said, for those of us who actually live in the real world and understand historical context, you will probably enjoy this film immensely. Like others, I experienced applause at the end of the film's showing, and I'd call the crowd mix about 50/50 black-to-white at my suburban theater. This would indicate to me, at least anecdotally that the entire crowd appreciated the film.

This film is not meant to be a pure biography per se... in fact, I'd say it's more about a FAMILY than even the butler or his job in general, but we pay attention because this particular butler happened to serve in the White House.

This film is REALLY about the generational struggles that occur in EVERY family, but made even more powerful by the juxtaposition and immediacy of the civil rights movement. This makes it STILL relevant, as its problems still echo in the headlines today.

If you wind up drawing parallels between Emmett Till, Oscar Grant and Trayvon Martin after watching this film - then you probably got the intent- and most likely enjoyed it. If you are of the mind that racism isn't that bad, the 50s in the south were "the good ol' days" and even the holocaust was probably overblown, then this flick isn't for you.

Might I suggest "Gone with the Wind?"

Lee Daniels' Reinterpretation of History

[griffolyon12 · 7/10 · 25 August 2013]

The film, Lee Daniels' The Butler, directed by the titular Lee Daniels, is an indulgent work that is more fiction than it is true. Does this mean it's a terrible movie? Not by any stretch of the imagination, in fact The Butler is one of the better made movies of 2013. It's well acted, well written, and has plenty of moments that are enjoyable or fascinating enough to warrant seeing, but don't expect a history lesson, because that's not what you'll get.

Forrest Whitaker portrays Cecil Gaines, an African American man who grew up on a plantation in the South and eventually became a butler at the White House, serving every President from Ike to Reagan. A fascinating concept, but one that is only part of the way true. The real life butler was Eugene Allen, and unlike the movie, his wife was not an alcoholic, he only had one son and that one son was not involved in the Civil Rights' movement, and Allen was reportedly always satisfied with his job at the White House. What Daniels has done with The Butler is take a concept that is ripe with the potential to recreate fascinating historical moments in the Oval Office, and has rather put that on the back burner to make a Civil Rights' odyssey by fabricating events and characters that never existed to meet his personal agendas.

Honestly, this may sound like I think that The Butler was an atrocity, I just think it could have been more than it was. What The Butler is, is an enjoyable time at the movies, but it has to be taken as fiction and not as fact. Unfortunately by saying that it's, "Inspired by a True Story," it confuses audiences into thinking this is the truth, this is why I have a problem with Daniels' fabrications. Is Oprah Winfrey's portrayal as Cecil's alcoholic wife a towering performance worthy of Oscar attention? Yes, but it's nothing like the real woman. Is seeing many of the most important moments in Civil Rights history fascinating from a historical standpoint? Yes, but the real life butler's son was not a Freedom Rider turned Black Panther who managed to be a part of every single major event in Civil Rights history. What the film really feels like is Daniels had a desire to make a movie about his opinions on race relations and the Civil Rights movement, and decided to take a story that had very little to nothing to do with it to tell this story.

The idea that a man saw firsthand some of our country's most tumultuous times in the one place where you could have the complete truth, that is a story worthy of history, and there are hints of that in this film which is why I'm so frustrated. There's a scene when Eisenhower is President and it's the first time Cecil serves inside the Oval Office, and it's a fascinating scene to watch. In it, Cecil is serving the President, basically being a fly on the wall, as he watches the President dealing with important politics with his Cabinet members. The entire movie could have just been scenes like this and it would have been stronger and more honest to history, and if well researched by the writer of the film, could have been a rare glimpse into the moments that shaped our country as we know it. As it is, Daniels is obsessed with keeping this a Civil Rights story, and he excludes anything that has nothing to do with it.

Only one brief scene even alludes to Nixon's impending impeachment, and the controversial terms of Ford and Carter are completely skipped over. Why? Because the controversy in these times wasn't so much about race relations, but come on, how fascinating would it have been to see the standoff in Iran at the American embassy through the butler's eyes, as he watches Carter trying to negotiate. Or what about Watergate? He was there, seeing this firsthand. Goodness, even the subplot involving Cecil and Caroline Kennedy's special relationship was far more fascinating than the fabricated elements. This kind of honest movie writes itself, but Daniels wanted it to be something else, and I would have no problem with that had it not been so one sided.

It's obvious that Daniels is trying to make a political statement with this film, and uses shock and awe filmmaking tactics to do this. The way he represents Cecil and his family working on the plantation is as if they were slaves, afraid of the evil white man watching over them who shot Cecil's Dad just for looking at him after he took advantage of Cecil's Mom. There was no motivation for this character to do this, and am I the only one that was thinking, this was the 1920s, they were sharecroppers, not slaves? Or what about the scene where Cecil walks down the street where two black men are hanging from a tree, lynched? Did things like this happen? Yes, but did they happen all the time and to one man and his family? No.

So what do I really think of Lee Daniels' The Butler? Honestly, I think it's a well made movie that could have been a lot better than it was. Did I laugh at most of the moments that were supposed to be funny? Yes. Did I feel emotion when I was supposed to? You bet. It's a great movie at manipulating your emotions, and that's because of the exquisite cast. While I do not agree with Lee Daniels' tactics to achieve his desired goal, I cannot lie and say I did not enjoy this film as a movie, but as a historical reenactment, it is very one sided.

I give Lee Daniels' The Butler a 7 out of 10!

What a Sham

[stephen-771-150700 · 1/10 · 21 August 2013]

The actors in this movie were fantastic, however the "rewriting of history" was terrible.

The Butler's real name is Eugene Allen. Here is where the movie rewrote history: he did NOT have a son who died in Vietnam, he did NOT have a son who became a Black Panther, his mother was NO raped by a white cotton field manager, and his father was NOT murdered by the same white man.

So if you take this "made up" stories out of this movie, you have a much different movie. What a disservice to Eugene Allen. You would think that this story could have been a true story, at the very least the opening header should make a statement that this is a FICTIONAL movie.

Pseudo-Historical film marred by heavy-handed directing

[ChetXBuck · 10 February 2014]

There is a bit of great acting in this vaguely historic film, but Director Lee Daniels uses so much made-up and absurd pseudo-history that the story trips over his heavy-handed political lessons. Why is Lee Daniels' name above the title and who gave him this much license to re-write history after only one other film we've heard of?

That said, Forest Whitaker is compelling as the lead in this story about a White House butler that had an amazing life, but it is 90% made up. While there was a butler who served many presidents, the screenplay is actually fiction. While somewhat entertaining, these comical characterizations of U.S. presidents often feel like a made for TV, kids history channel special.

Oprah plays his wife and there are a dozen or so entertaining cameos with some unique acting choices. The cameos kept it interesting even when the story of The Butler dragged on.

If Lee Daniels had let go of the politics and heavy-handed directing, this pseudo-history lesson may have earned an Oscar nomination for Forest. But, in the end, you can see why the Academy cannot reward this artificial and revisionist history tale. With this much effort to tell us a 60 year history lesson, I just wish we knew if more of it were true. Instead, it's a mixed bag. 7/10.

A decent movie with some decent flaws

[Mess8424 · 7/10 · 23 August 2013]

This movie doesn't have a real inspirational protagonist, and its goal is not to give you such. It is simply to tell a story of a unique man in history. While watching the movie, I related it to a true Forrest Gump. Historical events are the backdrop to this movie, and if you are familiar with the time period, you'll hear plenty of historical references from the many portrayed presidents.

For a history buff, this movie gives entertainment on so many levels. You'll see presidents debating historical events, freedom rides, Little Rock Nine, and the KKK. Some is used with actual footage, others with reenactments. But it is all done very well. The cast is strangely chosen, but fairly well chosen nonetheless. While it seems actors were chosen based on their status rather than looks (in comparison to the people they portrayed), they do well with their portrayals.

The title seems a little misleading. Only half of this movie was about The Butler himself. The other half was focused on his unlikable friends and family, leaving you wanting the camera to just go back to Cecil, because watching him shine shoes is much more interesting than seeing an obnoxious neighbor hit on his wife. Like I said, MOST of the cast does well. But John Cusack as Richard Nixon? Really? I could not have heard of a worse choice. Not only does he not look like Nixon in any way, but his character has the appearance of a young stressed out guy rather than a paranoid old man. In my opinion, Tommy Lee Jones would have been a much better choice. Also, a death of a primary character occurs at the end of the film, but it is so undramatic that it is up to par with Bane's death in the Dark Knight Rises. It could have been done much better. Finally, the movie took place over many years. Yet the characters' looks don't really change throughout the film, and then they suddenly drastically change. I wish it would have taken notes from A Beautiful Mind.

Overall, despite its issues, I would recommend the Butler to history lovers and movie lovers in general. I think it is worth one viewing at the least, just to learn of a unique yet unknown man who had served the United States for years with no credit to his name. It can be a long movie, but for many, it is worth it.

Those Who IGNORE History.... Are DOOMED to REPEAT it!

[Tony-Kiss-Castillo · 9/10 · 15 January 2022]

There are, undoubtedly, scenes in Lee Daniel's The Butler that made me feel quite uncomfortable. Most certainly, many other viewers will echo similar discomfort experienced while watching this near great movie. Unfortunately, the existence of atrocities and flagrant injustices in our not too distant past doesn't mean that they should be whitewashed or airbrushed out of our collective memories! (Absolutely no pun intended here)

Don't let me give you the wrong impression about The BUTLER. In just over 2 hours until end credits, there are but a scant few minutes of images that some of us would, perhaps, just as soon forget. At the heart of this remarkable film, is a tale of a great generational divide between estranged father and first-born son; redemption, change, forgiveness, repentance and catharsis are also pivotal elements in this "Inspired by a True Story" drama painted on a historical backdrop canvass.

Although The BUTLER does highlight the tremendous progress our society has made in the past century toward fulfillment of Dr. Martin Luther King's "Dream", obviously, there is an undercurrent underscoring the fact that this area is one that involves constant self-reinvention to ensure continued improvement.

There are multiple noteworthy elements here. First, Oprah Winfrey's triumphant return to an on-screen leading role. Despite having done numerous voice-overs in recent years, BUTLER represents the end of a 15 year hiatus, when she participated in the ill-fated BELOVED. Her performance, although not quite Oscar nomination caliber, would win, without a doubt, an Academy Award for best "Billionaire Female Actor on the Planet", if such a prize existed! Accepting this role surely resulted in reduced income for Oprah in 2013. If that doesn't make her participation in this project a "Labor of Love", what would?

BUTLER is my pick for 2013 Best Ensemble Performance Golden Globe. Cast Credits give the impression of a page lifted directly from a Who's Who in Acting & Entertainment! Cuba Gooding, Jr.; Robin Williams, in a refreshing, but brief, appearance as a pensive and soft-spoken President Eisenhower; Vanessa Redgrave; Clarence Williams III; James Marsden as President Kennedy; John Cusack, as an ever brooding and duplicitous President Nixon; David Oyelowo, as the rebellious prodigal son; Terence Howard; Lenny Kravitz; Mariah Carey; Jane Fonda, who sparkled as Nancy Reagan and Alan Rickman as her careful-not-to-step-on-her-toes husband, Ronald! The only weak link, in my opinion, was Liev Schreiber as President Lyndon B. Johnson. His portrayal just did not resonate with me.

Quite frankly, despite analyzing carefully for any historical missteps, there were only a couple rather minor ones that were noticeable. About three-quarters into BUTLER, the story-line, focus and viewer interest level seemed to sputter a bit, but then, managed to get right back on track rather quickly.

The film did attempt to provide moments of comic relief from the oftentimes somber on-screen events, most of them evoking healthy laughter but a handful of them kind of fell flat. If it weren't for these few mentioned flaws, BUTLER most definitely would have been rewarded with a 10*Star* rating! When released on DVD, rest assured it will be added to my 800+ collection!

ENJOY! / DISFUTELA!!!

Soap Oprah!

[davidgee · 7/10 · 30 November 2013]

I wanted to see this partly because Jane Fonda plays Nancy Reagan. 'Hanoi Jane' as the most ultra-conservative First Lady! In the event Fonda, who is only on screen for about 60 seconds, provides a pleasing caricature of the Lady In Red. Alan Rickman is equally improbable as Reagan, made up so that he looks uncannily like Ronnie whilst still looking (and sounding) like Alan Rickman. Robin Williams's Eisenhower is also little more than a cameo, like John Cusack's creepy Nixon and Liev Schreiber's toned-down LBJ. James Marsden and Minke Kelly get the most screen time as the Kennedys and are not the most convincing re-creators of Camelot. Ford, Carter and Obama are only shown in TV clips and Clinton and the Bushes don't even get a look-in.

In fact, all the Presidents are both crucial and inconsequential to the main ('inspired by a true story') theme, which is how Cecil Gaines, a share-cropper's son from the Deep South, became a butler to successive tenants in the White House. Forest Whitaker anchors the story with a rock-solid performance, ageing decades in the course of the movie. The script's central focus is on Cecil's loyal wife Gloria (Oprah Winfrey) and their difficult relationship with their eldest son Louis (David Oyelowo), who joins the Civil Rights movement almost from its inception and gets beaten and jailed many times as successive administrations slowly set about fulfilling Martin Luther King's great and noble Dream.

This is, in its way, a great and noble concept but. despite a few references to Gandhi (the man rather than the biopic), THE BUTLER has the feel of soap opera (Soap Oprah!), reminiscent of the ROOTS mini-series. Gloria's battle with alcohol inevitably brings Sue Ellen Ewing to mind. The pace is necessarily rushed, history (Civil Rights, Vietnam, Riots) condensed to docudrama moments. The black actors are the movie's greatest strength, and you do leave the cinema with a powerful sense of the triumphant journey Black Americans have made, from the plantations to the Oval Office. Where this Reader's Digest version of History falls short, perhaps, is in not showing how many blacks still have lives in the ghettos and the boondocks just as bleak and brutal as they were in the cotton fields of the nineteenth century.

absorbing and rewarding drama

[coiffuremixte · 10/10 · 14 November 2013]

The Butler looks at the civil-rights movement from the point of view of ordinary African-American people. The genius of this film is the choice of a white house servant and his life as a focal point to the historical events portrayed.

The drama is both absorbing and emotionally rich. What is surprising is the way that sympathy for Whitaker's central character, Cecil Gaines, is so strong that the events, though sprawling, always resonate as intricate pieces of his life; because of this anchor, the film remains intimate and personal, even when the fate of an entire nation is involved.

Each actor excels here, the reason for this is that they, while obviously being highly talented individuals, are led by a commanding director who knows exactly what he's saying at all times, while keeping all the complexity of his subject matter.

You could say this is an African-American Forrest Gump: the story of an everyman whose fate collides repeatedly with historical figures and events, but The Butler is far more mature and subtle work which, beyond race, questions our roles as men and women in our daily lives. It questions and explores moral responsibility and how from generation to generation we can all search for what is the right moral conduct in the face of opposition, oppression and evil. It also shows how we can make a profound difference in life through dedication, integrity and love.

Unfairly criticized in my opinion...

[Onthethreshold · 7/10 · 25 August 2013]

I would agree with some critics who say that certain characters were miscast in this film, from John Cusack as Richard Nixon, to Liev Schreiber as Lyndon Johnson to Robin Williams as Dwight Eisenhower, however given their very limited roles in this movie I'm not sure it's entirely justified. I would say the same about Alan Rickman as Ronald Reagan and Jane Fonda as Nancy Reagan. (a part that barely gets more than two minutes in the entire movie)

The storyline is elegant and I believe quite well-told and let's be fair in saying that only so much history over 25 years can be told in a two hour movie with any serious depth given the nature of the topic behind it.

So to be clear here it is. This movie is political but in a way that transcends whether you are Democrat or Republican. It addresses the fundamental issue of civil rights in the United States since the late 1950's when Eisenhower was reluctant to use federal troops to intervene in Arkansas to integrate racially segregated schooling to Ronald Reagan's opposition to a U.S. position opposing apartheid in South Africa in the early 1980's. Therefore the movie has racial undertones and in this 50th anniversary of the March on Washington and JFK's assassination we shouldn't be surprised by films that attempt to highlight injustices that took place during this period of U.S. history. Yes, there may be more a glorification of Democratic president's Kennedy and Johnson, but let's also be clear they were the only president's since Lincoln and Grant that dared to challenge the status quo in a serious way since Reconstruction, even if it was for expedient purposes.

As such it's no coincidence that Whitaker's character wears JFK's tie and LBJ's tie clasp upon his meeting Barack Obama at the film's end. It's fitting and appropriate, and above all else this movie forces you to think about certain issues that are all too easily forgotten, even in this day and age.

Yes, 'The Butler' might resemble 'Forrest Gump' in many ways but where it excels over the former is making a statement about American history and society that far too many choose to ignore or minimize in importance.

Moving, nuanced, historical saga of the finest quality

[wgibso0693 · 10/10 · 1 September 2013]

Long admired the work of Whitaker. As a life long fan of movies and long time student of American politics and history, but unfortunately a cranky old left winger from the frozen North, my opinion can be safely ignored.

This picture will win Best Picture at the Oscars. FW will win best actor. Oprah will be nominated but will lose.

I was moved by ever scene. I had to wipe away some tears in more than one moment of this wrenching family story. Some people may say that FW underwhelmed, but I believe his underplaying was not really underplaying but instead was subtle, nuanced and slowly built up a complex personality. Oprah shaded her role in an equally effective way. The overall pacing of the film seemed just about perfect.

I was delighted and surprised to see the actors assembled to play the Presidents. I had not read about them in advance. John Cusack as Nixon and Rickman as Reagan I found especially effective. I was surprised to learn about Reagan's effort to pay black WH staff equally and to ensure that they had access to internal promotion and departmental transfers to more high paying jobs.

So would I recommend this film to friends, yes, unreservedly.

Forest and Oprah Will Win Oscars!

[3xHCCH · 7/10 · 22 August 2013]

"The Butler" tells us the life story of Cecil Gaines, from his childhood on a Southern cotton plantation in the 1920s all the way up to Barack Obama's proclamation as US President. In between, Gaines was a silent witness to the inner workings of the White House as one of its butlers, from the presidencies of Dwight Eisenhower to Ronald Reagan.

We actually see more of his personal life. His wife Gloria enjoyed smoking and alcohol. They had two sons. The eldest Louis becomes an activist for black rights. The younger son is Charlie, who becomes a soldier in Vietnam. Through their lives, we see the history of the civil rights movement during the 1960s and onwards.

The story has been told in many films before, albeit this one has a unique point of view. However, the conceit of this movie, as its poster proudly announces, is its all-star cast. A lot of critics decry the use of the most unlikely actors to portray peripheral characters, such as the US Presidents. But for me, this makes the film more special to watch.

Forest Whitaker and Oprah Winfrey play the central roles of Cecil and Gloria Gaines. They will age several years and we will see the passage of time through their makeup and costumes. Their acting will definitely earn them Oscar nominations. For Oprah, it may as well be her Oscar already, as early as now.

A great and powerful movie, very deep and moving

[feet_ontheground · 10/10 · 10 September 2013]

This movie is worthy of many awards. Thank you to everyone who participated in making it. The reality of our history is both heartbreaking and remarkable.

It is striking that rights must continually be appreciated and fought for. It was important to see the different ways that people advanced civil rights.

Reading some negative reviews my sense is that some people may have trouble taking in the deep, more subtle but powerful expressions in this film.

As some seek to turn back the clock and, for example make it harder for minorities to vote, this movie can inspire us all to fight against that.

Good character study, but can't fulfill all its ambitions

[Horst_In_Translation · 6/10 · 26 October 2013]

After "Precious" and "The Paperboy", Lee Daniels' newest work takes us into the history of the United States of America. It's written by Danny Strong, who already penned the multiple award-winning TV films "Game Change" and "Recount" and is up for the Hunger Games sequels next. Things must have clicked as Strong and Daniels will also reunite for another upcoming television movie.

Forest Whitaker is Cecil Gaines, the central character here, and he's always a welcome presence to me. I don't know if he's the greatest actor under the sun, but he has lots of charisma and I always enjoy watching him. Here we can witness his character for considerably over two hours stuck between the goal to be the invisible servant and fighting his own fight for equality in the White House. The film starts with his younger days, but I have to say that part really didn't interest me at all. There were a couple interesting references early on, especially about how terms like "house n***er" were truly common back then and even used by the non/less racist White people, but it was basically all about showing us how Blacks were discriminated against and often even hurt/killed without punishment. Vanessa Redgrave was kinda wasted here. Shortly afterwards, Gaines rises and becomes a butler to more and more influential people. From a renowned hotel, he makes the step up to the White House.

Here we see his journey through the years and how he encounters all the Presidents during his profession. This was actually my favorite part to see all of them portrayed with their quirks and the approaches Robin Williams, John Cusack, Alan Rickman etc. gave them. Especially Cusack's early interaction scene with the Black staff when his character was still Vice President was excellent. Usually, you only have one President in a biopic, but here we have a whole lot more. I found this even more interesting than all the references connected with racial equality and the scenes with Martin Luther King for example, although David Oyelowo gave a convincing portrayal as Gaines' son and when they reunited in the end as Cecil comes to support his son's efforts, it was one of the biggest tearjerker moments of the film. Another one was the way the Kennedy assassination was depicted. Very well done. What could have been done better was the MLK assassination and the death of Gaines' wife one day before Obama's election (what a coincidence!). Surely some potential here that was not really fulfilled. The wife was played by Oprah Winfrey and she's considered the frontrunner for Best Supporting Actress at the Oscars at this point. While I thought she was good for the most part, can't blame her or Howard for their pointless sub-plot, I don't think she was that good. We'll see if she can really garner considerable awards attention for her role here.

As a whole, I recommend this film. It's certainly not the truly great political movie it aims to be, but if you focus on its strengths and especially all the action at the White House and the father-son relationship or just love Whitaker as much as I do, it's definitely worth a watch. Of course, a lot was included for dramatic effects and wasn't really adequate for history, but that shouldn't keep anybody from watching these thoroughly entertaining two hours. Another problem I personally had with the film is that sometimes its message became just too gooey, for example the last scenes leading up to Obama's election left a bit of a bitter aftertaste for me. I'm free from any kind of racial prejudice, so, even if it was a historically significant event, I just can't really understand the sentiment that we have to celebrate and put so much emphasis on a White, Black, Asian, Indian... president, as long as it's the best guy for the job and everybody has to answer that question for themselves.

Title Is Misleading

[nancy45 · 4/10 · 16 August 2013]

I was hoping to see a movie about the butler and his experiences in The White House. I'm sure he had a lot of interesting stories to tell and a lot of very interesting experiences in his many years in The White House. Yes, the movie was about a butler to some degree, but it was more about the civil rights movement and the evil white man. I would love to know more about the butler. I would love to have seen his experiences with the presidents the movie skipped over. I think in real life he must have been more interesting than he was portrayed. I also did not like the liberties the movie took with the real butler's life. He spoke of no horrible event on the cotton fields as a child. He had one son, not two. His son, who is still alive, was not a militant. His wife did not have a drinking problem, nor did she have an affair. Why add unnecessary drama? This movie will win awards because of its self righteousness, but not because it's that deserving.