Cadillac Records

The trouble with these kind of movies is that they will never satisfy the purists among us. OK so maybe it glosses over the facts and makes the history all shiny and Hollywood, but I will see how many people will come away from this movie WANTING to find out more about the history of blues.

So what if its not perfect, if you want a perfect history you will go and buy a documentary on the subject. I want to be entertained when I watch a movie not sit there and critique history.

I think all the performances in the movie are convincing and great. I especially loved Beyonce, she just seems to ooze talent, although the on-screen time is shorter compared to Dreamgirls, she is extremely commanding.

As for the covering Etta's song, these are outstanding. I am in love with the songs all over again, and in love with these versions.

Wow, I've never seen a biopic take such liberties with facts... to the point that the film even invents a murder that never happened. But in all fairness, so did "Amadeus".

The point of the film, however, is not to present facts but to foster interest. That much is said in the director's commentary: she says that if people become interested to learn more about these (and other) classic artists, then the film has done its job.

Then by all means, it succeeded. The names of Muddy Waters, Etta James, Little Walter & Howlin Wolf have always been a footnote to the general public (including myself). But now I'll definitely take notice.

If you're already a blues aficianado, then I doubt you'll care much for this film. But if you're part of the target audience--those who are not familiar with the origin of rock'n'roll or who think erroneously (as I did) that Elvis was the one who started it all--then this movie is worth a watch.

I'll give you one warning. It gets ugly. This is NOT a film to be showcased during Black History Month! It portrays many of these artists at their worst: drug-addicted, alcoholic, violent, sex-crazed, uneducated, selfish and perpetually angry. The film has a very cynical, malicious vibe. But I think this was done with a specific intent; the director seemed to be making a strong metaphor to today's gangsta rap, probably with the hopes of reaching a young generation that never appreciated blues & rock'n'roll. I thought that was an interesting angle, though it must offend many blues purists.

So there you have it... Don't expect facts. Don't expect history. Don't expect many feel-good moments. Instead expect a very stylish drama about the Chicago 'hood with a lot of sex, drugs & rock'n'roll. I know it sounds like I'm disparaging the movie, but I'm not. I really thought it was an interesting presentation.

Chuck Berry was the greatest pioneer in Rock 'N' Roll history. He is ranked by Rolling Stone Mag as the 5th greatest performer in its history. He wrote music and lyrics that will live forever, played a tremendous guitar (Rolling Stone Mag lists his as number 6th in their top 100 guitar players list) and sang real well. I wish this film would have concentrated more on him.

I read that Beyonce' gained 15 pounds to play Etta James and weighed in at 135 pounds. Etta James at one time, believe it or not I checked this out, weighed over 400 pounds.

The intent and sincerity of the director and writer was superb, but this film was somewhat flawed with inconsistencies. They had Chuck Berry singing "No Particular Place to Go" at the beginning of his stardom in the mid 1950s.

Actually he recorded this hit record in 1962. In the film Berry sang "Promised Land," a super song but a non hit that never made the top 40. Why did they not have Chuck Berry sing his great hit songs such as "roll over Beethoven," "School Days," "Sweet Little 16," "Rock 'N' Roll Music," "Back in the USA" or "Johnny B Goode"? Also, Leonard Cress never, according to famed music critic George Varga, had an affair with Etta James, and the degree to which Leonard Cress cheated and exploited his musicians was not dealt with.

Ralph Bass, who was not in the film, not Cress produced Etta James' recording sessions and Cress Record mainstays Bo Didley and John Lee Hooker were missing from the film. I do, nevertheless, highly recommend this film and would rate it a 3 on a zero to 4 star scale.

It is interesting so many people have commented on the historical inaccuracies of the film and condemn the film because of this. No one said it was a historical film? It is an excellent film, and I would consider it a lot more than just popcorn entertainment...it has the *flavor* of history. And what is this about looking for historical details in the film? The film maker made a great film with a storyline built around music. We don't get to see such films which modify facts to suit the narrative and their budget. It made for great, entertaining viewing....One of the things that I have difficulty understanding is when some people either want facts or the book a film is based on to drive a feature film. Unless it's a documentary I don't think the filmmaker is obligated to base the film as such so long as the film openly declares that it is based on facts or book...i.e. it is not claiming to be factual but simply derives it's basic storyline from either as the case may be...beyond that the film has artistic license to adapt the historical or fictional narrative for the film. But if a film faithfully represents history or a particular book, that is welcome too.

Cadillac Records was focused on Chess Records and some of it's principal artistes. Who cares if there was a second brother or that there were other artistes....the film maker told a fictional interpretation of the facts and made it a thoroughly enjoyable film. We learn to care for the characters and get to experience their struggles, frustrations, relationships, foibles and talents etc.

Consider this too "fact junkies" - how many movies out there make for a good story to an audience who is NOT into a particular genre of music or art form, and yet gives them some inkling that a particular topic was loosely based on facts or a book. Whether or not everyone who saw the film came away convinced of it's historical inaccuracies, I am confident that those who did not care about such inaccuracies or even the blues, they certainly came away with a better perspective of a small aspect of the history of the blues (and some aspect of rock music) as well as a record company owner who supported and helped some musicians to become big names in the business. Such a segment of the audience would be unlikely to go see a documentary on the history of the blues. The film introduced the blues by making them accessible to an audience segment who otherwise would have been in the dark.

Getting down to the film, ALL actors portray their characters very well. I thought Eamonn (sp?) Walker and Beyonce playing Howling Wolf and Etta James respectively were quite simply amazing. Beyonce especially. Both their performances were riveting. I refer to them specifically because they had relatively smaller parts compared to Adrien Brody and Jeffery Wright, who did a fantastic job as well. If you see films to enjoy a good story...you have one here in spades. And it is sad that the movie did not get to play in theatres as long as it ought to have. This is a loss for film viewers as much as it is for the filmmakers who made it. But I know this movie is getting more play on DVD because word-of-mouth is getting around. Highly recommended.

'Cadillac Records' is an admirable attempt to tell the tale of the legendary Chess Records,which did for Blues what Atlantic Records did for R&B/Soul,Jazz,Rock & Roll,etc. The main problem is that Hollywood can always be counted on for totally screwing up any & all forms of social history (and fumbles the ball,big time as usual). The film's writer/director obviously didn't do a whole lot of home work in looking for historical authenticity. It seemed to content that Chess Records only had about a handful of talent recording (Muddy Waters,Howlin' Wolf,Etta James,while totally ignoring Bo Diddley & the stable of other equally talented musicians & song writers). A friend of mine who knows his onions in the field of creative African American/Black music told me of a lot of the glaring omissions that was left out of this film (there were actually two Chess brothers that ran the label),as well as the fact that several Rhythm & Blues,Rock & Roll & even Jazz acts also recorded for Chess Records,back in the day. Adrian Brody,who normally pulls down some world class roles seems content to be the closest thing to a used car salesman (while spouting a nearly non stop,fire cracker string of swearing out of his mouth). Jeffrey Wright has some nice screen time as Muddy Waters. Some of the rest of the cast just seems wasted in this half baked attempt of telling the story of Blues music. This film only played out for a couple of weeks before it ended up as a 2nd string, budget line feature (does that tell you something?). Rated 'R' by the MPAA, this film features wall to wall swearing,lots of sexual goings-on,drug & alcohol abuse & other material that you probably wouldn't want junior to see (at least until he/she's a bit older)