A good way to gauge the end results of this film disaster would be to temporarily resurrect the personage of Jacqueline Susann to get her reaction. I think she would have laughed it off the screen, but not amused laughter: aching, bitter, cynical laughter. I don't see it as a camp film ("Valley of the Dolls" was a camp film); this is a pure, unadulterated error in judgment by many talented people with honorable intentions. The picture looks good and has the nice addition of Burt Bacharach's music score (with the occasional Dionne Warwick vocal--natch), but it is unbearably miscast. When was the last time you can remember Bette Midler failing to ignite on screen (her TV sitcom not accepted)? Bette strains for a low-key effect in the serious moments, but it's just not in her to be pensive; her raucous scenes also derail, and this is due in part to poor direction, poor editing choices, and also poor judgment from Midler, who lets herself be seen on-camera struggling (a struggling comedienne is about as funny as a drowning one--here she does both). A sequence in the film that has hubby-to-be Irving Mansfield following Jackie into a NYC lake is both outrageous and deadening. The factually-incorrect script aside, "Isn't She Great" (no question mark?) is quite simply a beleaguered movie: vapid, colorless, unfocused, and out-of-touch. Susann might've asked what her 'cut' was and then forgot the entire thing. *1/2 from ****
68 Reviews
It's SUPPOSED to be like this!
gpaltrow200110 October 2006
People have complained about how bad this is. They are right. People have noted how much they enjoyed it. They are right, too. Remember how bad the book and the movie 'Valley of the Dolls' were? Well, here ya go-- It's all in the same vein. They are obviously being over the top, campy, kitschy... If you are looking for Scorcese, this ain't it. But cheesy fun this IS! Unfortunately, because they felt they HAD to make it campy, the 'dramedy' doesn't work. So it goes between melodramatic and wiseacre, with neither hitting the mark. I have to say I enjoyed the movie the same way I would enjoy 'Mommie Dearest' or 'Showgirls'. Just mindless, guilty time-wasting. I'm also a sucker for period pieces when they get it right. The clothing, the celebrities, the zeitgeist of the time are pretty good. I'll take Bette Midler chewing the scenery in this over her deplorable 'Beaches' character any day!
Isn't She Great... Really Isn't **1/2
edwagreen29 December 2009
Warning: Spoilers
Perfect casting for Nathan Lane as Irving Mansfield and Bette Midler as Jackie Susann.
The problem with the film is the writing. It is quite choppy at best and it appears that parts of the story were absolutely rushed, as if they had to make a deadline.
Let's remember that VALLEY OF THE DOLLS bombed as a film in 1967 and I guess that this biography of Jackie Susann was destined to fail as well.
It just came too fast that Mansfield had the idea that Susann should start writing. That concept came from out of the blue. Make no mistake, VALLEY OF THE DOLLS was trashy in every sense of the word. Look at the scene they showed in the movie, when Susan Hayward gets her red wig pulled off by Nealy, played by Patty Duke. Remember how Judy Garland, who was supposed to play the part of Helen Lawson-Hayward's part, laughed when she saw this movie? Ditto goes for the film.
Despite the bad writing, Midler rises above it to show that Susann was quite a character in her own right. Loud, boisterous, vulgar with desire to reach the top, Midler etched an unforgettable character.
Did you notice how fast Mansfield wanted to ditch the marriage but is lured back quickly by Susann.
David Hyde Pierce was excellent as the publisher who came around eventually to Susann's feeling. Now, we needed some more feeling with the writing.
The problem with the film is the writing. It is quite choppy at best and it appears that parts of the story were absolutely rushed, as if they had to make a deadline.
Let's remember that VALLEY OF THE DOLLS bombed as a film in 1967 and I guess that this biography of Jackie Susann was destined to fail as well.
It just came too fast that Mansfield had the idea that Susann should start writing. That concept came from out of the blue. Make no mistake, VALLEY OF THE DOLLS was trashy in every sense of the word. Look at the scene they showed in the movie, when Susan Hayward gets her red wig pulled off by Nealy, played by Patty Duke. Remember how Judy Garland, who was supposed to play the part of Helen Lawson-Hayward's part, laughed when she saw this movie? Ditto goes for the film.
Despite the bad writing, Midler rises above it to show that Susann was quite a character in her own right. Loud, boisterous, vulgar with desire to reach the top, Midler etched an unforgettable character.
Did you notice how fast Mansfield wanted to ditch the marriage but is lured back quickly by Susann.
David Hyde Pierce was excellent as the publisher who came around eventually to Susann's feeling. Now, we needed some more feeling with the writing.
Not as bad as it's cracked up to be.
PeterB24226 November 2004
I've caught "Isn't She Great" several times now (It seems to be eternally running on the movie channels).
This was a monster flop when it came out, barely released, but it does a fine job of capturing the era.
The main attraction of this film is the acting of the leads. Both Nathan Lane and Bette Midler can come off incredibly stagy on film, but their style works well with these characters. Jackie Suzanne was larger than life. They both manage to bring a true sense of sweetness to their roles.
Particular note must be made of David Hyde Pierce as her editor. This actor fits very well in this era. Also, John Cleese is a hoot as the publisher. Wish there were more of him in the movie.
Give this one a chance. A period piece from a currently unhip period.
This was a monster flop when it came out, barely released, but it does a fine job of capturing the era.
The main attraction of this film is the acting of the leads. Both Nathan Lane and Bette Midler can come off incredibly stagy on film, but their style works well with these characters. Jackie Suzanne was larger than life. They both manage to bring a true sense of sweetness to their roles.
Particular note must be made of David Hyde Pierce as her editor. This actor fits very well in this era. Also, John Cleese is a hoot as the publisher. Wish there were more of him in the movie.
Give this one a chance. A period piece from a currently unhip period.
ISN'T THIS DREADFUL
SFTVLGUY27 November 2004
Truly bad movies are a dime a dozen, but how often do they boast credits as outstanding as those found in "Isn't She Great"? What attracted such talents as Bette Midler, Nathan Lane, David Hyde Pierce, and Stockard Channing to this ludicrous script by the usually competent Paul Rudnick? What inspired director Andrew Bergman ("The Freshman") to add this piece of fluff and nonsense to his resume? It's no surprise that the film remained shelved for some time after its completion, and disappeared from screens soon after its release . . . unlike some movies that are so bad they're funny, this one is simply awful. Allegedly a bio of trash novelist Jacqueline Susann of "Valley of the Dolls" infamy, "Isn't She Great" plods along from Susann's (Midler) first meeting with the man she eventually married, Irving Mansfield (Lane, miscast as anyone's husband), until her death from cancer in 1974. Midler is forced to spend several scenes conversing with a tree she imagines to be God; moments the couple spend with their autistic son seem to have been included simply to keep the audience from asking, "Whatever happened to the kid?;" Channing, as Susann's gal pal, periodically flits in and out looking terrific but with absolutely nothing to do. Reality simply doesn't exist here. The newlywed Mansfields are apparently struggling to make it - publicist Irving's biggest client is Perry Como's ex-brother-in-law, a juggler, no less, and the highlight of Jackie's acting career is a one-time appearance on the "celebrity" panel of a TV quiz show called "What's My Job?," yet they live in the lap of luxury in a highrise, have breakfast delivered, and eat at Lindy's on a regular basis - long before "Dolls" hits the best-seller lists. Rudnick's script promises drama, but never delivers - Mansfield's jealousy of his wife's success, for example, is suggested, but never developed. No one in the cast makes any effort to rise above the weak material - they either sleepwalk or bulldoze their way through scenes, as if they were resigned to this being a lost cause. Only one true moment is to be found in this disaster - during the premiere of the film version of "Dolls," Susann turns to her husband and mutters, "I HATE this movie!" . . . so believably that Midler no doubt is describing this whole, sorry mess.
She may have been great, but that doesn't mean this movie is
Sillysil20 May 2000
As much as I love Bette Midler, even she can't save this film or make the character any less flat. This is not a story and these are not characters we can relate to. We rush through a lifetime of moments without ever getting into the story. The only light point in this whole fiasco is Stockard Channing who manages to make her character as round as she can get in this awfully flat story. In one word: UUULLLLggggh
ISN'T SHE SELF-ABSORBED?
Mitch-3822 June 2002
Sleepy Midler-Lane vehicle about life of trash novelist Jacqueline Susann. Predictable and unfunny, even attempts at poignancy either get drowned out with self-absorbed dialogue or shtick.
Bette Midler, known to put some life in films, seems totally tranquilized out. Nathan Lane's character seems almost robotic; only programmed to dote and serve. Flunkies are fun, but after awhile, they get dull. Especially the ones that try to live their life vicariously through yours. The only saving grace here was Stockard Channing, who always seems to churn out a good performance, even if the flick is lame, which brings me back to ISN'T SHE GREAT.
The screenplay and the vapid absence of direction really hurt the film, as well. There's no verbal intercourse between the main protagonists. The lines seem to be uttered lines, and pretty hokey ones at that. The direction seems as if, the crew placed the camera on a stack of boxes and broke for lunch.
It's not unwatchable. There's a couple of moments of enjoyment. However, when taking into consideration the amount of talent involved here, the fluff factor is pretty disappointing. Not recommended.
Bette Midler, known to put some life in films, seems totally tranquilized out. Nathan Lane's character seems almost robotic; only programmed to dote and serve. Flunkies are fun, but after awhile, they get dull. Especially the ones that try to live their life vicariously through yours. The only saving grace here was Stockard Channing, who always seems to churn out a good performance, even if the flick is lame, which brings me back to ISN'T SHE GREAT.
The screenplay and the vapid absence of direction really hurt the film, as well. There's no verbal intercourse between the main protagonists. The lines seem to be uttered lines, and pretty hokey ones at that. The direction seems as if, the crew placed the camera on a stack of boxes and broke for lunch.
It's not unwatchable. There's a couple of moments of enjoyment. However, when taking into consideration the amount of talent involved here, the fluff factor is pretty disappointing. Not recommended.
Not a good movie--but I had fun
preppy-311 January 2004
This movie is supposedly about Jacqueline Susann (Bette Midler) and husband Irving Mansfield (Nathan Lane). It chronicles how they met, fell in love and how she got "Valley of the Dolls" published. But this movie is a mess...and completely inaccurate.
For starters, Midler doesn't even remotely look like Susann or act like her. I've read at least 3 books on Susann as well as various articles - she was an ambitious, intelligent, driven woman. As Midler portrays her she is stupid, obnoxious, VERY loud and foul-mouthed. I'm no prude but there's way too much swearing from her in this--I have my doubts that Susann ever talked like that. Also they take actual events from Susann's life and fictionalizes them. When she is told in the movie to edit her book she acts like an idiot and refuses to help. In real life, Susann agreed to help make the book better with no fuss. And, Susann had a "Wishing Hill" (as she called it) in Central Park. It was basically a huge pile of rocks where she sat to clear her mind and relax. Here it's turned into a giant tree (????) and we have sequences with Lane and Midler talking, yelling and swearing at it. It's a wonder that those two managed to pull it off without looking like idiots.
As you can see, this is a bad film--but just so much FUN to watch! The incredible costumes and set design are just great--colorful and very true to the period. Some of the lines are actually very funny. Nathan Lane is great as Mansfield and Stockard Channing (as her best friend) and David Hyde Pierce (as her publisher) are hysterical and offer strong support. And Christopher McDonald and John Larroquette throw in cameos. Also John Cleese is on hand but he's wasted. Then there's Midler....she's AWFUL! Loud, shrill and thoroughly unlikable. When she was dying at the end I could have cared less. If she had toned down her performance and not played every scene at full tilt this might have worked. But she doesn't. However, she is fun to watch--a textbook example of how NOT to play a role.
The studio (understandably) threw this film away. It came and went VERY quickly and was a commercial disaster. Still, I'm giving it a 7--it's so incredibly bad that it's fun to watch! A must-see on that level.
For starters, Midler doesn't even remotely look like Susann or act like her. I've read at least 3 books on Susann as well as various articles - she was an ambitious, intelligent, driven woman. As Midler portrays her she is stupid, obnoxious, VERY loud and foul-mouthed. I'm no prude but there's way too much swearing from her in this--I have my doubts that Susann ever talked like that. Also they take actual events from Susann's life and fictionalizes them. When she is told in the movie to edit her book she acts like an idiot and refuses to help. In real life, Susann agreed to help make the book better with no fuss. And, Susann had a "Wishing Hill" (as she called it) in Central Park. It was basically a huge pile of rocks where she sat to clear her mind and relax. Here it's turned into a giant tree (????) and we have sequences with Lane and Midler talking, yelling and swearing at it. It's a wonder that those two managed to pull it off without looking like idiots.
As you can see, this is a bad film--but just so much FUN to watch! The incredible costumes and set design are just great--colorful and very true to the period. Some of the lines are actually very funny. Nathan Lane is great as Mansfield and Stockard Channing (as her best friend) and David Hyde Pierce (as her publisher) are hysterical and offer strong support. And Christopher McDonald and John Larroquette throw in cameos. Also John Cleese is on hand but he's wasted. Then there's Midler....she's AWFUL! Loud, shrill and thoroughly unlikable. When she was dying at the end I could have cared less. If she had toned down her performance and not played every scene at full tilt this might have worked. But she doesn't. However, she is fun to watch--a textbook example of how NOT to play a role.
The studio (understandably) threw this film away. It came and went VERY quickly and was a commercial disaster. Still, I'm giving it a 7--it's so incredibly bad that it's fun to watch! A must-see on that level.
Hollywood's Final Insult to Jacqueline Susann
shaggycub24 September 2000
After making trashy movies of Miss Susann's books (yes I am well aware that Susann's novels were not high art, but cripes, those movies were far worse), Hollywood finally got around to making a trashy movie of her life. Instead of basing this travesty on the wonderful Jackie Bio written by Barbara Seaman ("Lovely Me"), they instead chose to base it on an article her former editor, Michael Korda wrote for Vanity Fair. Bearing in mind that Jackie hated Michael with vitriolic passion and that they only worked on one book together. This is as bad a biopic as "Harlow" was. The tone of this movie is all wrong as it veers between slapstick and tear jerking unconvincingly. As much as I respect Bette, she is somewhat miscast as Ms. Susann...in fact there is one glaringly inaccurate scene where Bette complains that the reason that she's not successful as an actress is that she's not skinny and cute...WRONG! Miss Susann in real life was skinny and regarded as very attractive-she just didn't have much, if any talent as a performer. This is one of many inacuracies in the movie. I know it's hard to remain faithful to the facts, but this movie barely even tries to get things straight. Not to mention that Jacqueline was not a borscht belt comic, she was part Jewish, but I think she aspired to being a WASP. The movie did include some of her real life trials-such as her breast cancer and an autistic child, but because the movie starts as a bad farce, these changes in tone are unconvincing at best. All in all, this movie is a stinker and should be avoided at all costs...if you want to se Bette in "loud mouth broad" mode...you are better off renting "Ruthless People."
She ain't that great but she ain't bad either
aztecp1 February 2000
Great oneliners by Paul Rudnick and a great turn by Stockard Channing and the always funny and fantastic Bette make this an enjoyable movie. But it doesn't really hold up to much scrutiny. And when is Hollywood going to stop using talented, classically trained Hispanic actresses to play over the top, stereotyped cleaning women?
Good Cast, Poor Writing
jttoad10 November 2000
Sorry to say, I was disappointed by this film. When it ended, I had the feeling that I had just watched a TV movie, (an activity I try to avoid.) I rented the DVD, not because of any great admiration of Jacqueline Suzann, but because the cast looked great. Admittedly, the cast did not disappoint. David Hyde Pierce and John Cleese make for several enjoyable scenes. I like Nathan Lane. He's a genuinely engaging personality, with real warmth and charm. Nevertheless, it was his narration that pulled the quality down a few notches for me. It wasn't his delivery of the narration, but the writing itself that was at fault. It's cliché and sentimental to a fault. Burt Bacharach's musical direction only made matters worse. I admire Bacharach tremendously, and rank his scores for Casino Royal and What's New Pussycat among my favorites. But it just didn't work here. * out of ****
I loved this movie
SandyLiz23 June 2004
I wasn't a fan of Jackie Susann's books and didn't care for the movies based on them. But I LOVED this movie. It was done in a comedy format rather than totally serious, but it was wonderful. I loved her going to the park and facing up into the sky/tree to talk to God. And the bubbly Miss M brought a lot of excitement and energy to the role. As a wanna be writer, myself, I was impressed with Miss Susann's life story especially starting her writing career later in life and making herself into a best-seller and celebrity (with her husband's and publishers' help.) I am glad that she was able to get her books published and have the fame she craved. Everyone should be able to do that in whatever field they prefer. It is a very good book for writers to watch for education on marketing and publicity for your own books. Watch it. It would be a good movie even if it were based loosely on a real person and life.
Nice movie actually...
paul_haakonsen31 December 2015
I can't claim to be a fan of Bette Midler, and I bought this DVD solely because of David Hyde Pierce being in it. So I didn't have too high expectations for it. But the movie actually turned out to be quite alright.
The story is about Jacqueline (played by Bette Midler) whose acting career is at a slump when she marries Irving (played by Nathan Lane) and her luck is about to change as he persists to push her forward to achieve more.
What makes the movie good is the combination of good cast, the acting and the storyline. It is a nice warm story that does have some really good moments. And I am glad that there was more focus on the storytelling and the characters than it was on having Bette Midler perform various songs, show tunes and dances.
Now, I said that I bought this movie simply because of David Hyde Pierce, and he delivered the goods. His character was fun and he performed with such elegance and grace. Just a shame that his role wasn't a bigger part in the movie. David Hyde Pierce is just a charming guy and has some impressive on-screen magnetism.
I think that fans of Bette Midler will enjoy this movie tremendously and might actually say "isn't she great" while watching it.
"Isn't She Great", however, is not the type of movie that really warrants more than a single viewing. In my opinion, it just doesn't have the contents to manage more than a single viewing from the audience. But again, if you are a Bette Midler fan, who knows, it might just be able to do so.
The story is about Jacqueline (played by Bette Midler) whose acting career is at a slump when she marries Irving (played by Nathan Lane) and her luck is about to change as he persists to push her forward to achieve more.
What makes the movie good is the combination of good cast, the acting and the storyline. It is a nice warm story that does have some really good moments. And I am glad that there was more focus on the storytelling and the characters than it was on having Bette Midler perform various songs, show tunes and dances.
Now, I said that I bought this movie simply because of David Hyde Pierce, and he delivered the goods. His character was fun and he performed with such elegance and grace. Just a shame that his role wasn't a bigger part in the movie. David Hyde Pierce is just a charming guy and has some impressive on-screen magnetism.
I think that fans of Bette Midler will enjoy this movie tremendously and might actually say "isn't she great" while watching it.
"Isn't She Great", however, is not the type of movie that really warrants more than a single viewing. In my opinion, it just doesn't have the contents to manage more than a single viewing from the audience. But again, if you are a Bette Midler fan, who knows, it might just be able to do so.
Isn't This Boring?
richard-crystal13 September 2006
Based on the life of 60s failed-actress-turned-authoress, (and I say "authoress" and not "writer")Jacquline Susann, this snooze-fest is totally for those camp-loving followers of the Divine Miss M. The best thing that can be said about it are the 60s costumes and automobiles! Bette Midler portrays Susann as Bette Midler portraying Susann. Nathan Lane is her husband-on-a-leash Irving Mansfield who, as played by Lane was simply along for the ride. Lane is sadly miscast. Let's face it, he's just too emotional to portray anyone who would sleep with Susann. (I can't but help remember the late great Truman Capote who described Susann on a talk show as a "truck driver in drag"). The only saving grace in this mess is Stockard Channing as a fictional rich friend of Susann's and you can tell she's playing it for all it's not-worth. This movie shows up every so often on cable and may I suggest if nothing else is on, turn off the TV.
Larger than Life; who else but the Divine Miss M
george.schmidt26 April 2004
ISN'T SHE GREAT (2000) ** Bette Midler, Nathan Lane, Stockard Channing, David Hyde Pierce, John Cleese, Amanda Peet. Before there was Jackie Collins and Amazon.com there was Jacqueline Susann. That is prior to the subgenre of 'trashy romance' novels found in your neighborhood pharmacy and the glut that is now the conglomerate superbookstore i.e. marketing and focus groups for the masses! there was Jacqueline Susann, whose bawdy, vulgar and tasteless novels were ultimately candy for the average American reader who gobbled her tomes faster than she could churn them out. In Andrew Bergman's look at the queen of the acquired taste, who else could portray a larger than life figurehead than the estimable Divine Miss M herself, Bette Midler.
Midler gives it her all with her trademark ball-breaking brio as the celebrity craven author whose indefatigable image fashioning was only matched by par by her long-suffering but ever devoted husband and business partner Irving Mansfield (touché Lane, making their onscreen presence a once in a lifetime pairing to appreciative audiences), who used all his show biz savvy no matter how gauche or seemingly stooping manners of barnstorming the country to every podunk backwater stationery store or spreading the word to a busload of school children to make Susann a giantess among the mortals in the writing field.
Based on a reminiscence by New Yorker's Michael Korda, the fact that the real Susann was no sweetheart and a real tough cookie with a few sad hurdles her ongoing bout with cancer and the institutionalization of her only child who suffered from autism are casually sugar-coated by Bergman (whose impeccable credits include a plethora of the comic pantheon including 'The In-Laws', 'The Freshman' and 'Blazing Saddles') and the sharply sticky screenplay by scathing scribe Paul Rudnick ('In & Out') wisely overlook her obvious flaws and instead center on the unlikely union of two borderline caricatures of the entertainment field, and their questionable romance. But Midler and Lane surpass the film's shortcomings with their theatrical overplaying, which is arguably suitable, as well as the always welcome Channing, one of our most underrated comic actresses, whose succor in her line readings are a stitch (when Susann belabors she doesn't know how to write a book, Channing says with aplomb, 'Talent isn't everything.'); she's like the salt in a margarita.
Also lending able support is Hyde Pierce in another variation of his tv persona from 'Frasier' as Susann's stuffed shirt editor and Cleese as the Nehru jacketed publisher, both in their element here.
The one thing that seems to be missing is it seems outdated and quite a lot to compress in a film that has the dubious distinction of telling the story of a woman who wasn't very nice nor well respected, but then again that hasn't been the case of celebrity history in this country, so I'm not even going to argue that!
Midler gives it her all with her trademark ball-breaking brio as the celebrity craven author whose indefatigable image fashioning was only matched by par by her long-suffering but ever devoted husband and business partner Irving Mansfield (touché Lane, making their onscreen presence a once in a lifetime pairing to appreciative audiences), who used all his show biz savvy no matter how gauche or seemingly stooping manners of barnstorming the country to every podunk backwater stationery store or spreading the word to a busload of school children to make Susann a giantess among the mortals in the writing field.
Based on a reminiscence by New Yorker's Michael Korda, the fact that the real Susann was no sweetheart and a real tough cookie with a few sad hurdles her ongoing bout with cancer and the institutionalization of her only child who suffered from autism are casually sugar-coated by Bergman (whose impeccable credits include a plethora of the comic pantheon including 'The In-Laws', 'The Freshman' and 'Blazing Saddles') and the sharply sticky screenplay by scathing scribe Paul Rudnick ('In & Out') wisely overlook her obvious flaws and instead center on the unlikely union of two borderline caricatures of the entertainment field, and their questionable romance. But Midler and Lane surpass the film's shortcomings with their theatrical overplaying, which is arguably suitable, as well as the always welcome Channing, one of our most underrated comic actresses, whose succor in her line readings are a stitch (when Susann belabors she doesn't know how to write a book, Channing says with aplomb, 'Talent isn't everything.'); she's like the salt in a margarita.
Also lending able support is Hyde Pierce in another variation of his tv persona from 'Frasier' as Susann's stuffed shirt editor and Cleese as the Nehru jacketed publisher, both in their element here.
The one thing that seems to be missing is it seems outdated and quite a lot to compress in a film that has the dubious distinction of telling the story of a woman who wasn't very nice nor well respected, but then again that hasn't been the case of celebrity history in this country, so I'm not even going to argue that!
Once is Enough
tex-428 March 2009
Warning: Spoilers
Isn't She Great is a terrible movie inhabited by good actors who should know better.
Supposedly a biography of Jacqueline Susann, the movie tells us very little about the woman or what drove her. We see her meeting her husband, Irving Mansfield, and absolutely no reason is given as to why they have a relationship. Jacqueline is presented as a struggling actress prior to writing Valley of the Dolls, but both she and her husband live in a luxury high rise, eat expensive meals and appear to spend thousands on themselves without any hint of where their money comes from. We are given some hint that Susann worked very hard to market Valley of the Dolls, while also caring for an autistic son and dealing with breast cancer, but the whole thing is treated in such a campy fashion that it loses its emotional impact. And I can't even begin to describe the horrible scenes of Susann screaming at a tree that she and her husband believe is God.
In short, this movie has no reason to exist. Read one of Susann's books instead.
Supposedly a biography of Jacqueline Susann, the movie tells us very little about the woman or what drove her. We see her meeting her husband, Irving Mansfield, and absolutely no reason is given as to why they have a relationship. Jacqueline is presented as a struggling actress prior to writing Valley of the Dolls, but both she and her husband live in a luxury high rise, eat expensive meals and appear to spend thousands on themselves without any hint of where their money comes from. We are given some hint that Susann worked very hard to market Valley of the Dolls, while also caring for an autistic son and dealing with breast cancer, but the whole thing is treated in such a campy fashion that it loses its emotional impact. And I can't even begin to describe the horrible scenes of Susann screaming at a tree that she and her husband believe is God.
In short, this movie has no reason to exist. Read one of Susann's books instead.
"Isn't She InEffective?"
Blooeyz200117 August 2008
It's no mystery why this movie was a flop. I've watched it more than once & I never feel like I'm watching a film about author Jacqueline Susann. Just a movie starring Bette Midler (in a dark wig) playing Bette Midler, or a standard Midler character. It's obvious Midler did no research into Susann to portray her. There is plenty of footage around (game shows, talk shows, etc.) where Midler could have studied her a bit. She adopts none of her mannerisms, speech, anything. I think Midler's ego & persona are so gigantic, she just isn't equipped to play a real person. She was fine in "The Rose", but she wasn't actually playing Janis Joplin, just an over-the-top singer loosely based on her. I don't know why she even bothered with this?? I don't know enough about Irving Mansfield to make an opinion of whether Nathan Lane's characterization was effective or not, but as a whole his character was watchable. Stockard Channing was very good as friend Florence Maybelle (a hybrid of different people). But I would have preferred to see Susann's friendship with Doris Day displayed instead. You know a movie's in trouble when the plot's so thin, they toss in a useless fashion show. Another silly aspect of the movie is that the producers tried to make it look like a movie based on one of Susann's novels (Dionne Warwick theme song, bright jelly bean colors, etc.) This is like a slap in the face to Susann who hated the movie versions of her books. I give it three stars for costumes, sets, automobiles, Stockard Channing, & it's attempt at camp value.
"Isn't She Dull"?
happipuppi131 May 2006
Picture a man walking up to his local movie theatre and there just really is nothing playing that interests him. After scanning the titles available that day I chose this film. I had heard it was about Jacqueline Sussan,who wrote "Valley Of The Dolls",that it takes place in the '60s and it stars Bette Midler & Nathan Lane. Who could go wrong with that?
The answer after sitting through this...just about anybody! First off,movie titles that ask a question are lame and open all involved to answers (and reviewer title) they may not want. All the standard things are there for a movie about another era and the people of it's time but the acting/reacting on Midler & Lane and others seems about as lively as a Sunday afternoon without a car to drive someplace too!
If this was meant to be a biopic,it told the unvarnished story of her exploits but somehow (unlike say..."Ray") they're not surprising or shocking or even very interesting. I kid you not when i say that,literally,by the time I got home the only part of the film I could remember was when they turned "Valley Of The Dolls" into a movie.
Maybe I did because,even that laughable 60's flick is a lot more entertaining than this pedestrian in a deserted city street outing. One star,for a film with many stars but,given the results...you'd never know it! (END)
The answer after sitting through this...just about anybody! First off,movie titles that ask a question are lame and open all involved to answers (and reviewer title) they may not want. All the standard things are there for a movie about another era and the people of it's time but the acting/reacting on Midler & Lane and others seems about as lively as a Sunday afternoon without a car to drive someplace too!
If this was meant to be a biopic,it told the unvarnished story of her exploits but somehow (unlike say..."Ray") they're not surprising or shocking or even very interesting. I kid you not when i say that,literally,by the time I got home the only part of the film I could remember was when they turned "Valley Of The Dolls" into a movie.
Maybe I did because,even that laughable 60's flick is a lot more entertaining than this pedestrian in a deserted city street outing. One star,for a film with many stars but,given the results...you'd never know it! (END)
Wild, wacky and watchable!
jillmuscat5 February 2009
Warning: Spoilers
Middle-aged women of the world unite -- and watch this movie! The real-life story of Jackie Susann's meteoric and incredibly unlikely rise to fame is much more compelling than any of the sexploitation novels she wrote.
Well into her 40s, Susann had three dreadful strikes against her -- her only child was autistic and institutionalized, her acting career had flopped and then she got cancer. She had ground out a novel about the sex-and-drugs peccadilloes of showbiz types, which was considered junk by any and all established literary standards. But Jackie had a shrewd, intuitive sense of what turned ordinary people on, a flamboyant flair for promoting herself plus relentless energy and ambition. She achieved about a decade of glorious success as top best-selling author until she succumbed to a recurrence of cancer in her 50s.
If you like this story line, you'll probably like the movie. It's handled in a high-camp manner, with very broad performances by Bette Midler and the rest. Midler and Lane, who plays her kindly and rather pathetic hanger-on of a husband, are wonderfully funny playing a couple with absolutely no class at all. If you were a kid in the 1960s, as I was, you'll probably enjoy Bette wafting around in outrageous outfits and dos.
My only criticism is that this very comic style makes the movie play like an extended, patched-together sequence of comedy sketches, rather than a movie. Also, to enjoy the movie, I think it helps if you're a New Yorker. In NYC, eccentricity has traditionally been not just tolerated but encouraged. Many people from other more staid parts of the country come to New York for this reason -- Susann herself was a New York transplant from Philadelphia. Also, NYC attracts lots of wildly ambitious people vying to make it in the worlds of showbiz, the arts, publishing, finance, etc. So,as goofy as Midler's portrait is, it seemed endearingly familiar to me.
Well into her 40s, Susann had three dreadful strikes against her -- her only child was autistic and institutionalized, her acting career had flopped and then she got cancer. She had ground out a novel about the sex-and-drugs peccadilloes of showbiz types, which was considered junk by any and all established literary standards. But Jackie had a shrewd, intuitive sense of what turned ordinary people on, a flamboyant flair for promoting herself plus relentless energy and ambition. She achieved about a decade of glorious success as top best-selling author until she succumbed to a recurrence of cancer in her 50s.
If you like this story line, you'll probably like the movie. It's handled in a high-camp manner, with very broad performances by Bette Midler and the rest. Midler and Lane, who plays her kindly and rather pathetic hanger-on of a husband, are wonderfully funny playing a couple with absolutely no class at all. If you were a kid in the 1960s, as I was, you'll probably enjoy Bette wafting around in outrageous outfits and dos.
My only criticism is that this very comic style makes the movie play like an extended, patched-together sequence of comedy sketches, rather than a movie. Also, to enjoy the movie, I think it helps if you're a New Yorker. In NYC, eccentricity has traditionally been not just tolerated but encouraged. Many people from other more staid parts of the country come to New York for this reason -- Susann herself was a New York transplant from Philadelphia. Also, NYC attracts lots of wildly ambitious people vying to make it in the worlds of showbiz, the arts, publishing, finance, etc. So,as goofy as Midler's portrait is, it seemed endearingly familiar to me.
Kinda Boring
iwatcheverything5 November 2003
I did not feel this movie had much entertainment value. It would have been more fun to watch a documentary on this woman. The whole point of the film was so that you would feel bad that these things happened to this woman and at times you did but she was strange which did not make you fell bad all the time. This movie did have one big plus. Bette Midler did a great performance. Even with this performance she could not save this movie. This is a movie that will not be watched again.
What Went Wrong?
Ric-717 February 2000
I thought the film was a snooze, and my low opinion of it is probably influenced by the line-up of terrific talent and the tremendous disappointment I felt. It should have been so much better. Everyone was perfectly cast. The art direction was first rate. Maybe in the editing, the good parts were excised. The script was extremely weak, and I would have expected a lot more from Paul Rudnick. Midler and Lane were not bad, but they were rather boring, which is probably worse. The best part was Stockard Channing's bit about Ozzie and Harriet--this was an inspired bit--possibly a leftover from a good film that was transplanted here, like a donated organ, to sustain life.
A most delightful comedy with lots of great actors.
jared-2418 April 2003
How did I ever miss this one when it was at the theater? Found it in the Video rental and picked it because of the dozen well know actors from John Creasy to Nathan Lane, Amanda, Peets, Stockard Channing, Bev Midler, "Niles" from Fraiser, John LaRoquette...
Some were minor parts, but all did an excellent job. We laughed and laughed. If you can listen to the word F*CK used in many funny lines, you will too!
Some were minor parts, but all did an excellent job. We laughed and laughed. If you can listen to the word F*CK used in many funny lines, you will too!
Watch scores of gays play straight
maineguy_040438 January 2022
Watch Bette Midler play Bette Midler play Jacqueline Susann.... Just for once can Midler play anything but herself? Nathan Lane play straight? Come on. This is truly a comedy in the worst way. Still, it's not as bad as people make it out to be, if you really want a laugh, and if you know anything about the real Jacqueline Susann you just know she's rolling over in grave on this one!
Does a disservice to everybody involved.
luvuwildbill6 December 2002
I actually had high hopes for this movie, when I learned the cast included Bette Midler, Nathan Lane, David Hyde Pierce, Stockard Channing and John Cleese. When I learned the screenplay was by Paul Rudnik. When I learned the director was Andrew Bergman. All funny, funny people. I was expecting a humorous bio of author Jaqueline Susann, a camp icon who was, unintentionally, a pretty funny woman. No such luck. The effort seems muted, with very little genuine wit. If they'd meant to take a serious look at the author, that might not matter so much, but her life isn't covered with much depth, and the more serious details-her battle with cancer, her son's mental handicap-are brought up but not really dealt with.(The movie clocks in at about 90 minutes-every plot point seems to have been rushed through.) If they weren't aiming for camp and weren't aiming for straight drama, what were they aiming for? Bette Midler is miscast-it probably seemed like a clever idea to cast one camp icon as another, but she neither looks nor sounds anything like Susann-actually, costar Stockard Channing seems a better fit. Clue to how bad this movie is: When I saw a clip of the 1967 film version of "Valley of the Dolls", I realized I'd rather be watching THAT.
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
