Isn't She Great

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.

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!

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?

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.

In my opinion, this movie was just "ok". There was something about the acting that just wasn't right. I can't put my finger on it. Perhaps it was the roles that Midler and Lane played. They seemed very superficial. I wasn't convinced that they were the characters. I did like the actor from "Frasier". Although it was not a total "bomb", I would not watch this movie again.