Isn't She Great

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.

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 ****

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.

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.

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?