Isn't She Great | | Cast : | Bette Midler, Nathan Lane | | Director : | Andrew Bergman | | Studio : | Universal Studios | | Format : | Color, Closed-captioned, Widescreen, Dolby | | Released Date : | January 28, 2000 | | DVD Released Date : | July 18, 2000 | | Language : | French (Subtitled), English (Dubbed), English (Original Language) | | Audience Rating : | R (Restricted) | | | BUY THIS DVD FROM AMAZON |
Customer Reviews
| Rating |  | | Date | July 27, 2005 | | Summary | No She Isn't Actually . . . | Content
 | The title comes from the phrase that Jacqueline Susann's husband, Irving Mansfield, uttered about his wife at every possible turn. The story is based, rather vaguely, on an article by writer and editor Michael Korda titled "Wasn't She Great?" (His final assessment? Not really, but she was certainly, er, colorful). Korda had been Susann's editor for her second novel THE LOVE MACHINE, and an aghast-yet-fascinated witness to the publicity juggernaut that the writer and her husband launched to sell the book (much as they had for her previous effort, VALLEY OF THE DOLLS, only now they had a pink jet to cart them around).
In short, there is material for an interesting movie here, but although the movie is a harmless time-passer, it's not something you have to see, either. To begin with, the tense, angry Susann, the human equivalent of an overloaded watch spring, is played by a jolly and rather-too-zaftig Bette Midler (not too zaftig to be seen mind you, just to be playing a woman who seemed to live on booze, tobacco, and mood-altering prescription drugs). The real Susann, who arrived in New York with a high-school diploma, a pot habit, a complicated relationship with her father, and a burning desire to Be Famous, spent most of her life chasing the fame at the cost of a happy and productive life; she did bit parts in plays, became a married, but faithless, nightclub showgirl, knocked around in television. And by her late forties was at about the same place as she had been over 20 years earlier. The anger and frustration of those years was apparently drained into her names-changed showbiz potboilers, full of unhappy, promiscuous people who hop from bed to bed when they aren't too stoned on pills and booze to walk in a straight line (mind you, I haven't actually read any of the books--the closest I've come is a spoofy review that Calvin Trillin did of one of the novels and sitting through the last half hour of the movie version of VALLEY, appropriately while stoned on pain-killers and nursing a broken ankle--as I remember, Sharon Tate was pretty and very touching and Patty Duke yelled a LOT).
It's rather hard to reconcile such bile with this movie (written by Paul Rudnick) about a nice Jewish lady who writes a naughty little novel and helps everybody, including her up-tight WASP-y editor (David Hyde-Pierce) to overcome their sexual hangups, fitting all of this in between weeping over the fate of her autistic son and popping by Central Park to chat with God (Susann did have an autistic son and she did have the odd chat with the Deity, but if you want the lowdown of how they fit into her rather dark life story, better to check out Barbara Seaman's LOVELY ME, one of the best biographies I've ever read about a writer I have no interest in reading). That lady, as I've mentioned before, is played very agreeably by Bette Midler, and Nathan Lane is just as affable playing her husband. Hyde-Pierce is basically doing a re-mix of Niles Crane, but he is such an assured and appealing actor that you really don't care. There are also amusing turns by Stockard Channing as an actress friend of Midler's and John Cleese as an eccentric publisher. Also, some nice music by Burt Bacharach (even a Bacharach/David song sung by Dionne Warwick), pretty photography, nice costumes YAWN, YAWN . . . |
| Rating | | | Date | January 23, 2005 | | Summary | Pure Dreck | Content
| This film version of the lifestory of Jacqueline Susann is deplorable in every way. What were these people thinking of? And did this movie actually make into the theatres? Even as a fan of Midler and Susann, it was a completely disappointing experience, with Midler, whose standard schtick is wearing thin these days, playing little more than a parody of herself. If we hadn't already known it was supposed to be about Jacqueline Susann, it would never have become apparent, since Midler misses the mark entirely - beginning with her physical type. As a gifted and presumably self-respecting actress, Midler should have abandoned the project after watching the first rushes. What also should have become apparent from the first rushes, is that Stockard Channing, who seems to play a comglomerate of Susann's women friends, should have played Susann herself. She has the range and skill and look to pull it off - Midler's a great entertainer, but Channing is a far better actress. As Irving Mansfield, Susann's husband and agent, Nathan Lane is well on his way to become the male Bette Midler - a parody of himself, and as predictable as he can be. Lane is just lame in this. The script was a few funny exchanges, but in the hands of Midler and Nathan Lane's overacting, *any* script would get lost. It is much more of a fictionalized account of Susann's life - the episodes of spending time on the *Christina* with Ari and Jackie Onassis are completely fabricated - but it's all for naught anyway. As for the all-important costuming - it is a split decision. Technically many of the clothes were absolutely perfect - they just looked ridiculous on Midler. Jacqueline Susann was fastidious about her fashion appearance, such as it was, and many of the clothes seemed to be exact replicas of the originals. On Susann, the styles were garish and over-the-top, emphasizing her rock-hard desire to succeed at any cost. On Midler, the same clothes were ludicrous. I admire Midler for being unafraid to look ludicrous - it's been her calling card for decades - but the ugly reality is that Midler, who is gloriously Ruebenesque, needed to shed more than a few pounds to pull off Susann's look. The Truman Capote character, played by Sam Street, was fabulous - for his entire 30 seconds onscreen, and while the film's reference to the famous feud between Capote and Susann was briefly touched on, it is exactly the sort of incident of Susann's life that is completely obliterated by this fiasco. John Cleese is wasted as Susann's publisher, and Hyde-Pierce is his usual Niles-like anal-retentive self. The producers were right on the money a few times -- music by Burt Bacharach and sung by Dionne Warwick was an excellent choice, if only they had used ALL of Bacharach's Sixties style music instead of any of the dreary new stuff. "Isn't She Great" is simply awful. |
| Rating | | | Date | November 04, 2004 | | Summary | ISN'T THIS DREADFUL? | Content
| 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, and Stockard Channing to this ludicrous script by the usually competent Paul Rudnick? What inspired director Andrew Bregman ("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 . . . sadly, it's not even bad enough to be funny. 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. |
| Rating | | | Date | May 20, 2004 | | Summary | Could have been better...much better | Content
| 2 things were wasted in the making of this film: the fabulous life of Jacqueline Susann and the tremendous talent of Bette Midler. The director must have been asleep at the wheel of had his mind elsewhere but the filming. The film seemed disjointed in every sense. There have been dramedies that have been successful but the marriage of drama and comedy isn't compatible in this film. Also, the musical direction in this film is poor! Akay, so Burt Bacharach wrote the song from the first Jackie Susann movie, VALLEY OF THE DOLLS. However, his music just didn't fit with the LIFE of Jacqueline Susann or even the movie. Stockard Channing glows in this film and hers is the stand-out performance. The costumes are amazing and vividly depict the fashions of times and then some. Bette looks great in the retro look. Hopefully, someone can remake this film properly. The life of Jackie Susann should be told, whether it be a comedy or a drama. Unfortunately, this version is not worthy of storytelling. |
| Rating | | | Date | March 10, 2004 | | Summary | like a100 car pile up | Content
| Isn't She Great is so terrible that it's like watching a car wreck in slow motion. Bette completely gives in to camp and Nathan Lane, well bless his heart he is a true stage actor and over projects on screen. Jackie Susann was a complicated woman behind the hard as nails exterior and this movie never shows that. The whole thing was just dreadful and you will wonder just what the producer and director were thinking of. |
|
