Watch Isn't She Great For Free

While it doesn't offer any answers, it both thrills and makes you think.

The best films of this genre always show a path and provide a takeaway for being a better person.

Great example of an old-fashioned, pure-at-heart escapist event movie that doesn't pretend to be anything that it's not and has boat loads of fun being its own ludicrous self.

All of these films share one commonality, that being a kind of emotional center that humanizes a cast of monsters.

Overacted and under-directed, you won't learn anything new (or at all) about Jackie Susann. Brought to you from the same director as Striptease, the movie people confuse with Showgirls, this schlockfest is incredible for its ability to wring the worst performances from a cast of talented actors. Nathan Lane is forced to narrate large portions of the film since the scripted action fails to tell much of a story, but even that can't compensate for the lack of a plot. Yes, it's true: there is no plot. Susann's life was more complicated, messy, and salacious than this thing would otherwise convey, but even Lane's narration of unimportant tangents doesn't come close to rescuing a story so neutered as to be incomprehensible. The camera work, set design, and lighting give a tightly-produced feel that distances the action from any sense of place in reality; scenes shot in Central Park look as if there were actually filmed on a sound stage decorated to look like Central Park. That's quite an achievement.

Isn't She Great! and TCM's Robert OsborneDer ya to listen to this:I wanted to post on this movie awhile ago, however I didn't use my energy to create an account on DA "blogspot". Today I feel as if everyone gives their opinions and soon what does it matter what anyone says. It's not like Truman Capote is around anymore! Not that I even like Truman, who the F was he anyway? So pressing on to this movie. I watched this movie and balled at it, like I am a sucker for pretty much any good sappy movie. I can attest that I have seen pretty much every movie since 1936. You name it, I saw it. I wish Robert Osborne would =call me some time soon I am getting older here. I want this man J.O.B., frankly I think I am a little hotter too..what do you think TCM.....audition? No honestly he is a brilliant film historian. I would love to work with him someday. I do however have serious doubts about his side kick Ben Mankiewicz. What a miserable personality eh? OK I guess this is for another post. Today we (yes the royal WE) talk about "Isn't She Great." I absoulty love and adored this movie. All I read is blasts of negativity from critics and lectures about how horrid these two were...CAPITAL F>A>L>S>E! I do not believe anyone could of cast this movie any better. The cast was so brilliant together and a perfect team. Not only do I adore Bette in any movie, but her touchable real side was exposed in this movie. She swore, she drank, she was just generally a normal person who could let go in this film. Granted the character she played the infamous Jacqueline Susann, allowed her to ham it up. Together Nathan Lane and Bette Midler connected. I do not know how the critics of this movie could bash them. They loved working together and you could see this. David Hyde Pierce who I personally cannot stand, was great in this movie as well. Thank you Dave, (may I call you Dave?) for renewing my faith in stuffed shirt tight wad characters. The language and the determination in this movie was well put on screen. I simply love Jacqueline Susann for doing it HER WAY. I love that Bette could bring this story to light. While I did not care so much for "Valley of the Dolls" it was quite addicting, least the movie. I do not read so much these days this might attest for my atrocious writing skills which everyone apparently must notice. I cannot express to you how much I liked the assemble of this cast, John Cleese..amazing! Stockard Channing was a pre-runner to that blonde chick I like in Sex and the City! I think its Samantha? BTW Ms. Channing if you read this, I believe I am your biggest fan! What an amazing range for all of this cast. While others might criticize this movie...I found it to be a touching story with a powerful message. Something I believe that most movies lack in 2009. Yes it was not a Joan Crawford movie, but it just was touching. The way the cast interacted during this movie was fanominal to me. It was the message and the cast that made this movie special. Maybe I am the person who fights all lost causes, but as Jimmy Stewart says they are the only ones worth fighting for. I encourage you to re-look at this movie and give it another shot. I think the best parts in this movie for me was when Bette as Ms. Susann goes to the tree in central park to "talk to God." She is so matter of fact and vulgar to God and I love it. She identifies God as a light source though a tree, and it is so child-like, yet so close to your heart. It just shows how real Jacqueline Susann was and how Bette Midler understood her. I do think that Jackie would of loved this movie due to the fact that everyone else hated it. To me, that alone makes this film 4 stars in my book. Watch this movie again with an open heart you overpriced movie critics.

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.

It was really bad 1 out of 10. It would have been worse, but Nathan lanes voice saves it from complete horridness. He is funny in everything he does, but he just cant save this truly bad piece of film. Bette Midler definitely needs to rethink her latest acting moves. And also to stay out of TV