An unsuccessful over-the-top actress becomes a successful over-the-top authoress in this biography of Jacqueline Susann, the famed writer of "Valley of the Dolls" and other trashy novels. ...
See full summary »
With the help of the singer and dancer Dixie Leonhard, U.S. entertainer Eddie Sparks wants to bring some fun to the soldiers during World War II. Becoming a perfect team, they tour from ... See full summary »
Harold, a professional gambler, and his girlfriend Bonita, a lounge singer, follow Willie, a young blackjack dealer, around the western U.S. Harold has a jinx on Willie and can't lose with ... See full summary »
An unsuccessful over-the-top actress becomes a successful over-the-top authoress in this biography of Jacqueline Susann, the famed writer of "Valley of the Dolls" and other trashy novels. Facing a failing career, Susann meets a successful promoter who becomes her husband. After several failures to place her in commercials and a TV quiz show, he hits upon the idea for her to become a writer. In the pre-1960s, her books were looked upon as trash and non-printable. But then the sexual revolution hit and an audience was born for her books. The story shows the hidden behind the scenes story of Susann's life, including her autistic son and her continuing bout with cancer that she hid up to her death.Written by
John Sacksteder <email@example.com>
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.
8 of 11 people found this review helpful.
Was this review helpful to you?
| Report this