Mabel Munoz Just intense enough to provide a much-needed diversion, just lightweight enough to make you forget about it soon after it’s over. It’s not exactly “good,” per se, but it does what it sets out to do in terms of putting us on edge, which makes it … successful?

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

Scotty Burke It is interesting even when nothing much happens, which is for most of its 3-hour running time. Read full review

Kayden This is a dark and sometimes deeply uncomfortable drama

adriangr For the Boys come across as a vehicle for Bette Midler, and in my view there is nothing wrong with that, but it does have issues.The film is fairly story driven as it tells the tale of two performers who first come together during 1940's wartime, and their partnership lasts until the present day (which is the 1990s), with all the highs and lows in between being covered.The strengths of the film are Bette Midler and the songs. Midler is a charismatic actress who draws your attention whenever she is on the screen, and, of course, when she is singling. All the songs are fun and hummable. The movie really does have a good soundtrack. The biggest drawback of the film is James Caan's character of Eddie Sparks who is supposed to be sharing the billing with Midler's Dixie Leonard, but Eddie does not seem to have any depth to him, and no back story to help you work out his true nature. The film takes the side of Dixie Leonard 100% of the time, and Eddie is painted as the bad guy, but it would have helped to fill in a bit more of his character to give the film some pull on your affections for both characters, but unfortunately Eddie has nothing to show you. The other drawback is the portrayal of "the horrors of war", which is done very poorly in an otherwise pivotal scene involving Edie and Dixie performing during the Vietnam war. There is an attack during the show, but the realisation of it on the screen is pretty badly done, a lot of smoke and people diving about in slow motion does not make a "Saving Private Ryan". What I did like though was the fairly effective progression through time as the years go by, and the main characters age and part ways. To be fair there is probably too much content for a single feature film, this would have been a wonderful mini series, which would have allowed for more development of all the changes of situation that the characters go through. The story is topped and tailed with a "Lifetime Awards" show that is honouring the duo, and as it is Midler's character that is telling the story through flashbacks from the word go, there is even more weight given to the bias on this being her story, not Eddie's.The film ends, I'm sorry to say, on a pretty bum note with the duo accepting their award at the glitzy show, sporting some very cheesy Hollywood "old age" make-up that (rather unfairly) turns Midler into a twinkle-eyed, apple cheeked old granny, but turns Caan into a decrepit, shuffling ghoul. Ah well, it's mostly successful, and the songs are great, but it's only half a movie without giving Eddie's side of the story.

myspecialparadise This is the oddest movie ever. It takes you soaring to unimaginable heights, then, abruptly, sends you into a tail spin worthy of several four letter words. Bette Midler gives a performance that is right up there with The Rose, perhaps even surpassing it, and anything else she has ever done. She proves, throughout the movie, that she is an enormous talent worthy of an even higher acclaim than that of some of our classic legendary actors / actresses of the forties and fifties. And that says a lot coming from someone that doesn't much care for her off stage.I like James Caan as an actor ... however, he was totally miscast in For The Boys. I believe this movie would have done better with George Segal playing the role of Eddie Sparks ... and that mistake cost the movie big-time! I enjoyed Caan in Funny Lady, but in this role he was a total flop! Caan just doesn't have the charisma needed in the movie to charm Bette Midler from a state of seething to almost acceptability ... not like Segal has. Segal has the ability to conjure up those puppy dog eyes ... Caan doesn't.I will say that the make-up artist that worked on Bette was nothing short of genius. Most makeup artists fall short when it comes to making a young star look like a old has been! This makeup artist was right up there with whomever did the makeup for Albert Finney in that wonderful musical "Scrooge!" Which happens to be a real Christmas favorite of mine that is totally ignored by those that choose the movies to be televised each Christmas ... shame, shame! All in all ... I gave this movie a 5 star rating, not because of the miscasting problem ... but because I don't like being dropped out of an airplane without a parachute ... and that is exactly how I felt at this movie's highest points! However, if you are a fan of Bette's wonderful talents ... this one is "To Live For!"

vintkd It's amazing and touching film, where there are much nice music and songs. Terrific Bette Midler and surprising James Caan made up on a screen beautiful and harmonious duo, their characters Dixie Leonard and Eddie Sparks were raising spirit for soldiers at war and they have very patriotic work. That's very right and patriotic film showing respect to army and boys who were at war. Remarkable director Mark Rydell, who I love for his masterpieces "The Rose" and "On Golden Pond" made this very vital and sincere movie that also entertainingly and funny to watch. Bette Midler is pure brilliance!!! When she sang for soldiers I was in tears. She is really genius and incredible actress.

ptb-8 FOR THE BOYS might just be a "Better Midler" film today, in a period of another middle east war and albeit a more tragic and unpopular one with a far more critical and on going media focus than the first 1991 war.....This exceptionally well made musical drama, made for about $70 million in 1991 and really a protest musical parable, did not reach the intended at the time and the first Iraq war was over before this film had a chance to make an impact. Seen in 2006, now is actually the right time for this film. We are also quite a while from other Bette Midler films of the 80s and as a result FTB has a stronger solo spotlight. Having appreciated this film in that light, I believe it is possibly one of the last great semi musicals of the 20th century and is helped immeasurably by a very pungent script. At times it is not unlike NEW YORK NEW YORK both in look and romantic combat. Cann and Midler work so well against and with each other, underlined by George Segal in a role that is actually substantial for him. Apparently this is loosely based on the life of Martha Raye, who complained bitterly upon release that "this fact" was not recognized. FOR THE BOYS is a major musical film but tapers off tune wise in the last 40 minutes while the starling and harrowing (but slightly illogical) Vietnam War scenes are played out. Midler is front and center star at all times and the production values show the huge budget well spent on screen. If reissued today might get a better reception given the Iraq war to play against and therefore have more impact. It's a good film, serious and with excellent music and comedy in the first hour especially.