Odelecol Pretty good movie overall. First half was nothing special but it got better as it went along.

Dirtylogy It's funny, it's tense, it features two great performances from two actors and the director expertly creates a web of odd tension where you actually don't know what is happening for the majority of the run time.

Humaira Grant It’s not bad or unwatchable but despite the amplitude of the spectacle, the end result is underwhelming.

Yash Wade Close shines in drama with strong language, adult themes.

steuben 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.

gpaltrow2001 People have complained about how bad this is. They are right. People have noted how much they enjoyed it. They are right, too. Remember how bad the book and the movie 'Valley of the Dolls' were? Well, here ya go-- It's all in the same vein. They are obviously being over the top, campy, kitschy... If you are looking for Scorcese, this ain't it. But cheesy fun this IS! Unfortunately, because they felt they HAD to make it campy, the 'dramedy' doesn't work. So it goes between melodramatic and wiseacre, with neither hitting the mark. I have to say I enjoyed the movie the same way I would enjoy 'Mommie Dearest' or 'Showgirls'. Just mindless, guilty time-wasting. I'm also a sucker for period pieces when they get it right. The clothing, the celebrities, the zeitgeist of the time are pretty good. I'll take Bette Midler chewing the scenery in this over her deplorable 'Beaches' character any day!

style-2 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 on screen, 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 Bacharach's Sixties style music instead of the dreary new stuff. "Isn't She Great" is simply awful.

kluivertfan2 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