Just perfect...

As Good As It Gets

There are better movies of two hours length. I loved the actress'performance.

Mostly, the movie is committed to the value of a good time.

I was a teenager in small town Louisiana back in the late 1950s, and although I wasn't into political news, I clearly remember Governor Earl K Long. He was an enigma of sorts, because he did behave erratically at times, and WAS committed to a mental hospital, but in fact did many good things as governor, including standing up for equal rights for minorities. I remember getting free lunches in school, but I was not aware it was Earl K that did this for us.This is one great movie. It is called "Blaze", not "Earl", because it is mostly from the point of view of Blaze Starr, stage name of a West Virginia country girl who became a New Orleans stripper. What was not mentioned in this movie is that Earl was married to Blanche while he was having his affair with Starr, and it in fact was Blanche that got him committed. Blaze Starr herself has a small part in the movie. Long was governor on three different occasions, his last term being 1956 through 1960. This movie is set during the last year of his last term. Paul Newman is Earl Long, and was about the same age as Long while making this movie. As always, Newman creates a memorable character, really bringing Earl K Long to life.Lolita Davidovich, who put on a few extra pounds to play the busty Blaze Starr , is also about the right age and plays Starr superbly. In fact, watching her in this movie, it is hard to figure why she hasn't become a bigger star.SPOILERS. Even though hospitalized, Long was still governor. So he fired the head of the Mandeville Mental Hospital, appointed his friend to the post, and was promptly declared fit to return to normal life. Unable to run again for Governor, he tried running as Leutenant Governor with Noe, but they did not win. So he ran for US Congress, narrowly won while sick, and died a week after his victory, in September 1960. The movie depicts his dying in Blaze Starr's arms on the day he was elected, but that is movie-making license.

Movies based on real-life stories and characters are known for being dependent on using certain comedic and dramatic devices to "keep the audience enthused," but this film felt so artificial that I had a hard time maintaining the thought that this was based on a true story. I wasn't given too much insight into these characters (all one- or two-dimensional), and it basically plays out like a farce that takes a serious turn in the last 45 minutes or so. The character arc or Blaze Starr is developed way too swiftly. In the first 10 minutes, she's this nice little small town gal who lives a healthy Christian life and has a passion for folk music. She gets on stage once, at first (very briefly) getting offended by the booing soldiers who want her to "take it off," and suddenly in that one little striptease she feels liberated? By the 10-minute mark, she's already this sultry, vanity-stricken stripper who gallops at any chance to show off her body to libidinous males. Hell, Elizabeth Berkeley had a more extensive character arc in "Showgirls." I can fathom the change in Blaze Starr's character. I just wanna know the steps in how those changes occurred, because I'm pretty damn sure they didn't occur so swiftly. I've seen several movies with Lolita Davidovich, and she's not a bad actress. She never blew me away with any particular performance, but I never had any negative criticisms about her. Well, this was Davidovich's first movie and...it pretty much shows. Though her character was written poorly, her cartoonish one-note performance doesn't help much. She never properly expresses the humanistic values of her character, and doesn't portray herself as much more than a dirty slut. Paul Newman's character of Earl Long wasn't written very well, and doesn't give the audience very much to sympathize with, but he plays it out the best he can. His energetic performance is about the only reason to check out this overlooked dud. But as I said, his character is written poorly and about all we learn about him is he's a dirty old man with psychological problems. The only good thing we learn about him is his persistence in awarding voting rights to African-Americans, and allowing them to be doctors. But I can see exactly why he was struggling to be re-elected as governor. I sure as hell wouldn't vote for him! That's not a good sign. Even when creating a character who's not perfectly sympathetic (which I have nothing wrong with) you must be able to express his/her good values effectively, even if it's done with subtlety. The country/western folk songs are a bit of a turn-off (at least to me), but I'm not gonna use that against the overall quality of the movie. After all, it is set in Louisiana. "Blaze" is not a terrible film, it's mildly entertaining, but I wanted to know a lot more about these 2 characters (even if the movie went on for 2 1/2 hours) and what resulted was no more than a throwaway comedy/drama. See it only for Newman's terrific performance.My score: 5 (out of 10)

Talk about turnin' lemons into lemonade!I'll be brief. No need to go through the plot, as many others have already done here; if you've made your way down to this review, you've got the gist of it. 2 characters, from very different worlds, established very early on as equals, both as human beings and as masters in the art of manipulation: Blaze Starr, "exotic dancer," & Earl Long, "good ol' boy" US Southern Democratic politician. The story here is in how they each apply the art: first, in their individual lives; and then, as a team, in the process changing the faces of American politics and media.Never learned the actual history; makes me want to look it up to find out how many specific scenes are real. One that I sure hope is:"I have a confession to make... "I can't cook.""We'll work around it."almost exactly, an exchange between me & my wife before we were married.What more can I ask from a movie? P.S. We did. And I haven't gone hungry.

1st watched 1/21/2002 - 3 out of 10(Dir-Ron Shelton): Confusing, comedy/drama about a true life relationsip between a Governor of Louisiana and a stripper named Blaze Starr. The confusion lies in what this movie wants to be. The intention of the Director seems to change almost from scene to scene. Is it a drama about Starr? Is it a comedy about the loud-mothed politician who fell in love with her? Is it a bitter-sweet Pretty Woman-like retread? Is it a true story played out to the best of everyone's ability despite the comedy-like events that took place? It's hard to tell even up to the very end what the goal was of the filmmakers in this one. Newman & Davidovich do ok jobs with their roles but the story and it's lack of a clear direction is what causes this movie's failure. We're also not really sure what the character's are really grabbing for with their exploits. A real dissapointment coming from the writer of "Bull Durham" and the Academy award winning actor Paul Newman. I guess everyone's got to make a loser every once in a while.