For the Boys
For the Boys
| 22 November 1991 (USA)
For the Boys Trailers

On a USO tour during World War II, entertainer Eddie Sparks needs a partner to round out his act. Soon after hiring performer Dixie Leonard, Eddie decides he wants her out of the show — mostly because she upstages him. Dixie is close to leaving of her own accord, but her uncle, Art Silver, convinces her to stay. As the years and wars go by, Eddie and Dixie experience a tumultuous relationship onstage and off while they continue the act for the troops.

Reviews
Scanialara

You won't be disappointed!

... View More
Listonixio

Fresh and Exciting

... View More
GazerRise

Fantastic!

... View More
Francene Odetta

It's simply great fun, a winsome film and an occasionally over-the-top luxury fantasy that never flags.

... View More
SnoopyStyle

Production assistant Jeff Brooks (Arye Gross) tries to convince Dixie Leonhard (Bette Midler) to join Eddie Sparks (James Caan) on his TV special. Dixie is bitter and recounts her history with Eddie. During WWII, Dixie is overjoyed to sing with Eddie. On the other hand, he is dismissive at first and angry at her crude humor. Art Silver (George Segal) convinces them to be an entertainment duo. Dixie's husband gets killed in the war. During Korea, they get caught up in the fighting. Art is blacklisted and Eddie is forced to fire him. Dixie's son Danny starts rebelling and sees Eddie as a father figure. Danny joins the military for Vietnam and Dixie blames Eddie for his lost.The construction is very flat and biopic-like. The problem is that it's not a biography and it doesn't have that extra appeal. There is very little intensity and the drama has no tension. The central conflict centers on Danny and yet he is no more than a prop. This movie should be mostly about the conflict between Eddie and Dixie over Danny. That's the only place where the drama has any tension.

... View More
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!"

... View More
sallymeg5-1

I feel about the movie the same way I feel about all of the wars the US has been in since WWII. I think WWII was the last "good" war. No war is good, people dying is horrific, but at least our "Boys" died for a noble purpose. Every war since then has gotten increasingly more questionable in terms of why we were there and what we were trying to achieve. I think Bette Midler's attitude reflected that. She became increasingly disillusioned as she went off to entertain in each war. The loss of American (and the other countries) soldiers lives became more questionable. The benefits we got out of so many young men and women dying became less clear. The songs that were written about the wars are a really good reflection on how the war was perceived. As the mother of a marine officer I empathize with her loss. But I think they way she played the part really reflects all of the things that I've said above.

... View More
fwmurnau

After FOR THE BOYS flopped at the box office, Bette Midler angrily told the press she would never make another musical.But the trouble was she DIDN'T make a musical. She threw a few numbers into a heavy-handed "message picture" that strikes political poses which are obvious and overly-familiar.It starts out so well, a real old-time star vehicle, perfectly showcasing Midler's musical and comedic gifts, but less than an hour in, it transforms into something much less interesting.Musical numbers disappear, replaced by pious liberal sermonettes, teaching us that blacklisting, patriotism, sexism, and the Viet Nam war are all Very Bad.FOR THE BOYS illustrates the damage done to a story when the writers refuse to be fair to a major character. Here, James Caan is painted in such broad strokes as a two-dimensional villain (sexist! adulterous! untalented! corrupt!), the whole film becomes a cartoon.By the time you see them in the worst old age make-up in Hollywood history (it looks like someone stuck pie dough on Midler and Caan's faces), what little credibility remains is swept away for good.But the first 45 minutes reminds you how great Midler can be in the right vehicle. Will someone please cast her in another musical? A REAL one this time.

... View More