Very well executed

Captivating movie !

Admirable film.

Clever, believable, and super fun to watch. It totally has replay value.

Middle-aged women of the world unite -- and watch this movie! The real-life story of Jackie Susann's meteoric and incredibly unlikely rise to fame is much more compelling than any of the sexploitation novels she wrote.Well into her 40s, Susann had three dreadful strikes against her -- her only child was autistic and institutionalized, her acting career had flopped and then she got cancer. She had ground out a novel about the sex-and-drugs peccadilloes of showbiz types, which was considered junk by any and all established literary standards. But Jackie had a shrewd, intuitive sense of what turned ordinary people on, a flamboyant flair for promoting herself plus relentless energy and ambition. She achieved about a decade of glorious success as top best-selling author until she succumbed to a recurrence of cancer in her 50s.If you like this story line, you'll probably like the movie. It's handled in a high-camp manner, with very broad performances by Bette Midler and the rest. Midler and Lane, who plays her kindly and rather pathetic hanger-on of a husband, are wonderfully funny playing a couple with absolutely no class at all. If you were a kid in the 1960s, as I was, you'll probably enjoy Bette wafting around in outrageous outfits and dos.My only criticism is that this very comic style makes the movie play like an extended, patched-together sequence of comedy sketches, rather than a movie. Also, to enjoy the movie, I think it helps if you're a New Yorker. In NYC, eccentricity has traditionally been not just tolerated but encouraged. Many people from other more staid parts of the country come to New York for this reason -- Susann herself was a New York transplant from Philadelphia. Also, NYC attracts lots of wildly ambitious people vying to make it in the worlds of showbiz, the arts, publishing, finance, etc. So,as goofy as Midler's portrait is, it seemed endearingly familiar to me.

I really do not understand y everyone i meet says this movie was horrible. I thought it was hilarious. It was not the best movie I ever saw but it was definitely not the worst. It had some incredibly funny lines and the cast, especially Bette Midler was fantastic. The movie is not set in modern day life which is probably y so many people think that it is so out of the ordinary. And it is based on the true life of the writer of Vally of the Dolls. The actually events in the movie might seem unrealistic to some people but that is what actually happened. They did have a retarded son who they practically never saw which is y in the movie u Practically never see him. I thought the movie was great and people need to give it a chance. It is not a golden globe movie but it is definitely a feel good movie that can surly make you laugh out loud.

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.

This movie is supposedly about Jacqueline Susann (Bette Midler) and husband Irving Mansfield (Nathan Lane). It chronicles how they met, fell in love and how she got "Valley of the Dolls" published. But this movie is a mess...and completely inaccurate.For starters, Midler doesn't even remotely look like Susann or act like her. I've read at least 3 books on Susann as well as various articles - she was an ambitious, intelligent, driven woman. As Midler portrays her she is stupid, obnoxious, VERY loud and foul-mouthed. I'm no prude but there's way too much swearing from her in this--I have my doubts that Susann ever talked like that. Also they take actual events from Susann's life and fictionalizes them. When she is told in the movie to edit her book she acts like an idiot and refuses to help. In real life, Susann agreed to help make the book better with no fuss. And, Susann had a "Wishing Hill" (as she called it) in Central Park. It was basically a huge pile of rocks where she sat to clear her mind and relax. Here it's turned into a giant tree (????) and we have sequences with Lane and Midler talking, yelling and swearing at it. It's a wonder that those two managed to pull it off without looking like idiots.As you can see, this is a bad film--but just so much FUN to watch! The incredible costumes and set design are just great--colorful and very true to the period. Some of the lines are actually very funny. Nathan Lane is great as Mansfield and Stockard Channing (as her best friend) and David Hyde Pierce (as her publisher) are hysterical and offer strong support. And Christopher McDonald and John Larroquette throw in cameos. Also John Cleese is on hand but he's wasted. Then there's Midler....she's AWFUL! Loud, shrill and thoroughly unlikable. When she was dying at the end I could have cared less. If she had toned down her performance and not played every scene at full tilt this might have worked. But she doesn't. However, she is fun to watch--a textbook example of how NOT to play a role.The studio (understandably) threw this film away. It came and went VERY quickly and was a commercial disaster. Still, I'm giving it a 7--it's so incredibly bad that it's fun to watch! A must-see on that level.