This is what modern-day Hollywood does to most icons, to most of our "heroes." It, generally speaking, trashes them, emphasizing the bad in their lives over the good.
While the 1948 Babe Ruth Story way over-sugarcoated Ruth's story, this new version portrays this sports hero - perhaps the most famous sports personality in American history - to the other extreme, of course. Why can't Hollywood just be neutral on these biographies? Show the good and bad, but be fair about it.
If you read about Babe Ruth, it's astonishing to find out just how big a celebrity he was in his lifetime: literally bigger-than-life, and the fact so many people know his name and face over 90 years after he started playing Major League Baseball is a testimony to that. Much of what Ruth did was good stuff, especially with kids and charities, but he also had a crude, rough side to him and a life that had more than its share of sufferings. He was, indeed, and complex and fascinating human being. One thing that is outright lie: the plot line as written on the title page here saying ' {Babe) is unheroic to those who know him." No, all the old players said for years afterward how much they all liked Ruth, what a great guy he was and generous to a fault."
Ruth's bad points should be pointed out, but this movie dwells too much on the unpleasant scenes which is probably one good reason why it wasn't a hit movie. Hollywood just doesn't get it: people don't want mostly negative stuff, especially about their heroes.
Anyway, John Goodman did a fine job of playing Ruth. He didn't write the script, so I am not upset with him. Kelli McGillis is a pretty woman and also adds nicely to the film as Ruth's strong wife, "Clare."
Also, the movie is still interesting, especially if you're a baseball fan. But, as a big fan, I would like to have enjoyed this movie and bought the VHS (now DVD) and viewed it many times .....but it's not fun to watch.
While the 1948 Babe Ruth Story way over-sugarcoated Ruth's story, this new version portrays this sports hero - perhaps the most famous sports personality in American history - to the other extreme, of course. Why can't Hollywood just be neutral on these biographies? Show the good and bad, but be fair about it.
If you read about Babe Ruth, it's astonishing to find out just how big a celebrity he was in his lifetime: literally bigger-than-life, and the fact so many people know his name and face over 90 years after he started playing Major League Baseball is a testimony to that. Much of what Ruth did was good stuff, especially with kids and charities, but he also had a crude, rough side to him and a life that had more than its share of sufferings. He was, indeed, and complex and fascinating human being. One thing that is outright lie: the plot line as written on the title page here saying ' {Babe) is unheroic to those who know him." No, all the old players said for years afterward how much they all liked Ruth, what a great guy he was and generous to a fault."
Ruth's bad points should be pointed out, but this movie dwells too much on the unpleasant scenes which is probably one good reason why it wasn't a hit movie. Hollywood just doesn't get it: people don't want mostly negative stuff, especially about their heroes.
Anyway, John Goodman did a fine job of playing Ruth. He didn't write the script, so I am not upset with him. Kelli McGillis is a pretty woman and also adds nicely to the film as Ruth's strong wife, "Clare."
Also, the movie is still interesting, especially if you're a baseball fan. But, as a big fan, I would like to have enjoyed this movie and bought the VHS (now DVD) and viewed it many times .....but it's not fun to watch.