The Babe | | Cast : | John Goodman | | Director : | Arthur Hiller | | Studio : | Universal Studios | | Format : | Color, Closed-captioned, Widescreen | | Released Date : | April 17, 1992 | | DVD Released Date : | June 01, 2003 | | Language : | English (Dubbed), Spanish (Subtitled), French (Subtitled) | | Audience Rating : | PG (Parental Guidance Suggested) | | | BUY THIS DVD FROM AMAZON |
Customer Reviews
| Rating |  | | Date | August 09, 2005 | | Summary | Truth Stretching, and All-Out Fabrication | Content
 | I saw this movie as a kid when it came out and liked it, but since then it has gone through something of a critical reevaluation. Goodman is an entertaining actor, but there are just too many factual errors, and they arguably detract too much from the film's quality.
As was noted elsewhere by other reviewers, Goodman's Ruth does not represent a great athlete. Ruth was not overweight growing up, nor in his early days as a ballplayer. Ruth's weight did fluctuate, but few to this day know that Ruth had 123 career stolen bases, and actually led the Yankees in steals one year (1923). Goodman's character was unreasonably slow, and at the end was portrayed as unable to run the bases even on a home run. This might work as light humor, but it certainly is not fact. Also of note, Goodman was a natural born right-hander that had to learn how to bat and throw left-handed like Ruth for the purpose of acting in this film. This makes Goodman look awkward, and even less like an athlete on a few occasions.
On the other hand, I understand as a general rule that playwrights and filmmakers are given a certain "artistic license," and that it is alright on some occasions to stretch the truth for a purpose. The bloated portrayal of Ruth might be one such example, no matter how erroneous it is from a factual standpoint. Even so, many of the inaccuracies have no discernable purpose. Case in point, "Jumpin' Joe" Dugan was never a teammate of Ruth's in Boston, only in New York. It is also known that Ruth did not have any home runs in 1914, but according to this movie he had one that year. In addition, Ruth was not the first player to hit a home run at Forbes Field. The list could go on for a while, and there seems to be no reason why the filmmakers decided to alter such facts. "Jumpin' Joe" may have been put in there just to have a veteran teammate friend for Ruth, but Dugan started his career three years after Ruth did, so he could not have been a veteran to Ruth at any point in his career. They could have picked someone else to fill this fictitious "veteran teammate" role, or scrapped the idea all together. The 1914 home run served the purpose of providing a dramatic rookie year home run, but this scene could have been set in 1915 instead, and with some modifications perhaps could have been just as dramatic. Lastly, regarding Forbes Field, the announcer could have said a true statement along the lines of "Forbes Field is a pitchers ballpark, not many home runs are hit here folks," as opposed to the inaccurate "no one has ever hit a ball out of Forbes Field." The latter line had a dramatic effect, but was not necessary.
Also of note, Ruth's supposed "meeting" with gangster Alphonse Capone seemed a bit absurd, perhaps this was thrown in to get a glimpse of the times. Aside from the dicey misrepresentations though, there were a few strong qualities. The acting was strong overall, with Ruth's two wives giving strong performances, and Goodman's performance was not a total wash, even if there was too much over-the-top buffoonery. And let it be said that this film does have the ability to evoke some of the excitement of the game of baseball - a sentiment especially felt as an eight or nine year old viewer. But as said by Derek Armstrong, there were "too few ambitions toward a greatness to match that of its subject matter."
|
| Rating | | | Date | May 10, 2005 | | Summary | Ruth as a buffoon.....not a legend | Content
| Normally I don't review content on DVDs just execution ....this product suffers on both counts. The true story of BABE RUTH is a legendary one...and this movie pays little attention to much of it. With all the amazing athletic feats to deal with this movie mostly takes the personal route and gets pretty redundant with it...how many belches do we need to hear or meals do we need to see consumed at record pace?
Goodman could have played Ruth...but he'd have needed to drop some weight...lots of it. Ruth was a great athlete and while his weight fluctuated he was never the blob that Goodman is. I remember seeing this movie when it first played in theatres and until I actually saw real footage of Ruth and learned the true story years later did I realize what a travesty this "movie of the week" type project is....
BEST THING ABOUT THIS DVD? the two bonus featurettes starring the real BABE RUTH as bonus features...they alone are worth the ten bucks |
| Rating | | | Date | October 21, 2004 | | Summary | great movie with superb performance by Goodman | Content
| I'm not a baseball or John Goodman fan and I really enjoyed this. What a GREAT movie! One negative reviewer on here said Goodman was unlikable as the Babe but that simply isn't the case. From the reviews on here this seems to be a "love it or hate it" film. *I loved it!!* |
| Rating | | | Date | October 11, 2004 | | Summary | Goodman is The Babe | Content
| I enjoyed this movie. Some of the reviewers don't understand this was not a documentary on the Bambino. This was a movie. The fine gentlemen P. B. Pereira attempt to dismiss John Goodman as a somewhat successful star from the late 80's is idiotic and off the mark. You sir are taking the whole movie too seriously. Babe's rough and tumble upbringing left its mark on him. Goodman is terrific throughout the movie,& I really fell for the lovely Trini Alvarado who plays Babe's first wife, she is stunning. As far as the would have, could ofs and other wild speculation on how good Babe would have been, think about this. Babe didn't use illegal steroids like today's ball players, he rode a train not a jet, fitness equipment did not exist. In addition the old ball parks tended to have greater distances from the plate to the fence. I highly recommend this movie, if for just the "pull my finger" line. |
| Rating | | | Date | August 23, 2004 | | Summary | An excuse to cast John Goodman? | Content
| I can't help but wonder if this film wasn't made more from an excuse to cash in on the popularity of John Goodman at the time of this film than an honest desire to portray the baseball icon. It would certainly explain the film's inaccuracies and rushed feel. I remember that around that time (late 80's, early 90s), Goodman seemed to be fairly popular. Can it be coincidence that somebody wanted to make a film about Babe Ruth at around the same time Goodman started receiving recognition in Hollywood? Honestly, I don't think so. At any rate, Goodman is miscast as Ruth. For one thing, Ruth wasn't really fat; more like broad and stocky. He was quite athletic and able to play the field - remember, there was no such thing as a designated hitter back then. In other words, offense isn't the only part of baseball; Ruth played defense too. Does this film ever show Ruth in the outfield? Can't say for sure because I didn't really watch the entire thing, but it's hard to imagine paunchy John Goodman fielding fly balls. The other thing is Goodman is simply unlikeable as Ruth. As we can see from film footage (including Pride of the Yankees), the real Ruth was energetic and charismatic. Goodman's Ruth is simply loud, crass and grating. |
|
