The film is more than watchable- it's very, very good. Just don't confuse it with biography. Nothing that we know about the reality of either person is admirable. If you forget about the "real" Doris Duke, whoever she "really" was, you can enjoy the performances for what they are- excellent, engaging, even charming, and certainly proficient. Neither actor is ever less than excellent, even when performing poor material, and this material isn't bad. Realistic- well, maybe not so much. The Doris of "Bernard and Doris" was a monster, warped almost beyond human recognition by unimaginable wealth - it's a terrific portrayal of a person who lacks intellect and real education almost entirely but who has unlimited resources for self indulgence - a sort of a rock star cubed. Bernard admired and wanted to BE that monster, as the last scene reveals. Rather instructive, really.

I wonder. Sometimes I really do value something simple done extraordinarily well over something deep and ambitious done incompletely. Its rare, and I can feel it coming on with an aura that gives me warning. At such times, I have films like this ready. You never know if they will work, but you do know generally that they are built to be simple and direct.And you can judge something of the approach by the people involved. This was far less perfect than it would have had to been to justify the situation — which is simple. Rich woman, needy subservient man, along the lines of "The Dresser," or a dozen other approaches to the type. She accepts and rewards the devotion. End.So you have three individuals here, the two actors and the director. Each is placed for our judgment. Sarandon has by far the simplest task: to portray a simple woman. I believe her to be an actress with one or two mannerisms that were invested long ago in compelling characters, and thus unavailable here. She's not someone you could be charmed by.That could work well, even amplify the pitiful state of the character Fiennes plays. Unless he is allowed to shout, Fiennes brings only one quality: the portrayal of the suppressed self. This was perfect for one of my favorite films: "Oscar and Lucinda," where that effect was apt. Unlike Sarandon, he's not afraid to be the same guy over and over.Well, we could still be saved by Balaban. He is an intelligent man who knows staging, and who knows paired acting. But he's the big disappointment here. Everything is derived. Nothing is original. The whole idea was supposed to be that this woman was rare, unique. That merely being with her was an experience worth the effort. Fiennes' character is our surrogate, working to get close and stay close. This could have been effected by all manner of dramatic and cinematic devices, none of which seem to have been tried.Its as if this were a cheap play, not a rich life and a half.Ted's Evaluation -- 1 of 3: You can find something better to do with this part of your life.

I couldn't look the film up to now. In Eastern-Middle Europe HBO doesn't play it (I have three HBO channels), but the clips and the trailer I could reach were poignant. Two brilliant actor in interesting roles in an interesting situation. I saw the first variation too with Bacall and Chamberlain it was good, but Bernard's role was simplified: a live Lord Voldemort or Gregory Anton from the 'Gaslight', a live Devil. This formulation seems more interesting: a vulnerable, alcoholic, asexual, transvestite girl-man who adores Doris , wants to be like she is , wants a mother whom he missed lifelong, wants to merge in her. No one knows whether this or the previous variation is true. This one is more complicated , more poetic, the realization (on the clips) is closer to me.

A tale of two losers, one who happens to be the billionaire Doris Duke.With all her money, it is shown that the latter can't bring happiness. Duke lives in a closed-existent world and is soon attracted to her butler played by Ralph Fiennes.The scene with the two celebrating her birthday is ridiculous. Fiennes suddenly dresses up with earrings, makeup, etc. To say that he looks ridiculous is to put it mildly.This butler was there just for the money. That he gave Duke some happiness was just a matter of coincidence.Sarandon is too young for the part. What Bette Davis could have done for this part!The film is uneven since it starts with Duke ignoring Lafferty (Fiennes) and suddenly he is the head of the house. It didn't show how he got into her good graces.