Director Andrew Bergman was known for slightly off beat comedies such as The Freshman and he could handle big stars known to be difficult such as Marlon Brando.In 'Isn't She Great' Bergman tries but ultimately fails because this fictionalised biography of author Jacqueline Susann is just too stuffy, slushy and sentimentalised when it should had been loud, vulgar and left field.Bette Midler is too restrained as Susann, the period recreation is very good but although a watchable film I expected something more great.

Isn't She Great! and TCM's Robert OsborneDer ya to listen to this:I wanted to post on this movie awhile ago, however I didn't use my energy to create an account on DA "blogspot". Today I feel as if everyone gives their opinions and soon what does it matter what anyone says. It's not like Truman Capote is around anymore! Not that I even like Truman, who the F was he anyway? So pressing on to this movie. I watched this movie and balled at it, like I am a sucker for pretty much any good sappy movie. I can attest that I have seen pretty much every movie since 1936. You name it, I saw it. I wish Robert Osborne would =call me some time soon I am getting older here. I want this man J.O.B., frankly I think I am a little hotter too..what do you think TCM.....audition? No honestly he is a brilliant film historian. I would love to work with him someday. I do however have serious doubts about his side kick Ben Mankiewicz. What a miserable personality eh? OK I guess this is for another post. Today we (yes the royal WE) talk about "Isn't She Great." I absoulty love and adored this movie. All I read is blasts of negativity from critics and lectures about how horrid these two were...CAPITAL F>A>L>S>E! I do not believe anyone could of cast this movie any better. The cast was so brilliant together and a perfect team. Not only do I adore Bette in any movie, but her touchable real side was exposed in this movie. She swore, she drank, she was just generally a normal person who could let go in this film. Granted the character she played the infamous Jacqueline Susann, allowed her to ham it up. Together Nathan Lane and Bette Midler connected. I do not know how the critics of this movie could bash them. They loved working together and you could see this. David Hyde Pierce who I personally cannot stand, was great in this movie as well. Thank you Dave, (may I call you Dave?) for renewing my faith in stuffed shirt tight wad characters. The language and the determination in this movie was well put on screen. I simply love Jacqueline Susann for doing it HER WAY. I love that Bette could bring this story to light. While I did not care so much for "Valley of the Dolls" it was quite addicting, least the movie. I do not read so much these days this might attest for my atrocious writing skills which everyone apparently must notice. I cannot express to you how much I liked the assemble of this cast, John Cleese..amazing! Stockard Channing was a pre-runner to that blonde chick I like in Sex and the City! I think its Samantha? BTW Ms. Channing if you read this, I believe I am your biggest fan! What an amazing range for all of this cast. While others might criticize this movie...I found it to be a touching story with a powerful message. Something I believe that most movies lack in 2009. Yes it was not a Joan Crawford movie, but it just was touching. The way the cast interacted during this movie was fanominal to me. It was the message and the cast that made this movie special. Maybe I am the person who fights all lost causes, but as Jimmy Stewart says they are the only ones worth fighting for. I encourage you to re-look at this movie and give it another shot. I think the best parts in this movie for me was when Bette as Ms. Susann goes to the tree in central park to "talk to God." She is so matter of fact and vulgar to God and I love it. She identifies God as a light source though a tree, and it is so child-like, yet so close to your heart. It just shows how real Jacqueline Susann was and how Bette Midler understood her. I do think that Jackie would of loved this movie due to the fact that everyone else hated it. To me, that alone makes this film 4 stars in my book. Watch this movie again with an open heart you overpriced movie critics.

I've caught "Isn't She Great" several times now (It seems to be eternally running on the movie channels).This was a monster flop when it came out, barely released, but it does a fine job of capturing the era.The main attraction of this film is the acting of the leads. Both Nathan Lane and Bette Midler can come off incredibly stagy on film, but their style works well with these characters. Jackie Suzanne was larger than life. They both manage to bring a true sense of sweetness to their roles.Particular note must be made of David Hyde Pierce as her editor. This actor fits very well in this era. Also, John Cleese is a hoot as the publisher. Wish there were more of him in the movie.Give this one a chance. A period piece from a currently unhip period.

ISN'T SHE GREAT (2000) ** Bette Midler, Nathan Lane, Stockard Channing, David Hyde Pierce, John Cleese, Amanda Peet. Before there was Jackie Collins and Amazon.com there was Jacqueline Susann. That is prior to the subgenre of 'trashy romance' novels found in your neighborhood pharmacy and the glut that is now the conglomerate superbookstore –i.e. marketing and focus groups for the masses! – there was Jacqueline Susann, whose bawdy, vulgar and tasteless novels were ultimately candy for the average American reader who gobbled her tomes faster than she could churn them out. In Andrew Bergman's look at the queen of the acquired taste, who else could portray a larger than life figurehead than the estimable Divine Miss M herself, Bette Midler.Midler gives it her all with her trademark ball-breaking brio as the celebrity craven author whose indefatigable image fashioning was only matched by par by her long-suffering but ever devoted husband and business partner Irving Mansfield (touché Lane, making their onscreen presence a once in a lifetime pairing to appreciative audiences), who used all his show biz savvy – no matter how gauche or seemingly stooping manners of barnstorming the country to every podunk backwater stationery store or spreading the word to a busload of school children – to make Susann a giantess among the mortals in the writing field. Based on a reminiscence by New Yorker's Michael Korda, the fact that the real Susann was no sweetheart and a real tough cookie with a few sad hurdles – her ongoing bout with cancer and the institutionalization of her only child who suffered from autism – are casually sugar-coated by Bergman (whose impeccable credits include a plethora of the comic pantheon including 'The In-Laws', 'The Freshman' and 'Blazing Saddles') and the sharply sticky screenplay by scathing scribe Paul Rudnick ('In & Out') wisely overlook her obvious flaws and instead center on the unlikely union of two borderline caricatures of the entertainment field, and their questionable romance. But Midler and Lane surpass the film's shortcomings with their theatrical overplaying, which is arguably suitable, as well as the always welcome Channing, one of our most underrated comic actresses, whose succor in her line readings are a stitch (when Susann belabors she doesn't know how to write a book, Channing says with aplomb, 'Talent isn't everything.'); she's like the salt in a margarita.Also lending able support is Hyde Pierce in another variation of his tv persona from 'Frasier' as Susann's stuffed shirt editor and Cleese as the Nehru jacketed publisher, both in their element here. The one thing that seems to be missing is it seems outdated and quite a lot to compress in a film that has the dubious distinction of telling the story of a woman who wasn't very nice nor well respected, but then again that hasn't been the case of celebrity history in this country, so I'm not even going to argue that!