Gleason

Technically speaking, "Gleason" is an incredible film to watch. Brad Garrett does a terrific job playing Jackie Gleason and the film did a wonderful job of re-creating the look of the old "Honeymooners" shows. But, despite such fine craftsmanship the film suffers from one serious problem...the subject of the film, Jackie Gleason, comes off as a selfish, ugly-spirited jerk with little as a human being to like or appreciate. Because of this, it makes the film tough to stick with until the end. The only thing that keeps you watching is the look and how well it replicated that. Additionally, if you are looking for a complete overview of Gleason's life, you won't find it here. Because of the film's length, it comes off much more episodic and often skips important aspects of his life (such as his second marriage which is never mentioned).

Good Bio drama of a bygone era. Brad Garrett inhabits the role of Gleason. A man who's power overshadowed the 50's and 60's television world, without rival. Even Lucille Ball. Very evocative of the times. I highly recommend it. Its a 9 of 10. I rate it so high, because of the production value, and how it portrays the times Gleason lived in. Make no mistake, there are factual inaccuracies here. I am pretty big on historical inaccuracy in movies. But that's as it relates to real history. When it comes to the entertainment business itself though, malleability is part of what they do. Nonetheless, that's why its not a 10 of 10. To me, this was a film about those times. A gone with the wind era, never to return. This was entertainment for entertainment's sake.

Brad Garrett did an excellent job of portraying Gleason in this movie. I'll admit that this story held a very Poignant spot in my heart. Jackie Gleason not only grew up on Chauncey Street in Brooklyn in the WWI era, so did my Dad. And they actually LOOKED a lot alike, though they did not know each other.

Anyway, in the 50s and 60s Gleason was ever-present on our TV. He was not the Funniest guy alive, but you could tell where he came from, by the characters he invented. The Honeymooners' Brooklyn apartment was sparsely furnished - NO decorations, nothing on the walls. Gleason's irascible temper (probably born out of frustration with his Bus-driver job at $60.00 a week) belied his actual love for his wife, played by Audrey Meadows in the Honeymooners series. She was perfect for the role.

Garrett made up for his not-exactly-resemblance of Gleason, by imitating Gleason's voice and mannerisms to a T. The real-life Gleason was sort of a Bull in a china shop. People said he was hard to like. But that, if you got drunk with him, you'd be best buddies forever. His acquaintances and friends likened looking in his eyes to that of a pig's.

I recommend this movie to those (mostly older) viewers who lived through the 1950s and '60s, and to those who are curious about the man they only knew later in life, from the Burt Reynolds movies. Incidentally, Gleason WAS hailed as a very credible dramatic actor, in serious roles such as Minnesota Fats ("The Hustler"), also starring a YOUNG Paul Newman and as a deaf-mute Janitor in "Gigot". Gleason was, if nothing else, an entirely self-made man and a fascinating character.

This movie captures the raw Gleason to the point of dislike; however, movie reflects that he was a driven man who knew what the audience wanted...frankly, by their reactions to prior performances. Brad Garrett captures this well and Michael Chieffo is an excellent Art Carney (who should play Carney in his own movie as the man is that convincing.)

When viewing this film pay close attention to the earlier years when Gleason is a boy and the expressions used by his father around the house and in treating his mother. Gleason eventually turns what would be deemed as closet skeletons into humor. Nicely done!

I agree that Garrett's performance was amazing, he captured the essence of Gleason perfectly. My biggest issues with the movie were two:

1. Jumping back in forth in time. I got lost after three different levels of flashbacks in the first 5 minutes. Why?

2. Completely ignored his movie career. The movie jumped from his TV work in the mid-1950's to a TV interview in the 90's (probably supposed to be his "60 Minutes" interview in 1991). Why? I hope CBS is not so crass that they mainly wanted to present him in ways having to do with his appearances on CBS! That would be amazing. His movie career occupied a much larger portion of his life than his TV career. Most of us are familiar with his later silly roles, but he did some great movie roles in the 1960s: "The Hustler" (original), "Soldier in the Rain", "Papa's Delicate Condition", etc. You can check IMDB for yourself. All worth seeing.

On the plus side, the cinematography was excellent, and looked very good in HDTV. If you didn't see it in HD, try to next time.

Also Michael Chieffo gives a pretty convincing portrayal (though perhaps a little restrained) of Art Carney, in the few scenes he appears.

Finally, Garrett goes from young and thin to really quite chubby, in both body and face. Either an excellent job of makeup and costuming, or he gained a heck of a lot of weight for the role, or a little of both? If it was done with appliances, it was the best job I've ever seen. Completely convincing, even viewed in HD.