El ídolo

As someone familiar with the historic record of Babe Ruth's life, the many "playings around" with the facts were noticeable. In some of the cases, presenting the story accurately wouldn't have changed the filmmakers' intent at all. Example: In the movie, Babe already is married to Clare when Dorothy dies in the fire. Dorothy died a couple of years before Babe got married. He was a Catholic, remember; they weren't living together.

I'm still pretty sure the Baby Ruth candy bar was named for Grover Cleveland's daughter, not the Babe. I am old enough to have attended many ballgames in Forbes Field, and they didn't even try to make the park in the movie look the same. Where was the ivy?!

In real life, Clare wanted Babe to retire after the 3 homers in Pittsburgh, but Babe had promised people he would appear in several more games. Nothing happened in those games, and, dramatically, having him quit after Pittsburgh made good sense for the movie.

I'm also glad the picture ended when it did, not showing Babe in his last frustrating years waiting vainly for the Yankees to call him. We didn't need to see his - and Clare's - decline.

I take serious issue with the critic here who apparently likes the William Bendix movie better. Keep in mind that was made while Babe was still alive. The Babe they presented there was so perfumed and sugar-coated as to be completely unrecognizable.

John Goodman steamrolls his way through this film, with just about everyone else pushed into the background.

Purists no doubt will cane this film for historical inaccuracies. Heck, I'm from another country and know jack about baseball, but 15 minutes on the Internet was enough to show me that the film took serious short-cuts with Babe's life and career, not to mention a number of errors and distortions of fact.

Does this matter? Well, yes, probably. But you have to feel for the filmmakers. How do you condense a 20-year sporting career, not to mention a study of a complex and flawed individual, into a couple of hours of cinema? It's not easy, and the film suffers from events that are merely touched on Example 1: Ruth is introduced to mobsters in a speakeasy, but this seems to lead nowhere. The obvious question is: what happened next?. Example 2: The conflict between Ruth and Lou Gehrig is not portrayed accurately, and its resolution is not shown at all.

An excess of sentiment also hurts the film. There are moments that look like cliched scenes from countless other sporting movies - especially the sick kiddie in hospital extracting a promise of 2 home runs from Ruth, who dutifully delivers, and the same kiddie, now fully recovered and grown up, showing up at Ruth's swansong. It's emotionally manipulative film-making and I regret to say it works, but it also pulls this film back from greatness.

All up, just above average, unlike its subject matter.

Despite critical reviews, this is really an interesting movie. A different look at legendary home run slugger Babe Ruth. Very low budget and historically incorrect. A major league turn around from the William Bendix BABE RUTH STORY(1948). Rowdy and ribald and one of baseball's original heroes is shown drinking, cavorting, skirt chasing and deep in gluttony. The real "Bambino"? Not candy coated, but not honestly factual either. John Goodman is outstanding as the slugger of mammoth and mythical home runs. Kelly McGillis plays Clare Ruth. Also in the cast are Bruce Boxleitner, Joe Ragno and Peter Donat. Take it all in stride. It is only a movie and not engraved in granite.

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.

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.