उपयोगकर्ता समीक्षाएं

Schmaltzy biopic of the legendary slugger, released just a few weeks before he died. It's no "Pride of the Yankees," that's for sure. I've reviewed a lot of biographical pictures from Hollywood's Golden Age and I tend to be very forgiving of the liberties taken with the facts to tell a compelling story in a limited amount of time. But, brother, this one really pushes it. This is so cheesy and over-the-top with its attempts at sanctifying Babe Ruth. He cures two sick kids in this thing, for crying out loud. One of them was paralyzed!

William Bendix was probably as close to ideal casting for Ruth as you were going to get but the script really just plays him up as a big saintly teddy bear instead of treating him like a real person. There are also a number of clichéd characters hanging around like the fatherly priest, the chorus girl with a heart of gold, and the unflaggingly loyal friend. I should also point out that very little of the movie actually deals with the game of baseball. There's only a handful of scenes that show the game being played and most of them are just Bendix poorly imitating Ruth's pitching and hitting. It's really a pretty lazy part of the film. I won't rate it as low as many others are, and I certainly wouldn't include it on my "worst ever" list unless we're being super narrow on what that includes. It's perfectly watchable and even enjoyable at times. But it's so unbelievably corny and tired I doubt even the biggest fan of classic Hollywood or baseball will walk away loving it.

When I was a lad I remember taking the book this film was based on out of the Brooklyn Public Library. Babe Ruth's ghost written memoirs by Bob Considine were considered so innocuous that it could be found in the children's section of the library.

The Babe had only been gone from us for about seven years when I read the book and saw the film. The film is as how he would like to have been remembered. Of course it was hardly the character he was. Left out of this film is the hedonism that ran rampant in his persona, the drinking, the womanizing, the brawling.

What gets me about this film is that William Bendix was a huge baseball fan, in fact he was a bat boy for the New York Giants as a kid. So too, was William Frawley when he wasn't drinking you could find him at a game in a given city during the season.

Some of the bare bones facts of Ruth's life are covered and some of the stories attributed about Ruth are presented here. Left conspicuously out of the film are Ruth's first wife and daughter. This was a film intended for kids and that wouldn't have quite fit.

In a recent biography of Ruth, I learned that the Considine book wasn't even Considine's. Bob Considine was a fine journalist and reporter who was not a sportswriter per se. Ruth agreed to the memoirs while he was undergoing treatment for cancer to leave a permanent legacy. But he proved such a difficult subject to interview because he dominated the sessions with his own rollicking anecdotes when he wasn't in pain from the illness. Long time Ruth friend and noted baseball writer Fred Lieb helped Considine with the book with no credit as Lieb ghosted a whole lot of the book himself helped by his encyclopedic knowledge of Ruthiana.

In that era of the Twenties, what has been termed the Golden Age of Sports, Babe Ruth's was the brightest star in the sports world. He was a larger than life figure, down to the fact that his excesses were larger than life. He transformed his sport to one of power from one of speed. He drew sellout in every American League city, transformed the New York Yankees into the greatest sports franchise ever.

Ruth had a couple of good made for TV films about him that were closer to the truth. But he deserved what Lou Gehrig got, a big A budget film from someone like Samuel Goldwyn.

Still he did better in a biographical film than Jackie Robinson.

This is often pointed to cynically by sportswriters and fans as the ultimate ridiculously sugarcoated sports-hero film. Who's to argue? If you know Babe Ruth and what he was like, you almost have to laugh at some of the stuff in here. That's not to say Ruth was a bad man, because he wasn't. He was extremely likable guy whom his teammates all loved, he was fantastic with kids and very, very generous man. But he also had a lot of faults, too, some of which got him in big trouble with his managers and league officials. His health was a problem at times, thanks, in part to his opulent lifestyle. He was a glutton and an adulterer and life wasn't fun for him as he got unfairly passed over to be a manager, something he desperately sought. Very few if any of these negative qualities are the in the film - just the good 'ole boy - the kind William Bendix played on his TV show, "The Life Of Riley."

Also unrealistic - and typical of sports movies in the "classic era" - is Bendix trying to throw and hit a baseball. Thank goodness modern-day movies don't have actors like this who are clueless on how to play the actual sport they are portraying.

Yet, as sweet and unrealistic as this film can be, it's a lot better than doing the reverse, which is what Hollywood did in 1992. Too bad you usually get two extremes when it comes biographies made in Hollywood. In the "classic era" films, our heroes could do no wrong. Since the '60s, our heroes are shown to be blemished more than anything else. Where is the middle ground.

The solution, obviously, is to be "fair and balanced," but don't look for that in most biographies made into movies, especially dealing with sports heroes.

In Claire Hodgeson Ruth's fascinating book, "The Babe and I," about her famous husband, she is openly critical of the biopic, "The Babe Ruth Story." The film, according The Babe's widow, was rushed into production and on to the public in mid-1948, while Babe was still alive, although he was less than three months from death. It's easier to exploit a live man's life than a dead one's, Mrs. Ruth suggests. That's a primary reason why the production and everything associated with it was hurried. In the book, she also stated that she would forgo all royalties from the film's showings...if it were to be permanently shelved. It wasn't...but should have been. In fact, it never should have been done, if speed, indeed, were the primary motivation.

Babe Ruth was the greatest American sports hero ever...including those who followed him during the second half of the twentieth century. Babe deserved a much grander---and accurate---portrayal than this '48 laugher.

There were only two positive elements to the story..and both involved casting. Claire Trevor as the Babe's second wife, Claire, and Charles Bickford as Brother Matthias, were excellent choices. But selecting comic William Bendix for the title role was more than a case of poor casting; it was one that completely undermined both the film and its title character.

Through Bendix's portrayal, audiences see the "Sultan of Swat" as a buffoonish character. Someone who belongs in a cartoon. Not that Bendix didn't try his best. But he was miserably mis-cast. Mrs. Ruth, in her book, stated that she would like to have seen Paul Douglas portray her husband. Not only was Douglas an excellent actor, she said, but he had been an athlete in his youth. He easily could have handled the baseball scenes.

The whole tone of "The Babe Ruth Ruth" story was embarrassingly melodramatic. Again, The Babe deserved much better.

Haste makes waste, the saying goes. It certainly is true here.

That's what this story will always remembered for not for the game of baseball but how it was played by men specifically Babe Ruth. He was the pinnacle of the subject matter for years and brought so much to the game that it leaked out and affected millions of people. This movie was rushed so that it could be seen by the real Babe before he died and he did! I have always been a fan of William Bendix and the pairing of the two subjects makes for a good movie and a splendid time. Back it Ruth's day, a hot dog was a hot dog and a cold drink joined it non-stop to this day too. I highly recommend eating a few during the flick and sit back and let history, a good actor and a favorite past-time minister to you. All good & thank you. Play ball....

This movie does not warrant a long review. It is that bad. I can't see any need in beating a dead horse.

Suffice to say William Bendix was one of the great character actors. He could scare the crap out of audiences as a heavy. Or win everyone's sympathy with that expressive mug of his. He could play almost anyone, any type. Almost. But Babe Ruth he wasn't.Too bad he's gotta have that on his record for all time. Thing is, with that awful script, unimaginative direction, and complete disregard for facts, it's not really his fault.

And he just doesn't resemble Ruth in the slightest.

He just got caught in the wrong movie. Too bad. Couldn't have happened to a better character actor, a nicer guy. Whoever did this to him—well, they ought to have thrown the bum out!

As has been noted already here, this film is worse than mediocre; it is ludicrous at best. Why the film was as badly scripted as it was is anybody's guess at this late date. Scenes which should have come across as poignant come across as corny. The Miller Huggins death scene is especially bad, where "Babe" is talking to him thinking he is still alive, and the nurse pulls the sheet over the face because he is already dead. The jump from his youth in the orphanage to major league baseball is disconcerting. William Bendix wasn't a great actor in the sense of a Bogart or Tracy. But, he wasn't that inept either. The production was rushed to completion before Ruth's death and one can only wonder what he must have thought of it, given the chain of contrivances. This film could have been honest and inspiring, instead it is fraudulent and vapid.

Some have rightly criticized this movie as being a glossed-over, fictionalized, lower-budget presentation of Babe Ruth, while "The Pride of the Yankees" afforded teammate Gehrig a big-budget, A-list-cast project.

However, both were off the proverbial "mark." Gehrig was not quite the totally-affable individual Gary Cooper portrayed, and his mother not quite the "Aunt Bea" type shown.

Babe Ruth was a larger-than-life persona, bawdy, irreverent, and a national icon which, in more recent times, have only seen perhaps Muhammed Ali and Michael Jordan afforded anything close to the equal amount of acclaim. And one must always remember these two have had the benefit of television, including dozens of cable/satellite venues, and far greater electronic and print media than Ruth ever knew.

There is an interesting film clip I've seen many times. Ruth (who batted third) is rounding third base and going to home plate after hitting a home run, while Gehrig (waiting to bat fourth), has his back completely turned, ignoring him, much less shaking his hand. These two were not on speaking terms for significant amounts of time while teammates - far different from the tone of either of their biographies.

This is quite a fictionalized movie, however, few biopics of this era - sports or otherwise - weren't. But it should be noted that Ruth, now well past a half century since his tragic illness and death, and much further beyond his prime - still has led "Athlete of the Century" and similar lists, with only fore-mentioned Ali and Jordan (along with Jim Thorpe) as close contenders.

I, for one, would like to see a film which would present both Ruth and Gehrig, in a realistic style, made today. Dennis Quaid, after putting on a few pounds, and a little padding and makeup, could portray Ruth. He's left-handed, and can portray a baseball athlete (ala "The Rookie," playing a role of a character a decade younger than he), with Costner as Gehrig. Kevin also can handle a bat and ball (Gary Cooper, playing Gehrig, had the baseball talent of a 12-year-old, and the film had to be shown in-reverse to make him appear left-handed. While Costner is right-handed, his athleticism and better techniques today could overcome this).

They are a little longer-in-tooth now (who isn't?), but both are in excellent shape, look younger than they are, and modern techniques and makeup should be able to overcome any problems of their playing "younger."

Personally, I think a first-class film with two major stars, playing Ruth and Gehrig, in a story presenting the harder edges of their personalities, relationship, family lives, etc. - as well as all the positive aspects we've seen before - could be an amazing flick.

Finally, this film is a lot better now, not because its story or presentation have improved - but for its nostalgic view of 1940's film, and the baseball locations and scenes as they were then.

I've seen this movie many times, since I was a little boy. By the time I was a little older, I learned more about baseball and the Babe, and realized the movie was full of exaggerations and myths, but I didn't care. An 'innocent' movie that conveniently skips out on some of the more distasteful aspects of Ruth's life (drinking, carousing, womanizing), I think it works. It's so corny, that you've gotta love it. One of my favorite parts is when Claire yells at Babe to remember about Johnny lying sick in the hospital, who will obviously die if Babe doesn't smash a homer. Amazingly, Babe hears Claire above 50,000 other screaming fans, makes incredibly outrageous gestures pointing to the centerfield bleachers, and socks the homer with a dreadful swing that would make a 6 year old girl embarrassed. How can you not love it? When the group of kids sing 'hymns' (ie take me out to the ballgame) outside his hospital window? I absolutely love this film because I take it for what it is - a fun film that tries to serve as a tribute to one of the greatest players ever.

OK, so it wasn't a great movie by performance standards; maybe judged differently by baseball standards.

Ruth's prominent years came in the 1920's, right after the Black Sox scandal of 1919 (brought to light in 1920). It's widely accepted that he changed the game and probably saved it.

About 2 months before his death, Babe Ruth was given a "day" at Yankee Stadium. He could barely speak to the enormous crowd who had gathered to bid farewell to a man they loved. Maybe little kids didn't gather outside his hospital room to sing "Take Me Out to the Ballgame", but the prevailing feeling is that they could have.

More than an other American activity, baseball bonds generations. My dad and I spent hours watching and discussing the game; then my kids and I. Now my grandchildren and I do the same. The "Babe Ruth Story" might have been poorly scripted and acted, but it affected me emotionally when I was 10, and still does today.

The movie has many flaws, but still has lots of love to give.

Okay, for one minute let us forget our sentimentality over the many contributions to the National Pastime made by the real Babe Ruth and look at this minor league effort of a movie. William Bendix, a journeyman character actor, was unable to inject any life into the role thanks to a terrible script devoid of accuracy (pure corn paying no attention to the facts). So Bendix gives us a cardboard performance standing in front of cardboard sets.

He failed miserably in trying to emulate The Babe, who is arguably the most visible if not recognizable ballplayer in history. It was virtually impossible to convince the audience that Bendix is The Babe, especially in the year of Ruth's death. Strike one!

Like Gary Cooper in The Pride of the Yankees, Bendix was a natural right-hander trying to swing lefty. In Pride, Cooper swung from the right side while wearing a cap and shirt with reversed Yankee logos -- and the film was flipped to turn him around to appear "lefty" on the screen. With no such special-effects aid, Bendix looks embarrassingly awkward (klutzy) trying to sell the audience he's the great left-handed Bambino. He looks like anything but a major league baseball player, let alone The Babe -- and it is hard for the audience to suspend its belief enought to accept Bendix as a star athlete like Ruth. Strike two!

The cliche-riddled script is so bad, it's hard to take seriously. Sure, the Babe ordered hisself a milk in a tavern. Pure drivel. Sure, the real Babe died testing a miracle drug. Writer's embellishment. Yer out!

Maybe this movie was intended to inspire 12-year-olds. But I'm not 12, and The Babe Ruth Story is the sports movie equivalent of Plan 9 -- another movie intending to be serious but turning out to be unintentionally funny -- but The Babe Ruth Story never developed Plan 9's cult following. Plan 9 is so bad, it's entertaining. The Babe Ruth Story is plain bad, and tough to watch.

Babe Ruth has been portrayed numerous times on the Big Screen, and for someone so recognizable, it is hard for us to accept most actors attempting the part. Bendix isn't believable at all, and neither was John Goodman, although he came closer. Perhaps the best reincarnation of Ruth was by Joe Don Baker as "The Whammer" in "The Natural." When Baker's character is introduced on the train, he looks so much like the real Ruth it's scary.

Someday, someone will make a great movie about Babe Ruth. We're all waiting.

I first saw THE BABE RUTH STORY with my own father over fifty years ago, and been watching it on tv ever since. You want to know a secret? The film was designed as a family movie, particularly for big kids at heart and their sons. It not only was the story of a baseball legend, but the inspirational story of a good man with good intentions. Critics, like Leonard Maltin, who obviously don't do their homework, fail to tell you that this was a money-making film, grossing nearly two and half million dollars in 1948, which was a fortune, making more money than Paramount's SORRY WRONG NUMBER, starring Barbara Stanwyck. Not that bad. VARIETY endorsed the film, particularly William Bendix who was a lot of fun to watch as the Babe, particularly when the real Babe Ruth was ill at the time and facing surgery. This is a film filled with heart and sentiment, NOT statistics and footnotes suited for a documentary. Let's not forget a memorable supporting cast, lead by Claire Trevor, William Frawley, Charles Bickford and many guest appearances. So if you don't like it, watch something else, while the rest of us see this all over again.

This has to be one of the worst sports films ever made, if not the worst. Babe Ruth's story was brought to the screen in a sickishly sweet manner by an actor who just didn't fit the role well.

The Goodman film, "Babe", had more historical accuracy and was light years better, but still, I'm rather surprised that no outstanding film bio about the greatest player of the greatest game has never been made.

Comments have been made about Babe Ruth himself as an actor. I have to say that Babe Ruth, in his film appearance in "Pride of The Yankees", was a considerably better and more capable actor than William Bendix.

Billy Crystal, you did a great job on "61*". It's time to step to the plate and put together a REAL film on Babe Ruth!

I know of no two human lives that are more clearly "stories" than that of the two great Yankee teammates, Babe Ruth and Lou Gehrig. Most lives a litany of events, some of which are part of "stories" that cut diagonally across the life rather than encompassing it and driving it forward. Those stories do not emanate from or thus reveal the character of the person portrayed.

Ruth was an undisciplined man-child with a prodigious talent that enabled him to reinvent and save his sport and made him the symbol of his era, a time when America was emerging as a world power and breaking the bonds of its own traditions to create a more modern and exciting way of living. But he offended not only the traditionalists but the businessmen who controlled his sport- or used to until he came along. When age and his lifestyle began to catch to him, they disposed of him for all but ceremonial purposes. Meanwhile his age passed and the world grew more serious. He wound up lonely and depressed and became a cancer victim at the early age of 53.

Gehrig was a serious, dutiful momma's boy, also blessed with a prodigious talent that thrust him into where he most hated to be- the limelight. It's interesting that the worst year of his prime was the one year he didn't have either Ruth or DiMaggio as a teammate, 1935. He fared much better in their shadow. He was noted, by those who noted him, as a strong, reliable workhorse of a man and a player, someone you could count on. He was amazingly beset by a disease which robbed him of his strength, the very quality in him people most admired. And that in turn, thrust him directly into the lime light. People didn't think he could respond but he looked into his heart and said what was there and nobody ever forgot it.

How could you miss telling stories like that? But amazingly, Hollywood has always seemed to get Lou's story right and the Babe's wrong. Even though there were casting problems in all the movies made about them, the quality of "Pride of the Yankees" and of "A Love Affair: The Eleanor and Lou Gehrig Story" is superb on both counts. Meanwhile "The Babe Ruth Story" is one of the worst movies ever made and both the TV movie "Babe Ruth" and the film "The Babe" are deeply flawed.

"Pride of the Yankees" is old fashioned Hollywood sentiment but done by experts. I find Teresa Wright's alternate clowning and crying to be a little too much and I've heard all the stories about Gary Cooper's attempts to learn how to play baseball, (he was a cowboy and an artist but no ball-player). But he was a great actor and he got to the essence of the character beautifully. His delivery of the final speech is perfect, for which reason he was asked to repeat it to the troops over and over during his travels during WWII. I'll be loving it- always.

"The Babe Ruth Story" casts a stumpy, potato-faced introvert, William Bendix, as the big, moon-faced extrovert, Babe Ruth. It's a competent "B" movie version of his life for the first half. It might have just been a disappointing follow-up to "Pride of the Yankees" if they'd left it at that but about halfway through the script suddenly delves into science fiction and turns Ruth into a maker of medical miracles, with one ridiculous scene after another. He is, however, unable to save himself in the end, or even the film.

All I saw of "Babe Ruth" was a few scenes but once I saw Stephen Lang wearing what appeared to be a plastic mask, which tried but failed to make him resemble Ruth, I wanted no part of it.

"The Babe" is the "Gone With the Wind" of Babe Ruth movies, which isn't saying much. But is a good retelling of his life and Goodman enacts the part superbly. It ends at the right moment, with Ruth hitting his last three home runs in one game in Pittsburgh to stick it to those who were jeering him. But Goodman is twice the size Ruth ever was. The Babe, as old photos show, was about 200 pounds when his career started and worked his way up to perhaps 250 pounds when he quit. Goodman must have been a minimum of 350 pounds when he filmed this movie and sent the wrong message: that you can be a blimp and still be the greatest player in the sport, an image that baseball people really resent.

While casting is not the only problem, it could have been improved and that might have helped. Physically, someone like Dick Foran or Wayne Morris would have been a better match for Gehrig than Cooper but they wouldn't have given as good a performance. Kurt Russell, (who played some minor league ball), or Jeff Bridges would have been a much better choice for "A Love Story", than Hermann. That other "Reilly", Jackie Gleason, would have been a much better choice than Bendix for "The Babe Ruth Story", (especially if he had eaten the script). Maybe the best time to do a Ruth movie and do it right would have been after Roger Maris broke his record. Either Claude Akins, (my favorite choice of all), or Simon Oakland would have made excellent Ruths. Ramon Bieri was a good Ruth in "A Love Story". I'm not sure who would play him these days.

Of course the best performance as Babe Ruth was by the guy who played him in "Pride of the Yankees".

As a boy, I was a fanatical Yankees fan and had read everything I could about the Babe. When "The Babe Ruth Story" appeared in the the TV listings, I couldn't wait to see it! I guess I was expecting another "Pride Of The Yankees". Imagine my disappointment as I sat in my living room, incredulous, as one ridiculous scene followed another. I was so bummed! I couldn't understand why the greatest baseball player was the subject of one of the worst movies I'd ever seen. Years later, I think I finally understand why this movie was so dreadful. It's the only possible explanation. It was made by Red Sox fans to revenge the trading of Babe Ruth to the Yankees.!! (I'm giving it one star because William Bendix, who was in his forties at the time, plays Babe Ruth as a teenager! That's the funniest casting ever!!)

Uggghh!! This is a horrid and almost completely unwatchable mess of a movie. Not only does William Bendix do a lousy job imitating Babe Ruth (complete with an enormous putty nose), but the script is just so saccharine and ridiculous that it's practically impossible to recognize that the film is supposed to be a biography of Babe Ruth. Although the names are the same, the film is all sentimentality and whitewash--ignoring all of Ruth's many deficiencies and creating "truth" out of press agent clippings! Now even if you are a huge fan of Babe Ruth, you'll no doubt hate this film because of its inaccuracies and lousy writing. In fact, because of the inaccuracies and schmaltziness of the film, I'd nominate this as one of the worst bio-pics ever made. Avoid it like the plague.

For a better view of Ruth, try watching one of the films starring the real Sultan of Swat--such as one of his shorts made in the 1920s or 30s or to see him in PRIDE OF THE YANKEES. I don't necessarily think you need to see one of the newer bios of Ruth (such as the John Goodman or Steven Lang). They are much more true to the real Ruth, but because of this they are also rather unpleasant films! As for me, both the unpleasant and saccharine portrayals are something I'd just as soon avoid.

The verdict--100% phony from start to finish and not worth your time unless you LIKE bad movies.

This is the worst baseball movie ever made. Maybe the worst biopic ever made. It's virtually ridiculous from start to finish. William Bendix, who plays Ruth, swings the bat left-handed as well as I can swing right-handed (I am a lefty). "The Babe" leaves the ballpark (in uniform!) and goes to the hospital with a kid because Babe's foul ball hits the kid's dog. What is a dog doing at a ballpark? I can only imagine how much Ruth would be fined by management if he pulled such a stunt. Kids also sing "Take Me Out to the Ballgame" as Babe is dying. How did the kids know he was dying at just that time? I understand many are of the opinion this film falls into the "so bad it's good" category, and can be (for anyone who knows something about Ruth – or doesn't know anything about Ruth) so inaccurate and absurd as to be hilarious. Fine. But IMO, Ruth was one of the icons of the 20th Century and one of the top five athletes of the century. This film is the equivalent of taking a pee on Ruth's grave.

I have seen this movie many times and, though it has its flaws, it captures the essence of the man AND the myth better than any other made about this American icon. Bendix, Claire Trevor, Charles Bickford, and William Frawley all give fine performances in this film which is part fact, part fiction, and part legend. Bendix, to his credit, did much better immortalizing Ruth than Goodman did in his lame attempt to humanize and make pitiable someone who, arguably, lived and performed at a level that was, for lack of words, superhuman. This movie was touching, funny, and, most of all, respectful to the memory and legend of Ruth. If you don't cry at the end of this movie, you just don't get it.

William Bendix physically resembles the first great home run slugger of baseball, Babe Ruth. This movie do doubt is very attractive to young boys of many generations. Keep in mind this is a candy coated version of the rowdy and ribald character's life. All the myths are here, and you see how The Babe earned his adoration. Also in the movie are Claire Trevor, Charles Bickford and William Frawley.