Jacqueline Susann's Valley of the Dolls

This dull TV version is even worse than the theatrically released movie starring Patty Duke . . . at least that earlier version had camp appeal!

I positively adore Jackie Susann's novel, and the 1967 version was a lot of fun (though it hardly did the book justice). However, why they had to make this ultra-bland piece of garbage is beyond me. It bears almost no relationship to the book--the storyline takes completely different directions, the material is diluted so much that it's rendered pointless, and the elements of the characters are entirely changed. Ted is no longer Neely's long-suffering bisexual husband, but her womanizing, domineering manager. Neely herself goes from hell-on-heels to poor put-upon li'l sugarpie with eyes full of tears and a box full of "rainbows"--the term "dolls" is never used. The only shock is seeing David (Last House on the Left) Hess as a Frenchman named Robaire!

And the acting! Veronica Hamel is a terrible actress and has none of the delicate poignancy that Sharon Tate possessed. Note the way she smokes her cigarettes--she's trying so hard to appear stylish and feminine that she looks like a drag queen. When Hamel's brittle, unappealing Jennifer committed suicide, I was glad I didn't have to put up with her any longer! Bert Convy is gratingly awful as Tony, Catherine Hicks is dishwater-dull as Anne, and Lisa Hartman is hopelessly miscast as the toned-down Neely. Jean Simmons's Helen Lawson is sickeningly un-evil.

What else? Well, the songs are godawful (despite Dionne Warwick's performance of the theme, "What Becomes of Love"), the atmosphere is nonexistent, and worst of all, IT'S NOT EVEN GOOD FOR LAUGHS! Four hours of unadulterated boredom. If Jacqueline Susann hadn't died in 1974, this monstrosity would've killed her.

Having recently reread the book, I saw the second half of the movie a few nights ago on Women's Entertainment. I now would like to see the first part. Anything's better than the original movie. Veronica Hamel is a gorgeous Jennifer North and gives the character depth that Sharon Tate couldn't, or didn't, in the movie. She actually develops the character better than did Jacqueline Susann, who depicted her as a sexpot with nothing to offer except a pretty face and large breasts. Hamel's scenes with Gary Collins (who will never be confused with Gary Cooper, who has the same initials) were especially touching. Jennifer's female relationship was tastefully played and her fadeout scene was as good as one could expect from schlock such as this.

Lisa Hartman as Neely ("Neeley" in a movie billboard) O'Hara didn't work for me, but she was an improvement upon Patty Duke in the original. Susann depicted Neely brilliantly as a Judy Garland-type diva who was devious enough to have played Eve Harrington in "All About Eve." I would like to see how Hartman plays Neely in the first part of the movie. But Neely as a rock singer? Forget about it.

Catherine Hicks as Anne Welles held my attention throughout the two hours. She captured the spirit of Susann's character much better than Barbara Parkins and was much sexier, I thought, playing a professional woman than Lyon Burke's love interest. Her romantic stuff with James Coburn was handled poorly (I could picture Henry Bellamy bedding with Helen Lawson but not with Anne) and, although sympathizing a little with Lyon, I didn't care whether the two stayed together or not. As for Lyon and Neely together, it worked much better in the book than in the movie remake.

Having Anne and Neely remain friends through it all stretched the boundaries of common sense, but anyone who sits through two hours of this cinematic common candy wasn't channel-surfing for "Hamlet" in the first place.

The complexity of Jacqueline Susann's characters and subtlety of their relationships are completely lost in this syrupy TV movie, which also suffers from too many miscast parts--from a very average-looking Ann to a flat-chested Jennifer and an overly cheery Nelly.

The reasons for putting together such a project are rather mysterious, and to say it didn't age well would be finding excuses for this universally shabby and lazy movie, which can't be saved by several fine performances.

All we're left with is a cheap mini-soap brightened by a couple of good songs by lovely Lisa Hartman. Good enough if you can't fall asleep at 3 in the morning--this should do the trick. Otherwise, do yourself a favor and buy the book!

I have seen the movie as well as read the book and the movie does not do the book justice. There are a dozen parts taken out (the movie was for ever long) and it jump to a subject without giving a lead up to. I did enjoy the movie don't get me wrong but I wish it had done some justice.