The Babe - La leggenda

The 2 biggest complaints I had were the sequence of events in the movie and the character that Mr. Goodman portrayed.

It seemed that the movie attempted to show all events which dealt with Babe Ruth's life. Most actually seemed accurate, but the positioning of each event was off. For example, if Babe was so much against divorcing his first wife, why did he go ahead and marry Claire while still being married? The fact is, that he did not marry Claire until his first wife tragically died. This is not portrayed this way in the movie. Also, the movie suggested that Babe met claire as a rookie in Boston. He met Claire in New York in 1923. Does anyone actually think that Babe Ruth would have continued playing for the Yankees if he dangled his manager (his boss) off a moving train???

As for the acting. Babe Ruth NEVER approached the weight displayed by Mr. Goodman. Babe hovered around 200-210 for the most part of his career although his weight did fluctuate. It was a truly sick thing trying to watch Mr. Goodman swing or run around the bases. The guy could barely fit into a uniform. I did think that Mr. Goodman really did well in his facial expressions, speech and overall demeanor of the Babe. It was the physical acting that was left to be desired.

I would have liked the movie to concentrate more on Babe's lifestyle off the field. His womanizing (not enough in this movie), his appetite (not enough in this movie), and the fact he just was a social boob (i.e. couldn't remember names, had no manners). His on the field statistics speak for themselves.

There are really only two ways John Goodman could ever fit into a sports movie: a) he's not the lead or b) it's about fishing. I'm nowhere near an authority on the real Babe Ruth, but I reckon a baseball legend could probably run five yards without being completely out of breath. Don't get me wrong, Goodman is excellent in the non-baseball scenes, but whenever he gets on that plate it's really embarrassing and highly unconvincing. Was this movie made on a dare? Did the studio just think John Goodman needed some exercise? It's pretty painful to watch all in all, but you can't look away. And yet...in a way it's also indescribably entertaining, even though that's probably just my dark side enjoying the "run fatty run"-aspect of this film. It also helps a lot that, as I already implied, the parts about Ruth's personal life are well-acted and in fact much more interesting than the repetitive homerun-homerun-homerun-homerun-homerun-homerun-homerun scenes. "The Babe" is a decent biopic, but you never really believe you're watching Babe Ruth. Oh well, at least it's easy to sit through.

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.

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.

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.