Spoonatects
Am i the only one who thinks........Average?
Verity Robins
Great movie. Not sure what people expected but I found it highly entertaining.
Jerrie
It's a good bad... and worth a popcorn matinée. While it's easy to lament what could have been...
classicsoncall
I gave up long ago looking for accuracy in sports biopics (or any biopics for that matter), so I approached this film with the same expectation. John Goodman was a good choice to play the legendary Ruth in both mannerism and appearance, but as many reviewers have noted, he was obviously a lot heavier and decidedly unathletic in any scene that takes place on a ball field. I certainly wouldn't go to the bank on many of his off field exploits as depicted here either. For me, the repeated instances of flatulence that the film makers thought was a good idea simply appeal to the lowest common denominator factor they mistakenly think they have to cater to. As expected, the fabled Ruth exploits of hitting two home runs for the sick boy in the hospital and the 1932 'called shot' against the Chicago Cubs are depicted, but even those events that have become part of baseball legend are somewhat inconclusive in history. If you're a baseball fan, believe what you will. For a better straightforward accounting of the Sultan of Swat, I would direct you to the 1998 HBO documentary simply titled "Babe Ruth". Though it's much too short at one hour to encompass all aspects of Ruth's storied life, it does manage to adequately address the highlights of a career that would have to be invented if most of it wasn't actually true. As far as "The Babe" goes, it's entertaining in it's own way, but for the most part, it's banana oil.
ryan mcdaniel
This might not be the biggest flop in baseball movie history, but it was definitely the biggest baseball "blockbuster" flop of all time. There was a lot of hype for this movie when it came out so a lot of people went to see it, me included. I couldn't have been more disappointed. It was just so cheesy! Almost to the point that I was embarrassed to be in the theater! That scene where Ruth hits a pop fly in the infield where no one can find it while he rounds all 4 bases was so over the top I had to excuse myself to go get some popcorn. I understand that directors tend to change the story of historical figures a bit to make the story more interesting, but most of what was shown in the movie wasn't even remotely historically accurate! John Goodman did an OK job as Babe Ruth the man, but his baseball play was just painful to watch. The next time a Hollywood director wants to make a sports movie they need to at least know a little about the sport they are making the movie about. Don't even bother watching this movie, its a waste of time and an insult to the great Babe Ruth.
dwpollar
1st watched 5/15/2007 - 7 out of 10(Dir-Arthur Hiller): Well done depiction of baseball hero Babe Ruth with perfectly cast John Goodman in the title role who plays him with just the right amount of jollyness with the unexpected shows of vulnerability that seems to make sense for a man who lived like he did. He was abandoned as a young child by his parents supposedly because he was "bad" and grew up in a Catholic boys school with no real mother or father. He gained a skill while in the school and became an excellent baseball player. So much so, that a major league baseball team adopted him when he became a young adult. He was then traded promptly to the Boston Red Sox and his excellent baseball history began and then continued with the New York Yankees, where he was nicknamed the Bronx bomber or the Bambino and the stadium was then called "The House that Ruth Built." Between all of this, he married, divorced, re-married, caroused the bars, treated the kids who came to the games with love and did everything BIG. Kelly McGillis is excellent as the Babe's 2nd love interest and the one who really accepted him for who he was(as bizarre as some of his antics were). His famed visit to the children's hospital promising the sick child two home runs and coming thru with it and his heralded calling out of the home run to center field in the World Series is also depicted as expected. The movie also included little things like him not getting any money from the Baby Ruth candy bar company when they obviously named it after him. All of these things combine into a very entertaining and well put together movie by director Arthur Hiller. Sure, it's not as hard-nosed as it could have been but I think this was the kind of movie that should have been made about this larger-than-life baseball legend, especially with the lighter John Goodman in the lead role.
djbell1
My wife watched this film with me for the first time after I had seen it a couple of times. She had some good questions, including what the Babe did after his retirement from Baseball in 1935 up to his death in 1948. The end credits mention he never managed in Baseball. I really find it hard to believe that someone in Major League Baseball, if not the Yankees, would not have hired the Babe to manage. The film seemed to display an overall sentiment that Baseball was not very kind to Ruth. The attitude of the owner of the club in their meeting toward the end of the movie is unbelievable. How could he have turned against someone who probably helped make him wealthy? You would think he would have offered him something in the organization if he truly did not believe he was management material.Anyway, I thought the film was adequate and probably captured the spirit of the man he was on and off the field. John Goodman did a good job in his leading role. Although he did seem overweight, in some of the scenes he bore a striking resemblance to the Babe in the photos and film I have seen.
