Tss5078 As a life long Yankees fan, I have read a lot about, and admired Babe Ruth, since I was very young, but I never saw the film based on his life. I heard nothing but bad things about it, and as it turns out, my fellow critics were correct. The Babe is supposed to be a bio-pic from the birth of Babe Ruth, until his untimely death, however the focus of the film is a problem. Film makers portrayed Ruth as an ignorant man-child, a drunk, and an emotionally abuse husband and father. At times, he may have been all of those things, but they were merely a small part of his overall story. Little, if anything is mentioned about Ruth's infections personality, his generosity, or his activities off the field, besides his drinking. Ruth is portrayed as a man who gained fame, simply because of his ability to hit home runs, in a way that insinuates, he was lucky and didn't deserve all the fame and attention he received. The portrayal of the Babe isn't the only problem with this film, as the timeline and historic accuracy aren't even close to the truth. They show Ruth more with the Red Sox than the Yankees, insist that the majority of his fame came in Boston, and finally, they show his big seasons much later than they actually occurred, and even go as far as to insulate, that they were in response to the media saying he was done. John Goodman stars as the Babe and he does a spot on portrayal, from the voice to the mannerisms, he was very very good, but it's overlooked by a film that stretched the truth to the point of being insulting to Ruth fans. The only thing I really enjoyed about this film, besides Goodman's performance, was a series of short films Ruth did with some orphans in the 1920's, that were included on the DVD. These shorts were much better and painted a much more accurate picture of the man, than this film ever did. The Babe is worth seeing for the performance of John Goodman, but be warned, it's a bio-pic that is more fiction than truth.

maddogrick As a work of fiction, I suppose this picture could have some entertainment value. As a biopic, it should have some historical validity vis a vis the facts as they are known. There were so many (countless actually) errors in dealing with the onset of Babe Ruth's baseball career that the whole exercise must be challenged. If the screenwriter is loose and fast with basic information about the athlete's career on the field, why should the viewer accept any elements of the story regarding his life off it? The whole story lost credibility in my eyes from the start and it wasn't long before I lost interest in the movie entirely.This is a waste of celluloid.

ccthemovieman-1 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.

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.