First off, I am a Jackie Gleason expert. I'm am not a Gleason biographer, but I know more about this man than the average fan.
This movie is not the story of Jackie Gleason. If you go into it, thinking that you will have any insight whatsoever into the life of the real "great one" you will not only be disappointed, but rather upset.
Brad Garret, a talented actor in his own right- I'll give him that, didn't show you Jackie Gleason, but rather he showed you Brad Garret acting like Jackie. He had some of Jackie's mannerisms down, and was close with the voice; but it was only half way. The real Jackie Gleason was big, and powerful, and smooth, as Garret rightly portrayed. But Jackie was also vulnerable, tender, sweet, loving, and bashful- especially on stage when he would often exaggerate the many sides of Ralph. NONE of that side was portrayed on or off stage. Watch the movie. See for yourself. It's just a disgrace to the legacy of Jackie Gleason. I know it was Brad Garett's dream to portray Jackie Gleason, and I'm glad he got to live his dream. But seriously Brad... you half donkey'd it.
The dialogue was sinful, and the directing was that of a 6 year old. At no point, did any emotion come through, or anything remotely inspiring happen. This made for TV movie makes Jackie Gleason out to be a jerk- a womanizing, ego-maniacle alcoholic control freak, who was always stressed out, upset and who could care less about his family.
We know nothing of how Jackie Gleason really became a star, the effect he had on people, or the real class act he was. We see nothing of Jackie in New York City, or Los Angeles, (I don't think there was one exterior shot in the entire film except for a few car scenes). They spent way too much time in Miami, and his manager might as well have been a co-star, because there's about 45-50 minutes of dialogue between him and Jackie.
Art Carney has about 3 minutes of screen time. The focus was entirely on Jackie, Jackie's manager, and Jackie's poor neglected wife. EVERYTHING else was marginalized. Even the Audrey Meadows character was over-acted, and marginalized with the rest.
It just seems like the filmmakers didn't care to learn about the real Jackie Gleason, his motivation, and his extraordinarily rare talent. Or if they did learn, they didn't get it. They got the misery part down. This is a very negative film. In fact, if you knew nothing of Gleason before watching this, you would probably hate the guy. This film was focused on Jackie getting deals, and smoking cigarettes, and drinking, and arguing with his wife, and talking to his manager, and working random clubs, and just being a real d bag; which is the polar opposite of the real Gleason.
They tried to bookend the movie with the subplot of Jackie's childhood and his long lost father- which just fell apart in the filmmakers hands from the get go. They also decided to just end the film re-enacting(poorly and inaccurately) classic scenes from the Honeymooners. Why?
The two things that they got right were the art direction and costume design, and the actor who played Art Carney was about 75% right on. And that is literally all the good I can say.
The name of the movie is called Gleason. It should be called Train Wreck. Rest in peace Jackie. Let's hope you never had to watch any part of this wherever you are, because how could they make a movie about you with zero integrity, and above all that wasn't funny?
This movie is not the story of Jackie Gleason. If you go into it, thinking that you will have any insight whatsoever into the life of the real "great one" you will not only be disappointed, but rather upset.
Brad Garret, a talented actor in his own right- I'll give him that, didn't show you Jackie Gleason, but rather he showed you Brad Garret acting like Jackie. He had some of Jackie's mannerisms down, and was close with the voice; but it was only half way. The real Jackie Gleason was big, and powerful, and smooth, as Garret rightly portrayed. But Jackie was also vulnerable, tender, sweet, loving, and bashful- especially on stage when he would often exaggerate the many sides of Ralph. NONE of that side was portrayed on or off stage. Watch the movie. See for yourself. It's just a disgrace to the legacy of Jackie Gleason. I know it was Brad Garett's dream to portray Jackie Gleason, and I'm glad he got to live his dream. But seriously Brad... you half donkey'd it.
The dialogue was sinful, and the directing was that of a 6 year old. At no point, did any emotion come through, or anything remotely inspiring happen. This made for TV movie makes Jackie Gleason out to be a jerk- a womanizing, ego-maniacle alcoholic control freak, who was always stressed out, upset and who could care less about his family.
We know nothing of how Jackie Gleason really became a star, the effect he had on people, or the real class act he was. We see nothing of Jackie in New York City, or Los Angeles, (I don't think there was one exterior shot in the entire film except for a few car scenes). They spent way too much time in Miami, and his manager might as well have been a co-star, because there's about 45-50 minutes of dialogue between him and Jackie.
Art Carney has about 3 minutes of screen time. The focus was entirely on Jackie, Jackie's manager, and Jackie's poor neglected wife. EVERYTHING else was marginalized. Even the Audrey Meadows character was over-acted, and marginalized with the rest.
It just seems like the filmmakers didn't care to learn about the real Jackie Gleason, his motivation, and his extraordinarily rare talent. Or if they did learn, they didn't get it. They got the misery part down. This is a very negative film. In fact, if you knew nothing of Gleason before watching this, you would probably hate the guy. This film was focused on Jackie getting deals, and smoking cigarettes, and drinking, and arguing with his wife, and talking to his manager, and working random clubs, and just being a real d bag; which is the polar opposite of the real Gleason.
They tried to bookend the movie with the subplot of Jackie's childhood and his long lost father- which just fell apart in the filmmakers hands from the get go. They also decided to just end the film re-enacting(poorly and inaccurately) classic scenes from the Honeymooners. Why?
The two things that they got right were the art direction and costume design, and the actor who played Art Carney was about 75% right on. And that is literally all the good I can say.
The name of the movie is called Gleason. It should be called Train Wreck. Rest in peace Jackie. Let's hope you never had to watch any part of this wherever you are, because how could they make a movie about you with zero integrity, and above all that wasn't funny?