"JUDY" REVIEW: Variety raves about Zellweger, loves the film

The Wrap: "The Best Performance of Zellweger's Career"

Hollywood Reporter: Fourth Nomination for Zellweger is a shoo-in

Hey, Renee's PR: I'm not sure all these reviews are "rave" though.

[quote]Judy is an example of a passable film elevated enormously by one remarkable performance.

[quote]it’s a very different feat from the eerie, brilliant channeling that Judy Davis achieved to Emmy-winning effect in the 2003 miniseries “Life With Judy Garland: Me and My Shadows.”

Like the twisted troll that she is, R3 pulled a line from the review out of context. Here is more of the quote to provide the context:

"With the help of some expert makeup, hairstyling and costuming, [Renee's] inhabitation of Garland is persuasive without being exhaustive; it’s a very different feat from the eerie, brilliant channeling that Judy Davis achieved to Emmy-winning effect in the 2003 miniseries “Life With Judy Garland: Me and My Shadows.”"

I have to say that I damn proud of Renee. I had a feeling that her performance might be the unexpected one of the year. I figured the film would be straight to video garbage.

However, it sounds like the film is solid.

I always liked her very much. And I truly love a comeback for someone who seems like a cool chick.

Nice job!

[quote] it’s a very different feat from the eerie, brilliant channeling that Judy Davis achieved to Emmy-winning effect in the 2003 miniseries “Life With Judy Garland: Me and My Shadows.

Oh yes, it sure was eerie watching a 45-year old hag trying to pass for a 21-year old in the Meet Me in St. Louis sequence.

You bitches thought I was done!

R7, dear, you’re not ready for one initial.

Oscar buzz for Judy Garland biopic sends nation’s eldergays into Category 4 tizzy

I'll reserve judgment until I hear from DL's most trusted reviewers: Lynn Stairmaster and Walter Monheit.

I really don't care all that much about Judy Garland, but I've been following this movie because I knew it was going to be controversial here on DL. When I saw those reviews last night, I was counting down the moments until this thread. Thanks OP for starting it.

I love you R9!

I barely remember Lynn Stairmaster. Does it even post anymore? And I’ve never heard of Walter Monheit.

Who was the person who went to an early screening of - was it Les Mis? And predicted Oscars for everyone?

[quote] I barely remember Lynn Stairmaster. Does it even post anymore? And I’ve never heard of Walter Monheit.

Then they must never have existed.

Renee Zellweger's name is thanked at the end of Kathy Griffin's Hell of a Story. Renee's is the final name — alphabetically.

I would like that story better if it ended with Renee pulling out a handgun and shooting Kathy.

Zellweger looks and sounds absolutely NOTHING like Judy in the clip. Zero. She looks like Renee Zellweger in a bad wig and ridiculous makeup and she sounds like Renee Zellweger. She doesn't pull it off at all. If she gets an Oscar nod, much less win, it'll be as unmerited as Rami Malek's ludicrous nod/win for Bohemian Rhapsody.

Can someone make a giant doody bubble in R 16's MOUTH???

Honey, she's not doing a Rich Little impersonation.

[quote]She doesn't pull it off at all

How idiotic of you to make a definitive statement like that, when you haven't actually seen the movie at all. Her personal reviews - from critics who HAVE ACTUALLY SEEN THE MOVIE - are all excellent. Guess they know something you don't.

I think she is probably well liked and the industry types at Telluride don’t really know much about Judy Garland - the same way they actually forgot who Freddie Mercury was last year - so she’s getting some respectable reviews because, frankly, what else can you say about Oscar bait such as this?

But for those in the know, this will never do. I agree with R16 and would go even further to say I’m not really interested in one actress trying to relaunch her career off the back of another’s demise, no matter how legendary. Nobody asked for this movie.

Quote from The Wrap regarding Judy Garland: "a star who once shined very brightly but whose light was never built to last."

They stole this quote, right?

"Nobody asked for this movie."

Oh? You know everybody?

I think we are going to get a lot of complaints from our "more seasoned" gay men about this film. The same thing happened with "Feud" because they didn't like that Jessica Lange wasn't playing an over the top "Mommie Dearest" version of Joan Crawford.

It's an Oscar bait film about Hollywood itself.

Of course it will win rave reviews and awards.

I think it looks great. I’m not slavish to some idea of what I think Judy Garland was, however. Queens like that are so tiresome, and ALWAYS make proclamations, believing they speak for everyone.

Just give her the Oscar now.

Eldergay tizzy upgraded to Category 5

“Princess Diana Dead Scream” emergency alarm system activated in five counties

[quote] ‘Judy’ Standing Ovation at TIFF Leaves Renee Zellweger in Tears and Oscar Buzz Soaring

Walter Monheit was a fictional movie critic famous for his “blurb-O-mat” that offered a guaranteed race to any Hollywood movie.

R20, thanks for the laughs. Your entire post is ridiculous.

Saw the full trailer this weekend on the big screen- first time watching it. I didn't see Judy at all in Renee's performance. I saw Renee. She may give a good performance, but she's not Judy, so these raves again all seem really suspicious. And I say this as someone who could take or leave Garland.

I think acting-wise, she definitely captures Judy. And I appreciate that it’s not a studied impersonation like Judy Davis did. (Tammy Blanchard was much better than Davis).

I think she captures Judy’s humor much more than any other “Judy” has.

After the Variety review, I think I'll see it. I'll just have to brace myself for the singing. A true Judy biopic would have found the best actress possible for the part and used Garland's real voice. Then we would have understood why she is so revered, even now.

[quote] and used Garland's real voice. Then we would have understood why she is so revered, even now.

Even Judy didn't sound like Judy the last few years. So, going that route we would have NOT understood why she is so revered.

They'll stand for anything at TIFF. They're Canadian.

I just watched it and Renee was very good. Better than I expected.

Where, R36?

R16, take a pill and relax. It's a fucking movie. "But people will see it and believe Judy was really like this!" Be happy that the film doesn't go into her more evil exploits, such as throwing a butcher knife at one of her "beloved" children and leaving one out at night in the snow in his pajamas... I could go on twenty more minutes.

The magic of the interwebs r37.

[quote] Zellweger looks and sounds absolutely NOTHING like Judy in the clip. Zero. She looks like Renee Zellweger in a bad wig and ridiculous makeup and she sounds like Renee Zellweger.

Yes, that was my impression from the promos as well, R16.

Renee was charming on Colbert the other night and they were both sufficiently reverential about Garland. They tried to place Judy's fame and talent in context, knowing that many wouldn't know much about her. The clip they showed was one I hadn't seen and Zelwegger was indeed riveting, - fragile and bewildered, but tough.

I'm a big fan of Zellweger and it would be a kick to see her win a best actress Oscar after all she's been through and with no "help" from Harvey.

r37 Cam version is out. I watched it earlier today as well and cried my heart out.

I perked up at Royce Pierreson who plays the pianist because he's so gorgeous, but he's straight so... as you were.

NYT was rather reserved with its praise.

r43 Yeah, the movie is a run of the mill biopic, but I responded to her performance.

Went to a screening Monday in NY. She took on an iconic character and made Judy her own. Renee was brilliant and couldn't have been nicer at the small party after. Bernadette Peters was their as well and looked terrific and has the most amazing skin. Finn Wittrock was there being a smarmy douche Frat Bro with a Frankenstein head. Michael Urie was also there and is much better looking in person. Harry Connick hosted and looked like the distorted character in Men in Black who is made up of bugs.

Was that studio exec really that awful in real life? 😕

[quote]Finn Wittrock was there being a smarmy douche Frat Bro with a Frankenstein head.

Of course. Eurgh, I hate him.

[quote]Zellweger looks and sounds absolutely NOTHING like Judy in the clip

Too bad you're making a judgment based solely on a clip. Of course, you're a hysterical queen, too, so that doesn't help your case.

Zellweger is brilliant in the part. We don't need another studied impersonation, we got that with Judy Davis.

I just watched it and am beyond words. At times I forgot I was watching Renee. She inhabits the character far better than any one I've seen recently, certainly much more than Malek and Egerton (who don't bear any resemblance to their famous counterparts). She was brilliant at acting, and just as good singing. In fact, I would definitely download an entire album of Renee doing Judy. At the moment I can't think of anyone better who could revitalize some of those older recordings.

But it's not just that she completely inhabits Garland, she delivers an emotional tour de force as well, and also has a natural comedic timing. She even captured the awkwardness as well as the extravagance in Garland's stage performances. I'm now a fan for life.

It's so eerie how much Renee resembles Judy at certain angles considering the fact that she never reminded me of her in anything prior to now.

Zellweger can now probably only be cast to play broken, slightly scary-looking people with caked-on theatrical Geisha-style makeup (like Garland was at the end of her career).

Because she overdid it with surgery and now looks unnatural. Even her mouth now looks unnatural and over-stretched, like the Joker. I can't see how she can play a normal leading film character role ever again.

The LA Times raves about Renee, basically saying one must see the movie for her performance, even if the rest of the film is "standard-issue."

R51, you picked a perfect picture to support your thesis. But it's just one picture, and that doesn't make your thesis the truth.

I picked a picture, too. Here she looks like what she is, a 50 year old woman who still strongly resembles the way she looked in her youth.

Sorry to hear that Finn Wittrock is a douche.

I never thought that Renee Zellweger could ever sound anything like Judy, but she did. She was magnificent.

[quote] I picked a picture, too. Here she looks like what she is, a 50 year old woman who still strongly resembles the way she looked in her youth.

Watch videos of her, R53 - a video says more than a thousands photos. She’s UNNATURAL. Her whole face was surgically tightened behind her ears to such an extreme that she looks ODD, even by California standards. She’s 50 and her surgeon tightened her skin too much. Sometimes she’s even struggling to move her lips in a normal way, because you can see the surgery is getting in the way.

She doesn’t look 50 - good for Zellweger. But the downside is she now often looks like a bizarre surgically-modified waxwork full of face-fillers, with an over-stretched face.

[quote] Too bad you're making a judgment based solely on a clip.

That's what [italic]promotional[/italic] trailers are designed for, R48 - to help potential customers make a preliminary judgment on whether the acting job or film is convincing or interesting enough to warrant paying for it.

Oh shut up and just watch the fucking movie r57. You'll probably like it.

^ LOL. Good one.

Oh, why don't you "shut up" yourself, R58, and go buy a VIP cinema ticket to the new "Charlie's Angels". Who knows, maybe the 3 female leads there will give Oscar-worthy performances too, even better than Zellweger. Sure doesn't look like it, judging by the trailer - but apparently we can't judge anything by trailers. So go give Kristin Stewart's potentially Oscar-worthy thespian attempts a chance then.

It's s bit late to be this hysterical, R60. You're embarrassing yourself.

I love how you create some silly "time" rules in your head and then project them on others, R61. Calm down with your own fingurling hysterics.

Bump for original thread so people don’t start new threads about this topic

I saw the damn movie and Renee was sensational. Or as Liza would say "shenshashional!"

[quote] It's so eerie how much Renee resembles Judy at certain angles

Not that it matters, but at what "angles" does Zellweger resemble Garland, R50? Garland was tiny, almost elf-like and pixy-esque at 4'11. Zellweger is much more normal-built, average taller height and generally seems to resemble more herself - Zellweger.

It's called sanity. Work toward it, why don't you? You have a nice life. Blocked.

[quote]It's so eerie how much Renee resembles Judy at certain angles

I totally agree with this. Judy died before I was born, but from the photos and video that I've seen, Renee does eerily look like her in certain shots. This movie gave me a brand new respect for RZ. What a brilliant performance.

R66 is one of those self-important posters who feels the need to grandiosely declare to the whole world who he "blocks". Like Fez below :). The truth is no one gives a heck who he blocks.

I love Fez. Great ASS. Love Renee as JUDY too!

[quote] from the photos and video that I've seen, Renee does eerily look like her in certain shots

Which shots? This one? Lol.

The funny thing is, even in an Oscar-contender film, Zellweger just can't stop pursing her lips (a trademark telltale, giveaway Zellweger quirk in every single one of her films), even in a biopic of Garland - who never had that weird "lip-pursing" quirk.

^Wow^ Separated at birth?

I don't know why Zellweger purses her lips so much. Maybe it's a genetic quirk.

R70 She looked like more of an idealized version of Garland. They would have had to cast a woman in her 60s if they were going for an exact replica but people would rather remember Judy the way she looked in the movies and on stage.

But, this discussion is not even that important considering who they picked to play Freddie Mercury or Elton John. You can't honestly say that they were more convincing.

Because she can't ever get the taste of Harvey out of her mouth R72.

Judy, Judy, Judy..........

How did Judy lose all of her money? Bad financial planning? Lost it through her multiple divorces? The movie made it clear that she had a reputation for not showing up and was uninsurable, but she didn't have anything in the bank at all? She didn't even have a house.

The biggest surprise was when I found out Finn Wittrock is straight and married to a woman!!!!!!!!! How is this possible???????

Anyway, if Jennifer Lopez can be considered for an Oscar for that drivel or a movie with Cardi B, Renee certainly has a shot at it.

[quote]Renee certainly has a shot at it.

More than a shot. A nomination is all but certain. And I will blow every Datalounger on this thread if she doesn't win.

Whilst it isn't an 'uncanny' resemblance, I do think Renee does transmit a 'sadness' in the eyes. When you think of Judy, you do think of those sad eyes.

Zellweger needs to sue her former surgeon. It seems the last one had to correct what the previous one did.

[quote] She looked like more of an idealized version of Garland. They would have had to cast a woman in her 60s if they were going for an exact replica but people would rather remember Judy the way she looked in the movies and on stage.

R73, Garland died aged 47 (she looked a bit older, but not "in her 60s", come on). Zellweger is 50. So she's in the right age bracket for the role.

Ironically, if Zellweger left her face alone and let it age naturally - she might have actually looked a bit more organically like Garland (who wasn't botoxed to within an inch of her life like Zellweger).

What in the hell do you guys want? She has a nice resemblance to Garland without it being some kind of freaky doppelganger thing. She embodied the role.

[quote]Zellweger needs to sue her former surgeon.

Renée needs to get an Oscar for this movie, is what she should fucking do.

Oh, this is how they get, R81. March anywhere near one of the sacred eldergaycons and the Miss Langes and the how dare yous start flying. It's irrational and cliched, but it is a chance for them to dust off meaning in their lives, no matter how pathetic. Some Ryan Murphy mess will come along soon enough to simmer them down. Meantime, the rest of us can enjoy the whole movie, not just the clips.

[quote] She embodied the role.

So Zellweger "embodied" the role so much that she couldn't even stop coyly pursing her lips and sucking in her cheeks, like she always does when she's just herself (Renée Zellweger) or like a 21st C Instagrammer, instead of playing "Judy Garland" and her unique quirks instead.

Things like that are annoying and distracting in what's supposed to be an Oscar-winning biopic performance of an artist in the 1960s. I can see Zellweger and her Insta ducky lips & sucked in cheeks in these promos - I can't see Garland.

R83, projecting his strange fantasies that everyone from any generation (Gen X, Gen Y) who knows about Garland and who "dares" to disagree with his veneration of this film must be an "eldergay". The fact that you are so over-the-top emotional about this film as to call people who simply disagree with you "pathetic" - says more about you, than about others. Calm down.

Has anyone listened to the soundtrack album? It contains songs not in the movie. Having just seen the film, I absolutely recommend the soundtrack.

The movie is almost completely made up of fabricated material. It is based on a show that flopped and they simply transformed that show into Judy Garland. Renee looks nothing like Judy, sings nothing like her, and moves nothing like her. There are some bizarre facial grimaces, as well.

I haven't seen the movie yet, but I remember the first time I realized Renee was an amazing actor. I was watching Nurse Betty and it was the scene in which Betty, Renee's character, witnesses something disturbing and slips into a fantasy world. Betty says nothing, but you can see in her eyes and her facial expression that she's slowly losing her grip on reality. It was a mesmerizing scene and I was really impressed by how Renee pulled it off. That was nearly twenty years ago and I've been an admirer of her work ever since.

To all of you who keep talking about Renee's hideous plastic surgery: Renee looks gorgeous in person and has the face and body of a 40 year old. I sat next to her at the after party of her screening this past Monday and later shared a table with her and had several drinks together we have a close mutual friend. She was bright, funny, charming and lovely. Any surgery she had was done by the best surgeon money can buy. For years she was the highest paid actress in the world and made nearly a Hundred Million dollars from the Bridget Jones series of films. She looks much better than most 50 year old rich New York and LA women that I know and there is nothing distorted about her face. If you photograph anyone while they are speaking, you are going to catch some bad angles. Also there was Bernadette Peters who also looks great and had some amazing natural work. But she was not as friendly as Renee and kept to herself. Finn Wittrock has these Frankentein bulges above his eyebrows which emphasize his douche bagness. Was a fan until I met him.

Annette Bening passed on the role, so Zellweger just decided to play Annette Bening playing Judy.

If Malik can win for the pedestrian Bohemian Rhapsody, don't see any reason Zellweger can't win for a run of the mill bio pic.

Judy Garland’s Final Years: Inside the Sad True Story Renée Zellweger’s New Movie Tells

I am the earlier poster who commented twice on Finn Wittrock's doucheyness. To be fair, I was a bit of a jerk to him when I said his name sounds like the name of a movie star who would appear in a Flintstones cartoon. But what I didn't say was that he looked like a Flintstones character. I was two drinks away from asking him if Hanna Barbera were his cosmetic surgeons.

R93 He's your type. Your not his. We get it.

Pictures of the Judy party our DL poster went to....

Renee nails it, but doesn't have much of a script to work with. Still, if you're a Judy fan, you'll get your money's worth.

There's a poignant scene where a gay couple takes her home for a meal. But an unfortunate gaff a few scenes later when she says she took some cold medicine on top of her usual drugs and "saw fairies" (I guess meaning she was super high). Odd.

she seems like a nice person so yay she has a hit

but she still looks like she's just sucked on a lemon and the way she scrunches her face up is passive aggressive tho I'm finding everything to be that these days

Renee's facial mannerisms and odd quirks always seemed to be manifestations of her nerves and anxiety. She never struck me as someone who enjoys the flash of a hundred cameras or the red-hot scrutiny of fame and I think that's why she has such quirky body language and expressions. Not everybody is comfortable with celebrity and she seems like one of them.

R98 bullshit

You’ve made your point over and over and over again. You think Zellweger had bad work done and purses her lips and that annoys you. She’s not a carbon copy of Garland and that annoys you, too.

The thing is, you won’t change the opinions of those who are loving her performance. Not gonna happen. You can bellyache all you want, but ultimately it’s like masturbation. You’re just doing it to get yourself off. You lose credibility with every post because you’re coming off as obsessed and just a bit cuckoo, which weakens you.

Why keep posting on this thread? Pretty soon we all will have blocked you, which will leave you mostly just talking to yourself (which is practically what you’re doing now). Of course, it means you’ll also be talking to yourself on all the other threads, where you don’t necessarily exhibit such “eccentric” behavior.

R100 When you block me (you won't) you'll realize you're not talking to one person but several, Greta. This whole "anyone who doesn't share my opinion/obsession must be one singular troll" thing is commonplace on DL.

Renee had a lot of issues. Coke, bulimia, lots more coke. Anorexia. Coke. The main change in her face was that for years she had the bloated face of an active bulimic. She actually looks more like she did in her Jerry Maguire days and One True thing NOW. Pretty with more facial definition. Her lips have always been full and puffy. She's v e r y tiny, like a gymnast. Her discomfort in her attempts to be glamorous and fit in at the peak of her fame was obvious. She's very awkward on red carpets and always wore the most punishing gowns. She's not one to tell the truth to the press, but she has alluded to it. Even Kathy Griffin had it right. Renee was a sweaty puffy coke whore for awhile. And she was one of Harvey's girls. She denies it, but she did and saw things that were very much against her nature for a time.

She's fantastically talented, she inhabits her characters, it's internal. Great comic and dramatic actress, unique. Has some musical pizazz too. She looks great in period work like Cinderella Man or the one where she played George Hamilton's real life mother? She quietly outshone Tom Cruise and Meryl Streep in the films she did with them. Her voice and looks bother some, she's specific. But she greatly admired as an actress. See Nurse Betty, Cinderella Man, One True Thing, Chicago, Bridget Jones, Cold Mountain, My One and Only, White Oleander and JUDY. Renee is terrific. She's going to receive a hell of a standing ovation when she wins the Oscar!

After watching Judy, Renee does have a shot at winning the Oscar.

A cute and insightful response as to how she could attempt to sing like Garland.

[quote]After watching Judy, Renee does have a shot at winning the Oscar.

Especially since “Seberg” and “Harriet” both tanked on the festival circuit.

Heads explode.

Wow. R102. That VHS of Bridget Jone's Diary really made an impact on you, didn't it?

Put the bottle to bed R107. You're snarked out for today.

So... Did she have the surgery to make her eyes big? Because Judy had HUGE eyes.

[quote] Any surgery she had was done by the best surgeon money can buy … there is nothing distorted about her face.

Oh please, R89, her surgeon screwed up majorly the previous time. She looked like a scary waxwork mannequin, people didn’t even recognise her.

Even after some corrective surgery after that, at 1:58 and 2:07 in the video @ R56, she moves her mouth like she can’t feel her mouth properly. I saw patients who had post-surgery numbness after jaw surgery do the same. I guess too many fillers and skin-tightening can have the same numbness effect.

[quote] Renée needs to get an Oscar for this movie, is what she should fucking do.

Oscars are not won in a solitary vacuum, it's not a one-horse race - you have to win against 4 other female competitors. But the competition is so-so this year.

Who is up against Zellweger? Lupita Nyong'o - probably won't win, because "Us" is a horror film and it's a genre that doesn't do well at the Oscars. Saoirse Ronan? She was nominated for an Oscar 3 times now, and lost 3 times - she'll probably be nominated again for a 4th time and lose again, becoming the new Millennial version of Meryl Streep.

[quote] She never struck me as someone who enjoys the flash of a hundred cameras or the red-hot scrutiny of fame and I think that's why she has such quirky body language and expressions. Not everybody is comfortable with celebrity and she seems like one of them.

Sure, Jan. If she weren't comfortable with the fame and "hundred cameras" - she wouldn't want to be a Hollywood film actress. There's always the alternative career option of regional off-Broadway theatre or indie European films :). Perfect anonymity or even obscurity, no 'bothersome' cameras.

Ugh. One of the pull quotes on the UK poster says: “Judy would be proud!”

I think Judy would say, “Who is she supposed to be?”

R21, That's a stupid metaphor. It suggests that Judy's fame ("light") has been and always was going to be extinguished.

What the metaphor should have been constructed to say is that Judy the person, not her body of work, was ill-fated to a shortened lifespan.

[quote]I think Judy would say, “Who is she supposed to be?”

I had drinks with her last week, and she said “Thank God it’s a woman, and not an Australian drag queen like last time!”

The film promos seem a bit expoitative. Hollywood already somewhat exploited Garland once - and now they’re showcasing and making money off her decline all over again. Why focus the film so much on her last degrading years, when her voice was shot, her health deteriorating and she was only half-sober and almost bankrupt, with a sad boytoy for company? It’s like doing a biopic of Maria Callas and focusing more on her last miserable years, when she lost her voice and was holed up in her Paris apartment, depressed and alone. Or like making a biopic of Rudolf Nureyev and setting the predominant action when he’s a sad shadow of his former self, confined to a wheelchair, unable to dance like he once did anymore, withered from illness - instead of his prime when he wowed and dominated the international ballet scene, dancing like a world-class phenomenon at the Royal Opera House with Margot Fonteyn.

If they’re trying to introduce Callas, Nureyev and Garland to a new young generation, a new audience - it would make more sense to focus more on the years when they were truly luminous and at the pinnacle of their careers and international popularity. When Garland was at her prime and sang “The Man Who Got Away” - it still makes everyone go “wow”.

But I guess most modern actresses would be too intimidated to play Garland at her prime, when she won over so many millions of people around the whole world. So instead they play her at her decline, washed out, struggling to make ends meet and losing her relevance (as someone said upthread: even Judy didn’t look or sound like her former self in 1969 anymore, the year she gave her final perfomances and died in London). It’s probably comparatively easier to portray a broken singer who is losing her voice and can't sing or dance like she once did (like Garland was in 1969) rather than try to capture and express why Garland actually became an international world sensation in her prime (in the 1940s and 1950s).

Saw it last night and loved it!

I hope the kid playing Little Joe gets a best supporting actor nod.

He even wore a blue shirt when Judy came to visit him at Sid's.

Saw it yesterday in NYC with the oldest movie audience I have ever seen. It was like being at an AARP convention. I enjoyed Renee’s acting, but her singing was a very pale imitation of Judy’s. Even though Judy was not at full vocal power during this time, she was still leagues better than Renee’s attempts to imitate her. They should’ve had Renee lip-synch.

R116 Maybe they framed the story in that last period of her life because it's more dramatic and people aren't familiar with the details of Judy's last years.

When you read about her life, the marriage to Sid Luft would make a hell of a movie.

In its first day of release it grossed what studio estimates were predicting for the whole weekend.

Probably shows the hunger that exists for movies that don't involve comic books or remakes, even if the studios won't believe it. I mean the two best movies of the last two weeks appear to be the sappy Downton Abbey film and now this.

LOL R27! You made me snort my Postum!

Add me to the group that feels Renee looks AWESOME.

I think she had some fillers and botox a few years ago which made her look heavily surgeried for a while, however, NOW, she fucking looks gorgeous.

And if you look at her, she has had ZERO scalpel work.

I am so happy for her success right now. She seems like a genuinely kind, sweet, and thoughtful woman. And a modest one.

What do we think Judy would be doing now if she were still alive?

She'd be 97. Not a lot.

If she'd lived and been clean she might have won an Oscar, she would certainly have received an honorary. She probably would have continued the concerts. She'd have written her autobiography. She'd have been a regular on the Jerry Lewis Telethon. Might she have done a Vegas residency? (I don't know if the concept started while she would still want to work.) She probably would have done TV and eventually film stunt cameos along the lines of Shirley in Downton Abbey. She was Judy Garland, had she been clean and her system not abused by those decades of abuse, she'd have been a beloved and regular fixture in entertainment.

Depends on how many uppers you could get into her.

Great film, loved Renee’s performance. The guy she marries is super hot!

Yes, I think her performance will be remarkable. Maybe a nomination for BEST FILM or BEST ADAPTED SCREENPLAY. Yes, I agree she'll be up for BEST ACTRESS (to honor both Renee and Judy Garland) against Awkawfina, Alfre Woodard, Cynthia Erivo and either Saorise Ronan or Scarlett Johannsen.

[quote] In its first day of release it grossed what studio estimates were predicting for the whole weekend.

Link?

It's a limited opening... 450 theatres.

Didn’t she already get an honorary Oscar after Wizard of Oz? I think it was an Outstanding Juvenile Oscar or something like that.

I saw an ad and I thought she looked and sounded noting like Garland. She didn’t have the grit Garland had.

R123, the best people snort High Point , not Postum.

It’s got FLAVAHH.

[quote]express why Garland actually became an international world sensation in her prime (in the 1940s and 1950s).

We both won Emmys doing that very thing!

[quote]Who is up against Zellweger? Lupita Nyong'o - probably won't win, because "Us" is a horror film and it's a genre that doesn't do well at the Oscars. Saoirse Ronan? She was nominated for an Oscar 3 times now, and lost 3 times - she'll probably be nominated again for a 4th time and lose again, becoming the new Millennial version of Meryl Streep.

Lupita? Honey no. This is the year for ScarJo. Saoirse, Alfre, and a fifth will round out the group, but it’ll come down to Renee versus Scarlet.

[quote] She was nominated for an Oscar 3 times now, and lost 3 times - she'll probably be nominated again for a 4th time and lose again, becoming the new Millennial version of Meryl Streep.

More the new Glenn.

A Harvey girl vs Woody's nymphette.

[quote]Lupita? Honey no. This is the year for ScarJo. Saoirse, Alfre, and a fifth will round out the group, but it’ll come down to Renee versus Scarlet.

Although the reviews out of festivals have been rough there's still Cynthia Erivio playing Harriet Tubman in HARRIET. Also, Annette Bening in Scott Z. Burns THE REPORT, and Meryl in Soderbergh's THE LAUNDROMAT.

R113 I agree.

[quote]and Meryl in Soderbergh's THE LAUNDROMAT.

Is Meryl a lead? I’ve heard she could do either lead or supporting.

Even when I - she supports, she leads.

The reviews of Meryl in Laundromat have veered toward the “same old, same old, nothing new to see here.” I think the extremely well-liked Alfre Woodard will get the nomination over Streep, although God knows Streep has gotten nominations she didn’t deserve before.

I agree that it’s likely Renee v ScarJo. The spoiler is the long-deserving Woodard. Erivo may still score a nomination, but there is simply no buzz for “Harriet” that could play in her favor anymore for a win. That probably leaves Saoirse, although lots of prognosticators think Awkwfina will get in there, as absurd as it seems.

I don’t really think “Us” has the kind of “it” factor that “Get Out” had, though if there’s going to be an acting nomination for it, it would be her.

Oh, and Annette Bening in The Report is a shoo-in for a nomination, but it’s perceived as a Supporting performance, not lead.

[quote]Is Meryl a lead? I’ve heard she could do either lead or supporting.

Everyone is putting her in Supporting. Interestingly, she gets a few votes there (from Gold Derby's "Experts"), but not nearly as many as Annette Bening, Laura Dern, and Jennifer Lopez.

I think it would be hilarious if Streep gets left out this year but Jennifer Lopez gets in.

I met Renee in Paris. Sweet and funny as can be.

This will probably be about as successful as The Wife.

I saw it tonight. RZ owns the part from about her first frame. She is really terrific. Beautifully evokes Garland but she isn't doing a drag queen or an impersonation... it's evocative. But she's amazingly sympathetic and manages to make an icon quite real in the quiet, human stuff. She is really, really terrific and is absolutely Garland.

The script is nothing special. The early scenes before London are good. The ending is pretty strong and effective, but derailed slightly by a cringe worthy choice in the middle of it. The writing in the middle sags. I saw the play upon which it is based in London (where it was a hit) and New York (where I think it was pretty much loathed) and this script lacks the humour of the play. The movie's pretty heavy and sad for the most part.

Overall it's a good film and tells a sad tale with dignity and sympathy without glossing over the reality of it. Won't see it again but really enjoyed it.

[quote]This will probably be about as successful as The Wife.

Only in your dreams, dearie. “The Wife” made a huge tactical error by delaying release for a year. By the time it was released to tepid reviews for everyone and everything except Glenn, no one cared and it sank like a stone. “Judy” has got the timing right. It got lots of buzz and love for Renee at the festivals, and a month later it’s in theaters, with my re buzz and raves for Renee,. The box office this weekend has been great, so no, it’s not another “The Wife.”

Judy's voice wasn't what it used to be by that time, though she's still JUDY. Renee did as well as anyone could.

Having seen it I think it was a the right choice to have Renee sing it. To have inserted JG, even a fading JG, wouldn't have sounded right in the context of the film... RZ owns the part so wholly she had to sing it too to keep it working.

I have nothing against RZ (though not think she deserved the Oscar for Cold Mountain, and I find her up and down, depending on the movie) and she's game to try the role, but she just can't capture what Garland, even St. her low points, did to galvanize audiences. And I think it is one of the worst screenplays in a major film--even all those musical biopics from the 50s with Susan Hayward had more depth and vividness.

R151, that was recorded in early 1967, two years before the events of “Judy.” She sounded even more diminished by then, but as ever, still “Judy.”

I forgot that Renee won an Oscar.

I'll Plant My Own Tree has to be one of the stupidest songs ever written.

Even stupider is the way it’s staged, r156. A big 60s Broadway musical would NEVER have a number staged like that for its grand finale, or anywhere else in the show.

Has Liza weighed in yet?

Haha! Liza hated it already a year ago. It's not terrific. "Oh no, I don't care for anything about my mother, not if it's like all the rest." Liza is A pisces. They're psychic - also drunks and wrecks and geniuses, great beauties gone bad.

Here is Liza's actual voice!

That’s the best Liza’s sounded in years!

I hope she thanks Harvey when she wins

Everyone I know who's seen it has loved it, many of them STAUNCH Judy Queens!

Not seen it yet but heard a couple of clips of Renee singing. Question for anyone who has seen it - Do you think they have used technology to mix Garland actual voice into the recordings Renee made? It sounded likely in the small clips I’ve seen. Not a bad idea if they did and I’ve noticed her answers re singing in interviews are quite ambiguous.

Not only did Renee sing them, she sang most of it LIVE. What interviews have you been watching R163?

Zellweger doesn't sound much like Garland to me, but she's been pretty clear about that too. She knew she couldn't sound like classic Garland - so she had to find ways to try. She felt that worked well for the character. Brilliant. Renee has sung before. In tune. She had rasp and resonance then, but she got better for Judy.

She sang in Chicago too, r164.

If you want to love this film, and there is a lot to love, you must first accept that Renee isn't Judy Garland. She doesn't look like Judy Garland. She doesn't sound like Judy Garland. NOW- Go see it. You will fucking LOVE it.

Thanks. Good to hear.

[quote] Everyone I know who's seen it has loved it, many of them STAUNCH Judy Queens!

You got it mixed around. Those would be a given. It would be more impressive if you said the ones who WEREN'T Judy queens liked it.

I'm not a Judy Queen and I really, really liked it. Like I said, it is evocative of Garland, look and singing, not a drag show or impersonation.

We watched a few seconds of the preview.

Just embarrassingly horrible.

Judy drag queens were bad enough but Judy drag fish?!?!

[quote]So Zellweger "embodied" the role so much that she couldn't even stop coyly pursing her lips and sucking in her cheeks...

And that's no small thing.

It's just soooo not like Judy Garland. That the director didn't catch that is telling.

If Judy had been that UGLY she never would have become a star in the first place!

When we stayed for one night at the Ritz Piccadilly in March 1988 we immediately asked if any staff members were there when Judy was there in 1968-1969. The head of housekeeping was and we were taken to her office where she told us her memories of those weeks:

"When she would come to London in previous years she always looked very healthy and but this last time time she did not look well at all.... ....no matter how late she came back to the hotel at night she would always order fish and chips".

Saw it last night at a packed house on Long Island, people seem to enjoy it and there was a light round of applause at the end.

I thought RZ did a terrific job, and the ending was a little manipulative in that it did bring forth some tears, but it was hard watching someone you love self-destruct before your eyes...

Same thing... light applause where I saw it, which is rare these days so they musta liked it. Few gays, tons of old people.

Here, R131. It was predicted to gross 1.3 million for the weekend and ended up doing almost 3.1 million. Triple tracking estimates for opening weekends is unheard of.

It received an A- CinemaScore.

And it's limited release... ~ 450 theatres.

Thanks, Snazzy.... but, technically, that doesn't back up what you wrote in R121. Where is your source that "studio exec's were predicting" this? Any ink would also have to PRE-date your statement, not be after-the-fact..

R177, please look at Box Office Mojo’s Friday preview, which uses studio estimates as well as their own acumen. It clearly states 1.3 million dollars as the weekend estimate as of Friday morning.

Jesus, you have to me more accountable to strangers on DL than to your own family.

R177, here’s the actual link from Friday morning to the information I reported that led you to question the validity of my post.

No need to apologize.

^ LOL, like that will happen. The persistence is plainly evidence of GDS.

[quote]....no matter how late she came back to the hotel at night she would always order fish and chips".

Cannibalatia???

Fish eating fish.

Snazzy’s right about the tracking, Judy has out-performed expectations. And that is a great Cinema Score. Good for Renée but I still don’t think I can bring myself to go - I’ve found the trailers I’ve seen in the cinema SO gratingly awful. Judy Garland was top shelf. I don’t like the idea of an actress relaunching her career off the back of Judy’s troubles. I stopped picking over her biography over 10 years ago and decided just to enjoy the artistry.

I wouldn’t mind an Asif Kapadia doc on Judy Garland. But not this.

R182, go see the damned movie. Forget the trailer.

[quote]I don’t like the idea of an actress relaunching her career off the back of Judy’s troubles.

Just wow.

R184, for some fans of a certain age, it’s pretty galling to think the Academy is going to give an Oscar to an actress playing Judy when they couldn’t be bothered to actually GIVE one to Garland herself. Yes, wow.

Well, that's a lot of skin in a game that's being played in Crazytown.

Well the academy is a joke anyway. Glenn Close is without a statue while Jennifer Hudson has one. Go figure.

[quote]for some fans of a certain age, it’s pretty galling to think the Academy is going to give an Oscar to an actress playing Judy when they couldn’t be bothered to actually GIVE one to Garland herself

You know... maybe it's time to let that go.

[quote]they couldn’t be bothered to actually GIVE one to Garland herself

Judy received a special juvenile Oscar in 1940.

Snazzy, no one said they doubted you, just that you didn't provide the correct link. You acknowledged this yourself when you finally did provide it in R179. Thanks. And no need to apologize.

[post redacted because linking to dailymail.co.uk clearly indicates that the poster is either a troll or an idiot (probably both, honestly.) Our advice is that you just ignore this poster but whatever you do, don't click on any link to this putrid rag.]

[quote]I stopped picking over her biography over 10 years ago and decided just to enjoy the artistry.

Me too.

I'm just not interested in "tragic Judy" anymore.

I think YouTube is responsible for that change in me. Those great numbers from her TV show and clips from her movies are so readily available now. I'd rather just sit back and enjoy the lady when she was in top form.

I get the distinct impression that R177 doesn’t have many pals.

No did it understand about the apology... lol

Remember when Anne Hathaway was supposed to play Judy?

Anne Hathaway needs to play Liza. She is the spitting image of a young Liza. That pic posted by R191 is so disturbing, That poor lady.

Anne Hathaway is closing in on 40. Her days as a young ANYTHING are numbered.

[quote]pretty galling to think the Academy is going to give an Oscar to an actress playing Judy when they couldn’t be bothered to actually GIVE one to Garland herself. Yes, wow.

Oh, for crying out loud. Of all the idiotic statements on this thread, this is the looniest. Judy’s two Oscar nominations were 65 and 57 years ago. The people who voted those choices are long gone from the Academy (and from life). What a ridiculous thing to say. Some of you ancient Judy freaks sound like you’re mentally deranged.

Wait - Judy died?!?

We felt it was time you knew, r199.

"Wait - Judy died?!? "

Oh-wha-AGH-UH!!

I think the movie really, finally captured Garland near the end of the picture, when she needed to go back out on the stage at the Talk of the Town just one more time. Up to then I wasn't certain if she was performing just to pay the bills, or whether it was in her blood and she couldn't not perform.

The movie does fudge the timeline about her marriage to Mickey Dean, which according to Wikipedia happened in March 1969 and she was gone by June 1969. In the movie it seemed as though she threw him out, but it was he who discovered her gone.

I'm glad the movie ended six months before her demise, but it did leave a lot of unanswered questions in my mind.

Anna Hathaway on the talk show promotional circuit gabbing about how much she empathized with Judy while wearing her Breakfast at Tiffany's vintage dresses would be Jennifer Love Hewitt-level stomach-churning.

Was Mickey Deans good to her for not? The movie suggested more villain but I am not sure.

Look like Judy Garland, hell, Renee Zellweger doesn't even look like Renee Zellweger anymore.

R205, I got the feeling that Judy was so needy and insecure that no one could truly give her what she craved. I don't think Mickey (in the movie, I know nothing about him in real life except what I've Googled) was a villain, maybe at worst a starfucker who was looking to use Judy to build something for himself.

Why do eldergays LOVE Judy Garland so much. I have an idea why but I can't understand the obsession, like they love her more than Cher or young gays love Britney or Gaga. Did celebs in those times even address gay identity, life, rights etc.

[quote]Was Mickey Deans good to her for not?

He gave her a place to crash.

The internets seem to think Dean was the worst thing that could have happened to her at the worst time in her life

Haven’t you got a Tatum O’Neal thread you need to get back to, r206?

[quote] I'm glad the movie ended six months before her demise

What??! You saying the movie doesn't even show her dying?

I want a coffin scene! At least Mommie Dearest had the good sense to give us a coffin scene!

will this help?

Oh, Good Lord. Renee looks TERRIBLE playing me! The part called for the glamour of Michelle Pfeiffer. She could have sung it!

Judy was so fuckin' hot towards the end.

r3's quote nails the movie:

[quote]Judy is an example of a passable film elevated enormously by one remarkable performance.

Anyone know the source?

Judy opening in London today and I was home from work, resting to get over a cold. The cinema is just over the street and it was nice, crisp Fall day. I figured the cinema would probably be empty during the day and I wanted to get out of the house a bit so I overcame my apprehension and went to see it.

I have to say: it was EXTRAORDINARY. Renee Zellwegger was just incredible, in a story about a legendary talent, she revealed her herself to be extraordinarily talented. Frankly, it was almost spooky, how much she evoked the original - she LOOKED so much like her, for me, it was literally breathtaking. (Oscar for Makeup.) I've never been a fan of Rupert Goold's theatre work but I thought it was really well directed and I liked the script as well. It was just terrific, her performance was so brave and daring, humane and compassionate. I just...I'm speechless. I've always enjoyed her performances - she was always billed as a young Shirley MacLaine - but this is some next-level stuff. Just extraordinary. I was moved to tears within the first 10 minutes, when she was revealed to be more or less homeless; I felt the blows of every indignity she suffered - they really landed all those moments. And, of course, I was completely blubbing by the end. It was a powerful film.

Oscar-wise, it seems of a piece with Tarantino's film, as it is of pretty much the same period and about the harshness of the entertainment industry. I'm all for a DiCaprio/Zellwegger pairing for the wins. I don't think JLo has a chance at a nomination - I don't see how one can honour Zellwegger's performance and consider JLo in Hustlers for a similar honour. We'll see. I wish Zellwegger every success with this and imagine the word of mouth must be great - I hope the film has legs.

I appreciated how all the men in Judy's life got an upgrade. The likes of Sid Luft never had it so good being played by Rufus Sewell; Finn Wittrock was excellent as Mickey Deans - he and Zellwegger played the disconnection of these two so well, and he was pretty sexy. The young Mickey Rooney never looked like that kid.

Ah, but Zellwegger. For sure, one of the greats. The stage performances were great too, and the profound ache of loneliness in her soul. So good.

I asked a fkin question.

R218, was the theater as empty as you expected?

[quote] she was always billed as a young Shirley MacLaine

Zellweger is nothing like the young MacLaine. The only similarity is that they have wide faces and narrow eyes. MacLaine is much less contrived and less coy in interviews than Zellweger. And much more politically eloquent.

[quote]MacLaine is much less contrived and less coy in interviews than Zellweger.

Yes, except for being a hateful cunt & neglectful, abusive mother, Shirley's a gem.

She's kind of a mess here, but she's damned funny - witty, quick... shame the poor woman had such a tough time.

Someone really should have told Judy that those super-short skirts and dresses were really not attractive on someone with bird-like skinny legs.

I’m 49. I absolutely loved this movie. I was brought to tears at least 5 times during the movie. Zellweger is astonishing. Her singing voice is wonderful. The physical likeness, especially in profile, is uncanny. I enjoyed the secondary storyline with the gay couple, and as he cried on Judy’s shoulder, I did too.

Well R220, it was a Wednesday afternoon in London - it was never going to be packed. There were maybe 12 - 20 people there in a 750 seat auditorium. I’m sure it will play well this weekend or they wouldn’t be booking it in the big auditorium. Renée is over here doing promotion this week, maybe she’ll be on Graham Norton.

I like to go in the afternoon and enjoy a big screen when nobody is there. I really wanted to applaud at the end.

I was 17 when Judy died, so my limited knowledge of her work was from The Wizard of Oz, a movie I never liked, even as a kid. My only interest in her or Liza's life was for their train wreck qualities.

Just came from home the movie, and my feelings about Judy (and Liza and Lorna) have changed immensely. The woman had an incredibly tough life, populated by creeps like her parents, Louis B. Mayer and the people administering the drugs she needed to get through another arduous day on the film lot.

It will be a real travesty if Zellweger doesn't get the Academy Award for this film. I don't know who her competition is, but there's been talk of JLo getting the nod. Are you kidding? JLo playing a hooker? How much of a stretch could that be?

And to the old queen above who was outraged that Zellweger would relaunch her career on the back of Judy Garland: Mary! Get a fucking grip.

So I saw it a week ago and while I didn't think it was great - RZ is amazing but the script is slightly better than a Julian Fellowes concoction - it's stayed with me in the back of my mind and made me more curious about JG.

I can't see why her children would object - except in principle. I think it is a very empathetic portrait, in script and performance.

My biggest criticism is it's short on music... for a movie about a stage show she doesn't actually sing all that much. I saw the play upon which the script was based and it hit all her major songs... it's an interesting soundtrack if you want to hear someone singing like Garland while portraying Garland.

[quote]Someone really should have told Judy that those super-short skirts and dresses were really not attractive on someone with bird-like skinny legs

Well, her sequined pants suit was in the cleaners.

I saw it yesterday afternoon. To my surprise, it was sold out (when I got my ticket two days earlier, it had been half full). I would say about half and half between seniors and gays.

The screenplay has real problems, and I would have liked a bit more of the “fun” and caring Judy (like the scene with the gay couple). But Zellweger! She’s astonishing in this. And that ending - starting with her backstage at the theatre all the way through to the ending - is just cinematic brilliance. As to the cast, loved Andy Nyman (London’s current Tevye) as the younger gay guy. The kid playing Joey is amazing, Lorna’s pretty good. Wish they hadn’t bothered with Liza. She wasn’t necessary to the scene, and the actress wasn’t very good. Finn W was good, likewise the actress playing Judy’s Brit “handler.”

Hey, Garland super-fans - what’s the best biography to read? I know there are several.

I tested for it. I knew I was wrong for it given my age.

"JLo playing a hooker? How much of a stretch could that be?" LOL

JLo did all her own stunts.

[quote] I saw it yesterday afternoon ... I would say about half and half between seniors and gays.

The audience demographic is not surprising. I once came across some T. Swift fans (Gen Z and late Gen Y probably). I noted that Swift's voice was quite pedestrian and gave Judy Garland's resonant voice (in her prime) as an example of a better vocalist. The Swift fans looked positively miffed and asked who "Garland" was. I thought they were joking around, but turns out they weren't - they had no clue at all. That surprised me - I thought most would at least see "Wizard of Oz" on TV at some point, especially around the winter holidays. Though, to be fair, they were European, not American - but I'm still surprised how obscure Garland has become among the younger generation (and they didn't even seem interested in watching any films about her). I previously thought Garland would remain a household name for longer (like Ella Fitzgerald and Frank Sinatra).

[quote]Though, to be fair, they were European, not American.

Even they've heard of Judy.

Come on. Why should Taylor Swift fans know Judy Garland? The Wizard of Oz is not watched by kids for the last 25 years and Garland's voice was not mature in it there was nothing sensational about it anyways. It's a childish film for teenagers. Doesn't translate. Swift has some great songs by the way. Even her fans know she isn't a great singer. Great singers don't top the charts lately - it's a bit of a detriment actually.

Ella Fitzgerald and Sinatra and Billie Holiday are timeless recording artists with the greatest catalogues of excellence. Nat King Cole too.

Garland is not someone you listen to on a record. Even her "great performance" YouTube videos have very low views. She's largely forgotten. So goes Streisand.

R232 - darling, the vodka blush must've caused you to mistype, as we all know CZJ is only 33, not a ghastly 39. Or were you hacked, darling? No one would ever buy you as a 39 year old. We know you are a lovely 33 year old who looks 27!

[quote] The Wizard of Oz is not watched by kids for the last 25 years

Eh, R237? I'm an early Millennial and watched it. Even read one of the original books by L.F. Baum as a kid (he wrote a whole series). There are re-runs of that film on TV even as far as Asia.

[quote] It's a childish film for teenagers.

It's not a "childish" film - it's a children's film. It's like calling "Alice in Wonderland" a "childish" book.

[quote] Swift has some great songs by the way.

Swift has passable, fun songs. But I wouldn't call them "great". At least some people are still talking about Garland 80 years after her 1939 song rendition. And her brilliant rendition of "The Man Who Got Away" in the 1954 - in 2004, her rendition was selected by the American Film Institute as the 11th greatest song in US cinema history. Whereas I highly doubt most will even remember who Swift is after the same timespan (70-80 years from now) - in 2100 AD (22nd Century). Pop is more fickle than the chanson and musical theatre genre.

*in the year 1954

[quote]I'm an early Millennial

You're a lying nutjub R239. You're not early anything. Early Bird special customer maybe. Early American. Don't make me prove who you are crazy ass.

Lol, R241, you're so over-emotional about it. Early Millennials are the generation born in the late 80s. Why you find that so baffling is beyond me. Swift is about my peer (I know she acts like she's 18, but she's actually hitting 30 soon). There's a big rift between early Millennials and late Millennials. Because early Millennials still remember Nokia phones, watched TNT (where they showed a lot of old films, including Garland's) and graduated college during the start of FB, but before the fullscale narcissism of Insta took off.

And I actually credit Cartoon Network & TNT with helping many people born in the late 80s to get to know classic Hollywood films. Because, as a school kid in the early 90s, you'd watch Cartoon Network - and then, around 9pm, there'd be a "handover" from Cartoon Network to TNT. And suddenly you'd be inadvertently introduced to these fabulous old "noir" films in B&W and musicals, thanks to TNT tailing Cartoon Network.

Judy on the Tonight Show Dec. 17, 1968, seven months before she died.

She looks fantastic, sounds okay-ish. And she seems coherent in her interview. But as good as she looks, she also has the air of someone who wasn't long for the world. The cirrhosis would have gotten her if the pills hadn't.

Here's the link

That must have been right before her Talk of the Town engagement

Although in part two of the clip both she and Johnny call it Town and Country

It's such a shame the drugs and booze did such a number on her... she was beloved and she could have had a long career performing as a legend.

I saw the film today and one consistency is none of the actors look anything like the people they portray.

The fact that she lookedike shit warmed over in England and was erratic and ill is well-documented - look at the clips of her wedding, for one thing - I think it's remarkable that she looked that good on The Tonight Show, and barely a month later was a fucking mess in England.

I think Renee looks like Judy, r249, and the kid playing Joey is a dead ringer. The Lorna is a perfectly acceptable looks-wise, in fact, resembles her more than the actress in the TV movie that Lorna herself produced. The Rosalyn Wilder is also a pretty good match to what young Wilder looked like. And frankly, Finn Wittrock is perfectly acceptable as Mickey.

They could have done better with LB Mayer - too well-known to have such an unacceptable match. And Rufus Sewell doesn't look like Sid Luft at all, but his acting is so good, who cares? In fact, most of these people - who cares if they are exact matches? That version's already been done. We didn't need more "exact matches," the old "Faye Dunaway as Joan" routine. We needed inner truth, and that's there in the film.

[quote]Wish they hadn’t bothered with Liza. She wasn’t necessary to the scene

They probably thought they needed a quick scene to establish that Liza was on her own and working on her own career by this point. Remember, most people seeing this movie don't have an in-depth knowledge of the timeline and events, so it was just a way to let the audience know what was going on.

I like the Liza scene. Judy was trying to see if Liza had insecurities about performing and she didn't seem to, which in some way bothered Judy and put her in Micky Deans orbit.

[quote]perfectly acceptable

My, such high standards R251.

Did my first benefactor Victor Garber resemble Sid Luft? I don't think so. I wouldn't give Sid, that crouton my huge D. They were both before my time but Vic treated me very well. We exchanged rings. Nobody knows what Louie B Mayer looked like. The crazy never ends. Judy can't be recaptured anymore than Whitney. So they take a moment in time and give her the greatest love of all. Whitney is the most beloved singer of all time and such a beautiful woman with a voice so big and beautiful that no one can portray her. Ever. Even a holograph tour with her own vocals offends her fans. She was the greatest singer and performer and most beautiful woman ever. WE always love her. She is alive in our hearts and memory. AND so is her sound.

But when you're dead for 50 years, someone can try. Zellweger is brave, not because ancient gayss will criticize her, but because it could have gone so very wrong. This is supreme screen acting. A huge challenge in every way, with a gorgeous beating heart beneath. Kudos.

What was the show Liza was doing in two days in LA? Was that just made up? Had she already won a Tony?

It's amazing the amount of material about Judy that has been produced over the years.

Wikipedia says "over two dozen biographies"...not to mention the TV movies: " Rainbow ", "Me and My Shadows" etc.

I doubt even Sinatra or Elvis can compare to that.

I guess the first popular book about her was Mel Torme's and that was in 1970, nearly 50 years ago.

I doubt the Zellweger film will be the last.

[quote] Did my first benefactor Victor Garber resemble Sid Luft? I don't think so. I wouldn't give Sid, that crouton my huge D.

Who are you, R255?

I shouldn't say because Vic is very low key R258. Watch me in How Stella Got Her Groove Back and you'll see how it all began. I was only 21, but he treated me right. For the next 4 years.

So I was there for the Judy Davis/Garland production in Toronto. We had great fun, they called me border patrol. I didn't understand it then but it had something to do with Vic being known as gay above the Canadian U.S. border, but straight below. Course he used that later for popular fame in that show with Gennifer Goodwin. A popular Canadian album of the time I think by that lesbian from Alaska, Hims of the 49th Parallel was also named after me. Katie Lange? I wasn't gay but my job was to fuck him and let him worship me. I'm tall handsome, athletic, beautiful and strong and was treated very well. They were all about our interracial love affair in that Stratford town too. I went on in Shakespeare naked! Victor Garber paid me well. But our NDA ran out in 2017. Haha. I keep it cool. I am almost 43 years old now and beautifully situated. Garber is Datalounge elderlygay age but he didn't care much for Judy Garland. Or Judy Davis. She is one strange chick.

[quote] I'm tall handsome, athletic, beautiful and strong and was treated very well

Such a classic DLism. I love that you review yourself as BOTH “beautiful” and “handsome”. Who needs one adjective when you can have two near-synonyms, eh :). When you said you were “atlhetic” - are you also “sporty” by chance?

**athletic

I'm black, I mean beautiful AND handsome. I could add muscular, tall and extremely well hung.

So Victor Garber financed everything, which enables you to be "beautifully situated?"

The ending made me cry

As someone said earlier, from the moment she was backstage right through to the post script, I was a mess

Does Judy live in the end?

Spoil it for me!

The movie takes place in early 1969

So she's alive at the end of the movie. BUT -

is she alive by the end of the credits?

Yes, the credits are quite unique, r268. They show Judy getting up from bed, going into the bathroom, and sitting on the toilet. All the credits are rolling over this. Then it zooms in for a close-up, and Judy says "Shit! No toilet paper!" and they freeze frame on that as the credits continue to roll and the music plays "On the Atchison, Topeka, and the Santa Fe."

It's very moving.

Bing sang it better.

Bing never sang ANYTHING better. He was awful. But what are you claiming he sang better, r270?

Bing Crosby's style of singing is very dated-sounding today.

It was dated-sounding 60 years ago, too.

I'm not an eldergay R208, but my theory as to why Judy Garland is a gay icon is that she was a talented musical artist who brought a lot of joy and sunshine to people's lives. She ultimately died a tragic figure which resonates with gay men of a certain generation who survived their own personal and public tragedies. Plus, her most iconic role in the Wizard Of Oz is playing a girl who wants to return home to a place where she is safe, loved and belongs - another theme that resonates deeply with gay men of a certain generation.

I agree with R274 theories, but also I think that Judy was one of the first movie stars who acknowledged and embraced her gay fans. Wasn't one of Judy's husband's gay? Judy was a fighter, no matter who was oppressing her, she kept carrying on.

[quote]Hey, Garland super-fans - what’s the best biography to read? I know there are several.

I am a major Judy queen and I've read them all. The one that stands far above the rest is "JUDY" by Gerold Frank. It's beautifully written and well documented.

[quote]Wasn't one of Judy's husband's gay?

One of them? At least two - Vincent Minnelli and Mark Herron.

I got the wrong Judy bio, Judy by Gerald Clarke.

Lord, it’s nasty. Here’s a quote:

“One ugly-minded lover bragged that after she gave him oral sex, for example, he made her sing “Over the Rainbow” so he could hear those famous words sung through a mouthful of his semen.”

Saw it last night. Thought it was very good, but not great. Biggest problem with Zellweggers performance was the singing. It was a good effort, but just didnt cut it...anyone unfamiliar with Garland would not understand why she is considered one of the greatest entertainers of all time. Renee's voice is just too basic, thin and not big enough. One of the most impressive things about Garland is how such a huge voice effortlessly comes out of her pixie-like frame, the power of it. Zellwegger could not capture this. They should have used Judys voice and had Zellwegger lip sync, or find someone else with a bigger better voice. Good or even very good does not cut it when portraying Garland, it had to be amazingly great or the whole essence is lost.

Zellwegger captured Judys movements and quirks very well, and yes at certain angles remarkably resembles her. But the most interesting and vulnerable aspect of Garlands face was her big doe eyes. Not only does Zellwegger not have them, she is ironically known specifically for the opposite--squinty eyes. Thus she could not portray the openess and vulnerability through arguably the second most expressive element of Garlands being, her eyes.

Without the eyes and the voice, she just didnt cut it for me. The actress playing the young version of her was piss poor. Nonetheless, I still enjoyed the movie and the aspects of Garland that Zellwegger was able to capture.

I thought Zellweger captured Judy perfectly. In fact, it was the first time someone nailed her sense of humor and the way she spoke - there are times when her manner of speaking is almost eerie, it's so exactly like Garland.

For me, I liked her singing. I mean, we've already had Judy Davis, looking nothing like Judy and lip-synching to Judy's recordings. I'm glad this time it was Zellweger's real voice. I thought the concert finale, the last fifteen minutes of the film, was brilliance on her part, and absolutely captured the kind of dynamism Judy must have shown in her "good" performances.

I just saw the film and was beyond impressed by Zellweger. Truly. Not even a Judy fan. It was a wonderful performance. The film, was it perfect? Fuck no. But it was a great experience. I hope this bitch snags the Oscar. I truly do. A great lady playing a great lady.

I can’t imagine anyone giving a better performance.

R282, let's bone.

It truly MOVED me.

I don't mean to sound so MARY, but I was so impressed...

I really love Renee. She is a real human being, and simply charming..

I saw it yesterday and enjoyed it. The theater had more people in it than I was expecting, but wasn't full by any means. Demographics seemed to be people in their 40's, but there were other generations mixed in (I'm late 20s, and wasn't the youngest).

I'm not a Judy "fanatic," I'm actually not even that familiar with her film work. I think I've only ever seen two of her movies. I've always thought her life was interesting though.

As has already been stated, to me, the movie was okay, but Renee's performance was great. I didn't sit through it thinking it was Renee playing Judy, which surprised me. I appreciated that I didn't feel like I was watching a caricature of Judy. It didn't bother me that she didn't sound exactly like Judy, when Judy herself didn't sound like Judy toward the end. Besides, if it were easy to find someone who could sing like Judy, then that pretty much negates what Judy had.

I didn't really have high expectations and walked out thinking that Renee was great, the film was adequate.

[quote]One of them? At least two - Vincent Minnelli and Mark Herron.

And don't forget her father was gay as well.

It's funny that someone on this thread keeps using different browsers to reply and then acting like there are multiple people.

It always fascinates me that people on DL aren't aware that some crazy has a distinct writing style.

PSA: Jabba, it's always obvious it's you!

One thing I couldn't get over in the film was the aging of the children.

Lorna was 17 when Judy died and Joey was around 14.

In the movie they seem to be portraying them as both under 10.

I get why they did it but I think it was unnecessary.

I didn't know Lorna and Joey were so young when she died. It's so devastating when young children lose their parents.

The movie does not remotely capture the tragedy and wreck of Garland at this stage of her life. It may be a great star turn, but Judy was mad as a hatter, incoherent and near death, literally. She dragged herself to the stage as best she could (and even in fits showed signs of her great talent) and off stage was in constant crisis completely oblivious to to any resemblance of normal life events of day and night meals and personal hygiene. The supremely and gloriously gifted entertainer and artist a shell of herself and destroyed. There was never any serious possibility of her getting her children back. Even before this gig most of her old friends and family knew she was dying.

charlie, go jerk me a soda. You're so fucking tiresome. Did you sell Judy a hankie from your cart outside Grand Central?

[quote]Lorna was 17 when Judy died and Joey was around 14. In the movie they seem to be portraying them as both under 10.

Uh ... first, Lorna was sixteen when her mom died. She didn’t turn 17 till five months later. Bella Ramsey, who plays her, is 16 (15 when the movie filmed) and looks her age. Definitely not “under ten.” The kid playing Joey “reads” about 11 or so, by t definitely younger than the real Joey’s 14 in 1969.

Picture is of Bella Ramsey at the premiere.

In the movie

Liza had a very small role but looked almost the same age as Renee. The little girl from King of Thrones should not have been cast. I feel like being kind so I’ll just say she looks nothing like Lorna. I wasn’t crazy about the actress who played young Judy but she won be over and I liked her. Has anyone said whoever did makeup is just as deserving of an Oscar as Renee? I’m also rooting for costumes.

[quote]Uh ... first, Lorna was sixteen when her mom died. She didn’t turn 17 till five months

Oh wow.. she was 16 and 7 months and NOT 17!!!!!

Lorna in the film looked nowhere near 16 and was played even younger than that.

Joey was played younger as well... like a simpleton, but perhaps that was too be expected.

I don't understand those of you who need exact duplicates of everyone and everything.

If you're gonna do something right...

[quote] definitely younger than the real Joey’s 14 in 1969.

Uh ... first, Joey was 14 and THREE MONTHS when his mom died.

They got an almost carbon copy of Judy so when someone looks nothing like other real life people you notice.

^ Who in the real world would a) fucking know and b) fucking care?

It is based on a play and it's based on true events with a little cinematic massaging. Even true to life biopics are "massaged" to ramp up the drama and make the story flow better, because no one truly knows or remembers that clearly what exactly happened. I think the story plays a little better with a slightly younger Lorna and Joey.

It sounds like some of you would only be happy if they reanimated Judy's 50 year old corpse and put Lorna and Joey through a time machine and have them all play themselves.

Not one fucking sequin or bugle bead on the Valley of the Dolls pants suit..

Yeah, R302, the reasons they aged them younger was already mentioned and understood... I just don't really feel it was necessary or added that much. I don't care what the hell they looked like.

Because all of Garland's kids were born brain damaged it was just kinder to make them younger in the film. So they wouldn't appear as disastrous as they were in real life.

‘Roadside Attractions and LD Entertainment’s Judy went from last week’s 461 screens to a staggering 1,458 runs in 202 markets. Currently sitting at an 83% Rotten Tomatoes score and coming off of a $2.9 Million opening weekend, the Judy Garland biopic starring Renee Zellweger continues to go over the rainbow as it took in an estimated $4,445,635 this weekend, bringing its cume to $8,904,078 and keeping it at number 7 in the top 10 films of the weekend. This is up 52% from last week’s gross. If it continues its momentum, the film will hit the mid-teens and, without a doubt, remain in the awards season conversation.’

When I first heard about this film I thought it would go straight to video. Remember how everybody here laughed when it was announced that Renee Zellweger of all people would be portraying Judy?

I haven't seen the film yet, but I have a feeling my reaction is going to be exactly as R279 wrote.

Despite that, I would like to see Zellweger win the Oscar. I think it's fascinating that people are still interested in another biopic about Judy Garland.

Just saw it with a theater full of 50+ yr old elders like myself. I thought the movie was meh but Rene Z as Judy was amazing. Her Judy was extremely fragile and very touching.

I swear the whole theater was bawling by the time the movie ended...me included

Only $4M opening weekend? Number 7 of the top 10 films of the weekend? The film looking to "hit the mid-teens"?

You think those are "good" stats, R306?

R285, and let's not forget Liza's husbands and "romances"

R309, you don’t understand the prestige specialty market. It’s performing beyond expectations. If you google the movie all the industry talk is about its success.

This isn’t a superhero movie. It’s for better or worse the modern equivalent of an ‘art house’ film. Zellweger is now the front runner for the Oscar based on the better than expected grosses.

In addition, it’s early release means it gets rereleased after she and a number of technical categories get nominated for the Golden Globes and Oscars in January of next year.

This was perfectly positioned by the studio and has the opportunity to maximize its potential.

Hollywood Reporter lists it as 6th.

" Judy moved up to No. 6 as it expanded into a total of 1,458 theaters in North America in its second weekend. The Judy Garland biopic, which stars Renee Zellweger, grossed an estimated $4.4 million domestically for an early total of nearly $9 million for Roadside Attractions and LD Entertainment."

"Be Kind Rewind" is again, a wonderful resource. She is very knowledgeable guide about film history, a huge fan of old films with a modern and awake perspective on women in film. Almost scholarly - practically brilliant. A great narrator who does her own work. These videos take time and great thought. She should be TCM's next host, but she gets too much right. I almost hesitate to share her channel here. It's quite new and beloved. A fantastic YouTube channel. This is not Betty Bowers, where a woman speaks for gay man's opinion. She's a very good writer and historian, BUT a modern viewer. All the videos are worth watching. The clips and narrative are top notch. There are two more videos that pertain to Garland - the Star is Born film comparisons and another one on the 1995 Oscar win of Grace Kelley. DO NOT ABUSE THIS RESOURCE. Do watch the Vivien Leigh video or the one about Bette Davis. Please be Kind. Rewinds asides are informed and delicious. SUBSCRIBE.

Her voice sounds very much like Ms Mojo to me, but I'm gonna let her fly. Honestly. It's like Got2BReal. Nobody knows who she is. Let her do her thing. Any old film lover will relish every single one of her videos. And there's lots of insightful and daring modern Oscar drama too. These are truly video essays. There's love in her work. She doesn't love the movie "Judy" but she has a lot of love for Judy Garland and a great appreciation for Zellweger's performance.

Do not abuse her channel. I know one of you will start a thread about it. Be kind. Rewind.

That was a great video. Very informative for a Garland novice like myself.

Thanks for posting that R313. It was a good watch and for the Judy novice it was a great to learn all of this new stuff. However, I think the reviewer misses the fact that this was a specific period of Judy's life and not an all encompassing biopic. The writer and director both make the correct assumption that the viewer of this film already knows the backstory and if they don't, they will just Google it when the movie is over (which is what I did). I also think it's wrong to compare this film with the miniseries, they are just two different beasts.

I think some of the expectations for the scope of this film are a bit unrealistic. This was never a big budget, award bait-y biopic and it genuinely seems like the success it has met with is organic and took everyone by surprise, especially since it stars Renee who was mostly written off the past decade. I assume if given the budget, a better script, the original intent to be the definitive Judy biopic, and awards aspirations from the outset, it would be a better film, but for what it is it's a big success and Renee's unexpected acclaim is richly deserved.

Yes R315. I am not a Judy novice but wasn't even born when she died. Or ten years later. What I found most significant about the Be Kind Rewind commentary is that she felt that the movie portrayed Garland as basically too sane and together in the last year of her life. I only posted it because the comments here were all getting so personal. Either Renee was a terrible human being or Judy was a terrible scrounging rodent. I liked that Be KInd, Rewind showed the sadly basic home where she really died and her terrible reviews and decrepit shape during the time frame of "Judy." Zellweger still seems to be off limits for a Judy novice, but a sad anodyne of denial for blindly turning away elder fans. A beautiful sad portrayal, really sensitive. A film takes liberties. It should. Zellweger got somewhere beyond impersonation into appreciation. I think that Be Kind Rewind is arguing for don't let this movie become the truth. Because it's not. So people will continue to argue the smallest detail. I didn't want to post her overview, because I knew it would be downgraded from both sides. And really if you are any kind of film fan,, you should appreciate that thoughtful review for all it's wonderful film clips and insightful biography of Judy Garland. She was a special talent. Once in that town. But one of, not the only one now. And most of us know that. So many here fall on mean opposing sides.

Here is more on Judy. Be Kind Rewind.

r309 it opened at limited theaters so its not bad at all

R317 My favorite part of the video was the last few seconds of Judy singing Ole' Man River. I'm a Judy novice and never knew that she performed that song. She does so powerfully.

Per Deadline:

Roadside Attractions and LD Entertainment’s Judy went from last week’s 461 screens to a staggering 1,458 runs in 202 markets.

Currently sitting at an 83% Rotten Tomatoes score and coming off of a $2.9 Million opening weekend, the Judy Garland biopic starring Renee Zellweger continues to go over the rainbow as it took in an estimated $4,445,635 this weekend, bringing its cume to $8,904,078 and keeping it at number 7 in the top 10 films of the weekend.

This is up 52% from last week’s gross. If it continues its momentum, the film will hit the mid-teens and, without a doubt, remain in the awards season conversation.

R320, meet R306.

[quote] another one on the 1995 Oscar win of Grace Kelley.

Yeah, that one was a real surprise. No one thought Grace was going to win because, well, she'd been dead for over a decade. But bless her heart, she pulled it off!

[quote] Remember how everybody here laughed when it was announced that Renee Zellweger of all people would be portraying Judy

I also remember how everybody here cried when it was announced that Anne Hathaway would be portraying Judy

Just saw it. Pretty much as expected, it was a good BBC film made very good by Zellweger. The squint was a factor; but there was so much else going on in RZ's nervy inhabitation that it wasn't a deal breaker. An authentic sense of Judy was certainly conveyed.

Definite frisson in some of the concert mid-shots, when one got a hint of how great it must have been. Loved her offhand arrogance in London, when she thought rehearsal wasn't necessary! Which linked back to her spirited defiance of the studio's control freakery. (I wonder how the industry will take to the deeply creepy coercions of Louis B Mayer as depicted.)

Just great to see the talent soar near the end with 'Come Rain Or Come Shine.' More! But then, the frailty again. Good film which epitomised a tragic genius.

[quote]Loved her offhand arrogance in London, when she thought rehearsal wasn't necessary!

I read that as nerves and avoidance.

Agree with R325. It didn't seem as though it was arrogance but fear.

[quote]It didn't seem as though it was arrogance but fear.

Despite that entirely benign and supportive audience of two? Judy's healthy egotism was shown when someone mentioned that Lonnie Donegan would be filling her awkward absence. She wasn't having any of that, and took to the stage to elbow aside her fill-in. She knew how great she could be!

It's true Judy openly voiced fear after a great opening night: "I'm not sure I can do it again." But then such were the highs and lows of a unique talent: nervy capriciousness well-explored by the screenplay.

Yes, because fear is rational and only happens in groups of more than two.

She said she didn't need to rehearse, and yet one or two seems later she was dancing in perfect sync with the feathered chorines

...scenes...

Well, that was one of Judy's particular genius talents. When she had to do a musical number at MGM, they would use a dance stand-in. Then Judy would come in and watch a rehearsal run-through, and she'd be able to do the number. No mistakes. So, it could've been the same in London - no rehearsal, but they brought the girls in for a run-through before the show and Judy watched that and did it.

I just didn’t like that Judy was so pathetic in asking the audience not to forget her. Seemed out of character.

Are you kidding, r332? It was one of the most IN character Judy moments in the movie.

[quote]I just didn’t like that Judy was so pathetic in asking the audience not to forget her. Seemed out of character.

Yes, because she was so strong in the last, oh, ten years of her life.... Right out of character... Jesus...

Interesting video about which facts were right or wrong in the movie

I saw it today. My mother was a huge Judy fan, so was I. I've seen many of her TV appearances and films. I thought Zellweger did a fine job, even singing her songs. Not Judy's voice of course, but she is a good singer. The movie was sad but the final moments were very moving. Such a tragic early life. Tragedy and success, not many combine it as Judy did.

R116, You are spot-on, but you omitted two points, to wit:

It is easier to sing a voice in decline than to imitate the inimitable.

And.....Oscar bait.

I found the new “Sid and Judy” documentary on Showtime to be much more interesting and moving. And it has lots of filmed appearances of Judy in concert.

Judy looked like a skeleton by the time she died.

What a gal!

r332 Judy WAS pathetic. but we, the audience was rooting for her to have that epiphany and pull through. Who didn't want to save her? Her asking them not to forget her was one of the most moving lines in the film.

I swear, every one of us fraus were in tears when she said it and the movie ended...

^^^were^^^

I first saw that photo at r340 decades ago in Hollywood Babylon

r343 I had the book when it first came out...Im old too

I was impressed by Finn Wittrock's performance (and his Brooklyn accent).

The girl who played young Judy looked like a young Renee Zellweger, but she did nothing to evoke the young Judy Garland.

It is astonishing to see how much Rufus Sewell looked like balding, middle-aged Sid Luft. He has absolutely zero vanity.

Zellweger was very good--she did evoke Judy physically astonishingly. The voice was not as good an impersonation as the guy who does it for the Punchy Players on youtube. Her singing voice was okay, and passable for Judy with her voice pretty well shot at the end of her life. The only problem I thought she wasn't good at was evoking Garland's constant wittiness (again, something the guy who impersonates her fvor the Puncy Players does brilliantly).

The costumes were accurate but often bizarre (1968-69 were the oddest years for women's fashion). The set design of the hotels was gorgeous.

[quote]Lorna in the film looked nowhere near 16 and was played even younger than that.

Bella Ramsey was 15 when the film shot. She was just off by one year.

She looked a lot like the teenage Lorna Luft to me.

It's unreal that Judy was only 47 when she died. She looked like she was 77.

I haven't seen Judy but I can't fault RZ or anyone for not being able to sing like Judy, no one can. But was she okay in acting like Judy? I want to know if it's worth seeing at all. Was she able to do Judy's mannerisms with the songs?

She did a great job with Judy's mannerisms in both singing and talking.

She was a brilliant Judy. At this point, r348, the film must be on streaming services. You can probably rent it.

It's worth seeing, and you can watch it on streaming, though you have to pay for it.

I watched it last night on youtube after the Golden Globes.

Thanks R 349, I will try to find it online.

I don’t everybremember Judy’s voice being bad towards the end. There are many videos of Whitney sounding bad but I don’t remember anything on Judy.

Here are some things I didn't understand about the background of the movie--maybe those of you who know more about Judy than I do can explin:

1) I had heard L.B. Mayer used to belittle Judy when she was at MGM and call her fsat and unattractive, but the movie implied he molested her, too. Did he?

2) Was Mayer so abusive to MGM's other child stars like Mickey Rooney and Margaret O'Brien and Jackie Cooper, or did he just have it in for Judy?

2) The film started with her finishing an act she did with Lorna and Joey, and the film suggested she did this mostly just so she could be aoprund them when she went on tour. Was this true, or did she do it for other reasons?

3) Did Sid Luft physically abuse her?

4) I had thought I had remembered that Mickey (her last husband, played in the movie by Finn Wittrock) was gay, but the movie said nothing about this. Was he gay, or am I just misremembering?

5) How did Judy lose all of her money from her movies and concerts by the end of her life? That's a lot of money.

Sorry--I listed the # 2 twice.

If you answer, please just refer to them as 2a and 2b--my sincere apologies.

R354, Judy’s fourth husband, Mark Herron (the one before Mickey Deans) was the gay one (well, and Vincente Minnelli too, of course).

I think Sid mismanaged a lot of things for Judy financially. Her mother, or whoever handled it till she was 21, should have been investing in land in the Valley for her. That’s how so many of those stars became multi-millionaires. But also, if you go to Wikipedia and look under “David Begelman,” then “Judy Garland management,” there’s a couple of paragraphs about how he and Freddie Fields ripped Judy off.

RZ was so amazing as Judy I saw it 3 times

RZ is great in this picture, but the writing was such crap. Ugh!