Mommie Dearest (1981) movie review - Sneak Previews with Roger Ebert and Gene Siskel

This is the original review of Mommie Dearest by Siskel & Ebert on "Sneak Previews" in 1981. All of the segments pertaining to the movie have been included.

[@morganvon5664]

Thank you for posting these. I had forgotten how entertaining these guys were.

[@OhSankYouDoktor]

Never understood the hate for this film. It's considered camp, but, as the guys could not deny, it is EXTREMELY well-made. It's also wildly entertaining. Dunaway is not only the most convincing example of an actor playing a real-life person, but it's a total tour de force! This is her best work, as Oscar worthy as her turns in "Bonnie and Clyde," Chinatown," and "Network." Not a guilty pleasure, just a pleasure - and, as much as I love and miss S&E, this review confirms my stance on the film.

[@sha11235]

Because you want to know why she is this way to begin with. The movie doesn't really say, other than she is some kind of monster. Also, the film's narrative it bad. Spend the time getting to know these people, not just jump through the many years of the story.

[@michaelhamilton7602]

@@sha11235 I agree. If they wanted to create a discussion around child abuse, then they also should have explored what leads parents to become abusive. Crawford likely suffered from some sort of mental disorder from her upbringing, in a time that you didn't discuss such things or readily seek out therapy to address it (especially for someone who was a public figure). It doesn't excuse the abuse, but explaining that would have humanized what was otherwise an over the top caricature on screen.

[@randalclarke5487]

I don't disagree- it's a great movie, but is still campy, and that's OK. It's so horrible, it's genius lol. I'm a gray area guy, I can love it and make fun of it at the same time

[@bretttaylor1171]

It wasn't intentional camp, the theme was misdirected.

[@bobthebear1246]

See that's where they got it wrong: It's actually NOT a well-made film and Roger Ebert goes into all the reasons why in his print review, reasons I agree with. Faye Dunaway is of course amazing; she BECOMES Joan Crawford, and I also like Diana Scarwid as the teenage to 30-something Christina in it, too. But the movie's pacing sucks and it's also sloppily written. There are scenes that follow each other closely chronologically and others that follow immediately as if they're the next day but we know for a fact they're at least a couple of years in the future. The ending is done well but you have to sit through over 2 hours to get to it and the preceding film is just not good.

[@zacharysiple783]

This is actually one of my favorite movies. Yes it's disturbing and sad, but what else would you expect from a child abuse movie? Roger does make great points on how this movie would upset someone, the iconic wire hanger scene is one of the most heart-wrenching scenes ever. But as a survivor of child abuse, I found it to be a very inspiring movie.

[@reneedennis2011]

I'm glad that you survived.

[@degsbabe]

Well i'm sure the 'survivor' in this case made alot of money out of the story. Most don't !

[@chrisfinch8637]

What a deep story. Bless your heart.

[@CaptainSpalding72]

this has nothing to do with reality. Christina Crawford was a liar... admittedly so.

[@zenpaganwarrior]

My mother loved these guys and watched their show religiously. It's part of why I got interested in films and filmmaking. Thanks for posting these Sneak Previews episodes, Eric!

[@williamhicks7736]

Mommy Dearest is depressing and unsettling. The film reveals a lot about Crawford’s insecurities. A key scene involves her literally getting down on her hands and knees to clean her house, inch by inch. She was a woman who really worked hard to become a movie star but was so obsessive about it that she was also quite brutal. I don’t care for the film either but disagree with Ebert’s assessment about the film’s treatment of her psychology.

[@racafritz]

My Uncle was Christopher. My grandmother was unfortunately raped at 16 and of course couldn’t keep him. Days after giving birth, Crawford gave my grandmother in the hospital the look over like livestock before “adopting” him. Very hush, hush under the table kind of adoption.We were never in touch and,I doubt he knew anything about us or his real mother.

[@softbatch1]

I can't believe they didn't call this "Box office Poison!". This movie has some of the best lines ever. It is one of my most favorite monster movies ever.

[@jedijones]

The reevaluation of it as a monster movie has been very interesting.

[@christinacascadilla4473]

When this show was on PBS in the early 1980s, it was an event-one of the few TV shows my family tried not to miss. Now there are not even any movies I’d want to watch, let alone review shows.

[@zarmindrow5831]

Yeah I remember setting my alarm clock to watch it. That's what we had back then. Music and movies.

[@ciadella1971]

This was a great movie and Faye Dunaway was amazing in this.

[@williamhowe1]

You serious?

[@randalclarke5487]

@@williamhowe1 🤣 I know, right??? It's HORRIBLE! Considered Camp today...

[@kdohertygizbur]

Call it what you want, but Dunaway is Brilliant in this film

[@MrBjorn6]

@@kdohertygizbur I always loved it. Meaning before I knew I was gay I was gay.

[@CR41489]

This film is an unintentional comedy. I remember it being promoted in the fall of 1981 as one of the most important films of the year. Instead it’s a campy romp with laughs when it should be dramatic. I give Faye Dunaway a lot of credit for trying to make her portrait of John Crawford work but she really goes over the top in a number of scenes. For anyone looking for some fun out of this, check out the DVD release which features some bonus materials including a great commentary by filmmaker, John Waters. He gets the camp value of the film.

[@semperfi818]

@Francis York As did I...and I recall having seen the film with her theatrically (her choice, as she liked Crawford and Dunaway), squirming through a number of scenes that landed harder for me than my oblivious mother could have imagined -- _gevalt..._

[@neilyringworm]

CR41489 WIRE HANGERS!!

[@jessecoffey4737]

Realizing that the film had actually acquired the opposite of its intended reputation at the box office, Paramount changed the advertising of the film so that the tagline, originally rather serious in tone, would read something far more campy: "Meet the biggest *_MOTHER_* of them all!"

[@sha11235]

@@jessecoffey4737 Yeah, that was the thing that hurt it. When they were making it, I don't think it was intended to be camp and it was supposed to be a serious biopic. However, when the audiences started laughing the first weekend, Paramount changed the ad campaign, with the filmmakers didn't like.

[@FranzSanchez-ky9up]

That audio commentary by John Waters is surprisingly respectful. You can tell he genuinely admires the film and only crititcises a few moments of it and even then, he does it with good humour. One of my favorite commentary tracks :-)

[@chrisfinch8637]

Child abuse films, like this one, tend to make me so horrified, especially when the actors behind those films, actually accept the roles in which they do or say something cruel to the child actors, when filming. The one film that traumatized me, especially when I came across it, at one point, was a 1977 CBS TV movie called “Mary Jane Harper Cried Last Night”, which stars Susan Dey and Natasha Ryan, and it was truly hard to sit through that whole movie, and see a beloved “Partridge Family” actress act so hurtful and cruel to her own TV daughter, as she was filming with Ryan, herself. I always feel too much for actors who go through that sort of moment of filming certain scenes that could be too intense, dramatic, sad, or even extreme for them to handle. Yeah.

[@godmagnus]

Do they think kids know why they're being abused? Do they think a movie about child abuse should be anything but depressing?

[@zarmindrow5831]

that's a good point

[@DS-wk1kn]

Their point, or rather Ebert's point at least, was why would someone intentionally see a depressing film?

[@kristopherwilhite]

The film was depressing because it was so disappointing.

[@NewsHistorian]

They call it a well made film with a great lead performance and they still pan it.

[@leczorn]

I sometimes appreciate many aspects of a film, while not finding the film enjoyable, usually because of the writing. I think that’s what Siskel and Ebert are saying here.

[@CaptainSpalding72]

Because the movie is mostly fiction and it has no rhythm. Its either two speeds, cool awesome Joan or unhinged psycho Joan trying to strangle her daughter. Dunaway never builds a performance, just does it. learn how to critique film.

[@jessecoffey4737]

In other words, they have rather mixed feelings about the whole thing.

[@mattlohr]

Both of them tended to have major issues with depictions of violence against (or committed by) children. Ebert famously gave a one-star review to "Kick-Ass" almost entirely because of Hit Girl's fight scenes, and they both hated "Robocop 2" because of the machine-gun-toting kid.

[@reneedennis2011]

@Konga 5000Trivia: The little girl's name is Maria Hovel.

[@wrsltnmusclefan]

I didn't know the two men. But seems Roger Ebert wanted a fantastical story of old Hollywood. Did he know it was based on a book about abuse? I do not know. But it's not called The Joan Crawford Story a Biography. It's a book written by the daughter of Miss Crawford. Gene Siskel seemed to understand what the movie was really about.

[@l.salisbury1253]

A good chunk of Christine Crawford's book was omitted from the film since quite a few bar-b-qued in the book were still alive at the time. Two groups who'll NEVER sue you: dead people and fictional characters!

[@jedijones]

I believe Crawford's other daughter did sue Christina for things that were said about her.

[@lacss7676]

It was meant to be CHRISTINA'S story. Why is she obligated to explore the mother's motivations? At the end of the day, does that even matter? As if when we know the "reasons" for the abuse it will change anything.

[@taurusfroggy]

💯

[@deshaunx776]

Bullshit. It stopped being “Christina’s story” when she started to tell parts of her mother’s story that she couldn’t have possibly known. She and the screenwriters could have easily told Christina’s story WITHOUT involving elements of her mother’s personal and professional life that a child wouldn’t have known. To say that an abuser’s motivation doesn’t matter is like saying it doesn’t matter what caused a house to burn down or a car to explode. All that matters is the action, no investigation needed?

[@sha11235]

Roger begins his print review with, "I can't imagine who would want to subject themselves to this movie."

[@avanishdutta2658]

I don't know if he rewarched it years later, but i agree and disagree with the review. I felt both laughter and terror. It's something unrelenting to me. Watching the clips make it somewhat- a true horror story with nuance towards it's subject. Although i do agree it doesn't make a lot of narrative sense. It jumps on some scenes, but it is really good. I will give it a 3 out of 4 stars, or an A-. Faye Dunaway's performance does standout. Can't believe she actively denies any kind of praise or criticism towards her performance. Well, at least it's better than her little itsy bitsy stunt with warren beatty in 2017 oscars with that little fuc*up of theirs!

[@jedijones]

@@avanishdutta2658 It definitely seems to have impacted Faye's career. She went from a string of classics in the '70s to getting almost no decent parts in the '80s. She blames this movie and she blames the director for not telling her to tone it down.

[@indigoblues93]

This film is iconic ! One of my all time favorites

[@cliffordshafran9250]

I place this in the "so bad it's good category" that "The Room" falls into.

[@uhdudewhy7980]

Clifford Shafran: I basically feel the same. Actually, I bought the movie a few days ago. For a cheap price. lol

[@maxxxmodelz4061]

No way. Mommie Dearest? Like they said, the movie is needlessly depressing and hard to watch back then, but the performances are off the charts good. Faye Dunaway is brilliant as Joan Crawford. I think she was up for an Oscar nomination for that role. Anyway, nowhere near as "good bad" as the room.

[@ReverendBenzo]

There are many more (and MUCH better) so bad they're good movie than the damn Room. This example is so overused.

[@cgvapors963]

No way. This movie is actually extremely well made and the acting is on point. It's nothing like The Room. As the critics point out, the problem with this movie is that there is no redeeming value to the story, no arcs to the characters, and it's just a way to bash a famous movie star without looking any deeper into the situation or emotions involved. But it's not a poorly made or acted film at all. You have to understand who this character is about, and the time it's supposed to exist. That was old Hollywood. A shiny jewel on the surface masking a horrible decayed fruit within.

[@jimmyl324]

Showgirls is a great good bad movie.

[@xendava9360]

This film is what I call a " hard watch." You see it once. You do like it. But you really don't want to see it again.

[@jaengen]

I’ve seen this movie at least 50 times and will watch it at least 50 times more!

[@PhantasyStarved]

NO MORE WIRE HANGERS EVERRRRRRRRR

[@centredoorplugsthornton4112]

Read any edition of Christina Crawford's book, the original 1978 edition or the anniversary editions. Disregard the film. Christina also wrote the follow-up Survivor, including writing Mommie Dearest and producing the film.

[@gallery7596]

Wish Gene had pointed out that this was based on a real person's memoir. Did Roger actually believe it was the director's duty to explain Joan's purported abusiveness? It wasn't made by a panel of behavioural psychologists.

[@anthonyscully2998]

yes ,in needed a back story_to explain why crawford behaved that way

[@alexpage3172]

The character makes the biggest signposts, herself, in the first thirty minutes: grew up broke, scrubbed floors til she made it, no parental love, feels ‘sold’ and objectified in Hollywood, she’s her child mimicking this scenario and it horrifies her. How much signposting is needed beyond that?

[@DS-wk1kn]

@@alexpage3172- Apparently a lot more if two critics like these guys agree it didn't address it enough. (I've never seen the movie)

[@orangehoof]

The movie actually had two quotable lines that circulated for months: "No more wire coathangers!" demands Joan as she flips through Cristina's closet with horror and disgust and the graphic "Don't F--K with me, fellas! This isn't my first rodeo." as she grappled with studio execs who were exceedingly patronizing. Dunaway made a major mistake thinking this vehicle would be a oscar-winner. It was a great performance but too awful to relive.

[@kdohertygizbur]

You can call it campy, because that's the common consensus, but what you cannot take away is Faye Dunaway's Oscar Caliber performance

[@user-cb8xp3kn5v]

A classic. As relevant today as then. It's hilarious without wanting to be. Dunaway's performance is so compelling and electrifying that SHE is the Joan Crawford we all want. If you treat it as experimental acting and not as a serious dramatization of a book, then it is masterpiece that is enjoyed generation after generation. It ALWAYS has a new fresh audience. Very few films can boast this.

[@peterkrug2327]

I'm just glad they didn't describe Dunaway's performance as campy and over-the-top like so many others have; Dunaway was playing an emotionally unstable person. Such people in real life often overreact and meltdown over the tiniest little things. And frankly it disgusts me that some people think this film is unintentionally funny; it's a film about child abuse. What's so funny about that? What's funny about a woman beating a child with a wire hanger?

[@ciaraoh9102]

I had a mother that was EXACTLY like Joan and I can tell you, the tone of voice, the drama, the craziness - it was all SPOT ON. The only people who think that the performance is "over-the-top" are people who haven't experienced it first hand.

[@jngr1]

I actually agree with these two. I do think that it is well made, and I look at look at Faye Dunaway's performance and compare it to the behavior of my own abusive alcoholic mother. But I would have loved to see what made Joan Crawford tick, and this movie doesn't have it. The only thing that infuriates me is that people see any sort of humor, intentional or not, in this movie. I feel that such a reaction is more than a little disingenuous to those of us who grew up under similar circumstances, only without the money. That said, I don't agree with the Razzies that it's the worst of 1981 (Endless Love has it beat by a mile)

[@k.j.paasche6523]

It's been suggested that the book is a lie and Christina Crawford wrote it to get back at Joan Crawford for leaving the kids out of her will. Pay attention to the last scene in the movie when Christina finds this out from her mother's lawyer; that one look says it all.

[@centredoorplugsthornton4112]

Christina and her brother contested the will and got something for their trouble. Joan had Christina, Christopher and 2 younger daughters. One of the younger daughters got all the personal property. She and the other younger daughter split a chintzy trust fund that they may have cashed out so Christina and Christopher would get something. The biggest reason Christina wrote Mommie Dearest may have been to get it out of her system. To this day she dismisses claims that she wrote it for money or for revenge.

[@dkonciousblkfemknightman]

Barbara please!

[@reneedennis2011]

I like this movie.

[@tomsmith2013]

WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! You BOTH blew it guys. Love this film and many people do. Showed it last year for neighborhood movie night and it was a hit. Although not for the reasons probaby intended. LOL! "Christine!!! BRING ME THE ...AXE!"

[@patr70]

You must live in a "sick" neighborhood. 🙄

[@anthonyscully2998]

you have to wonder if the daughters account is accurate

[@dan4894]

Christina Crawford began writing this book before her mother died and that's why she cut her out of the will.

[@JacobLomax]

Ebert asked of this film: ‘who would want to subject themselves to this exploitation?’ I WOULD!!!

[@patr70]

Are you a homosexual?

[@patr70]

@@JacobLomax Yeah I thought so.. there's lots of self-hatred in there.

[@annielane5621]

I seen this movie when it first came out. I was disappointed, I do wish Hollywood would have enough information about Joan Crawford, her life before she was mega star. I was disappointed in no story about that.😞

[@sha11235]

Maybe because the book it is based on was about her adopted daughter's feelings about her mother and it wasn't the greatest portrait.

[@tentcater4710]

“I seen this movie” ???

[@c-puff]

"This movie about child abuse is really depressing so we don't recommend it." ?????? *What did you want a movie about child abuse to be like????*

[@Katnip452]

Aside from it being a camp masterpiece of unintentional black humor, the fact these critics shouldn’t have missed is Dunaway’s rollercoaster of emotional colors. Ebert brings up the point but quickly moves on when he should have really stopped in his tracks to heap praise on her. And let’s face it, the rest of the cast were wooden and cheesy. Dunaway did enough acting here for 3 movies.

[@mileswhitmire700]

“DOOOOON’T F WITH ME, FELLASSSS!!!!”

[@joeyday1252]

Not gonna lie, I love this movie. To the question of why the film doesn't explain Crawford's neuroses, I would say it does in subtle ways. Joan's whole life (according to this film) seems to have been about being a famous and successful movie star. She put everything she had into making that dream come true. Suddenly, she's getting older and losing her popularity and position of power. Also, she's had no luck having a steady romantic partner and seems not to have been able to bear children. I could see that causing havoc in someone... especially during a time in culture when people hid their emotions and mental problems. But anyway, I watch this movie about once a year. The copy I own has a fantastic audio commentary by John Waters, which make the film entertaining on a whole different level.

[@wajidhussain5305]

Roger’s attitude was head in the sand moment

[@scottvasquez1401]

When Howard DeSilva appears as Mr. Mayer, all I hear is Benjamin Franklin.

[@sweetlildevil7597]

"Who would want to see this film?" -- Gay guys like me

[@sha11235]

Why would gays like it?

[@micheller6804]

I've never seen it, but it's on my short list of flicks to watch.

[@johnnyskinwalker4095]

ha ha ha

[@CaptainSpalding72]

@@sha11235 zero taste?

[@CaptainSpalding72]

@@nah....6151 its a shit film.

[@marcusaurelius6307]

I don't think Siskel and Ebert are wrong. They told us that the film was well made and portrayed an accurate portrayal of child abuse and they did praise Dunaway's performance of a psychotic star with these terrible episodes of abusing her children. However, I also think they're right in that the film delved way too far into scene after scene of her child being whipped and yelled at compared to the other parts of the movie, and even though the movie is kind of through the lense of her daughter who just celebrated with her mother over an Oscar win, and is just sleeping but then wakes up to her mother screaming about wire hangers, the audience is given no explanation as to what made her "snap".

[@eargasm1072]

That scene where she tells the board of Coca-Cola "DON'T F#%K WITH ME FELLAS!" 🤣 that's the highlight of this camp classic for me

[@marcoarodriguez]

I can’t believe that movie was only rated PG.

[@CaptainSpalding72]

Nailed it. They made a parody of Crawford.

[@Imnotplayinganymore]

That was weird. They both talk about the great performance and the disturbing movie but then they don't recommend it. Everything they said recommends the movie to me...

[@GrandFunker]

I firmly disagree. This movie is a classic. They do however raise good points.

[@user-ho8br1cw8c]

One of the best movies ever made.

[@jessecoffey4737]

*n o m o r e w i r e h a n g a r s* This film was the first to sweep the Golden Raspberry Awards, with Faye Dunaway sharing a Worst Actress award with Bo Derek and the film winning Worst Picture of 1981. It also won the Razzie for Worst Picture of the 1980s and was nominated for Worst Picture of Our First 25 Years in 2005. *The Official Razzie Movie Guide* names it one of the worst 100 films, and it has been included in some other "worst-movies-ever" compilations. The account of her life given in the memoir on which the picture was based was disputed by some of Joan Crawford's friends, Van Johnson, Cesar Romero, Bob Hope, Barbara Stanwyck, Sydney Guilaroff, Ann Blyth, Gary Gray, and particularly Myrna Loy, and verified by Eve Arden, Helen Hayes, James MacArthur, June Allyson, Rex Reed, and Betty Hutton.

[@breedlove94]

As usual the Razzies are full of shit. Dunaway's performance single-handedly elevates this to pretty damn watchable

[@BradiKal61]

Its not a badly made film nor are the production values low, and its well acted. the subject matter is disturbing and it harpoons a Hollywood icon. That award was an attempt to discredit what may (or may not) be a truthful film in the same way the book and movie are designed to bring down a legendary actress

[@spikefivefivefive]

Their inability to acknowledge the pervasiveness of child abuse is exactly why child abuse was so pervasive.

[@tentcater4710]

Not everyone bows to the alter of SJW ism, thank god!

[@Stevenirons]

@@tentcater4710 this movie has nothing to do sjw crap

[@sha11235]

Only thing I liked was the music over the end credits.

[@charliedontsurf70]

I think they both forgot this was based on little Christines life.

[@donnamiller5222]

This movie was a hoot

[@LentaChorum]

I side with them on this to a degree, the screenplay is like something ripped out of Hello! Magazine.

[@derrickdesslok2926]

According to Angela Lansbury, all of this was happening!!

[@jedijones]

The oddest thing about this is how Faye Dunaway seems to have perpetuated some obsessive-compulsive and socially coldhearted traits in her real life that seem right in line with her performance as Joan Crawford.

[@thejasonlundgren]

I enjoy this movie. Yes, Faye Dunaway chews the scenery as the legendary Joan Crawford. It's not as bad as many critics say it is.

[@sha11235]

Read the book, it is better.

[@maxxxmodelz4061]

Faye's performance was great. People are saying this movie is so bad it's good, but that's really not the case. They don't understand the era this film is portraying nor the subject. Joan Crawford really spoke like that in front of the cameras, so the acting is spot on.

[@johnnyskinwalker4095]

@@sha11235 hey maybe they should do another adaptation

[@farrellmcnulty909]

@@johnnyskinwalker4095 (LOL) YEAH, with Jessica Lange!!!!!

[@johnnyskinwalker4095]

@@farrellmcnulty909 good one, I had to look at IMDB to see to see if Lang had played Crawford. But I was more talking about Crawford in her prime. lol

[@sha11235]

Roger actually visited the set of this film.

[@lisvender]

I can put up with a lot of distasteful things in movies, but child abuse - depicted realistically as it is here - is too much for me. My mom likes this movie. She laughs at it, but I can only watch a little girl being scarred by her mother for so long before I feel empty and dirty.

[@CelestialWoodway]

Classic movie.

[@christopherminjares7429]

Great performance by Faye Dunaway. I guess he performance was too over the top to garner and Oscar nomination.

[@omargonzalez2641]

I through out all my wire hangers after this movie.

[@patr70]

Tiinnnaaa!!

[@killerlifealbum]

GREAT FILM !

[@Daniel-ng7oe]

The downfall of her career and her drinking problem is why she abused the little girl. I thought the film made that clear at least from the perspective of the daughter's memoir. The daughter probably had no idea if Joan Crawford was abused when she was growing up.

[@edreid7872]

Never realized how long the clips were until now...

[@edreid7872]

So true about the attention span..gotten so used to KZbin bites, and fast forwarding...notice watching Johnny Carson shows during the 70's, the movie clips were noticeably long as well....but now that trailers give you the entire plot, it's about even now....

[@BradiKal61]

i actually preferred Genes take on this movie over Rogers. Roger wants to know why Joan Crawford , if she was accurately portrayed, was such a rotten person but we can never know and that doesnt mean we should ignore what happened. Should we ignore Schindlers List because we ultimately dont know why Hitler hated Jews so much? She was by all accounts obsessive about career and details, and insecure about being an insecure aging actress, which makes sense in terms of how insecure people behave . Christina Crawford is obviously a bitter person to write a book and endorse a movie like this and the best explanation for that is that she had reason to hate her mother. She wanted to destroy her mother's legacy and today when people think about Joan Crawford they pretty much think about Mommie Dearest.

[@cgvapors963]

These days there are people who rate this movie as a campy B movie or low budget schlock flick for laughs. What? I honestly don't think people today understand this film and that it's based on a real person. As these guys point out, the film is very well made. The problem is that it's extremely depressing and doesn't have any arcs at all. It's just a glimpse into child abuse and how fake the early glamour and glitz of early Hollywood really was. It's not a great film because it fails to have any redeeming quality to it. However, the performances are brilliant, and the script is faithful to the book (to a flaw).

[@Urvy1A]

CG Vapors You take it too seriously

[@cgvapors963]

@@Urvy1A Not really. Just giving 2 cents like everyone else does.

[@clemmoreno3643]

She was a real mother!

[@H.C.Q.]

What are wire coat hangers doing in your wardrobe closet! I buy you $500 dresses and you put them on wire coat hangers? Why you little...

[@ErmineskinCreelov]

theres a tv show called feud that covers joans later life and bette davis too

[@tinderbox218]

I don't understand why this film was actually made. Seemed like a giant slander to me.

[@jimmyl324]

It’s so bad it’s good

[@mcganahanskjellyfetti7722]

I love this movie. Campy fun

[@gabbyb7347]

I agree with them. I don't find this movie "campy" or "so bad it's good". It's depressing, devastating and nothing but psychological porn. One of the most unpleasent movies I've seen (and I've seen movies like "Irreversible", "Gummo" and "Martyrs"). And yes, the acting is beyond.

[@AT-sd9qq]

I became a fan of shower heads after seeing this movie.

[@Blaqjaqshellaq]

I heard GOING MY OWN WAY was a better memoir (though less popular).

[@farrellmcnulty909]

I read it the first chance I got and when I read the scrambled eggs under the rug bit, I thought THIS SHOULD BE A MOVIE!!!! I'm still bummed out it never was one.

[@ericburns9132]

I agree with both of them I didn't like this film either

[@TommyRibs]

Very Painful movie to watch.

[@BULL.173]

Lord knows what really happened but a lot of Crawford's friends AND rivals came out to condemn this movie. I think it's a hit piece made by a daughter who was disinherited financially by her mom. She sat on it and then released the book 30 seconds after Crawford died.. That's a rat fuck thing to do any way you slice it. Dead people can't defend themselves.

[@j.m.starling9726]

Strange - they trash the movie but they also seem awed by it.

[@BullToTheShit]

I'm surprised they liked Dunaway's performance, since so many other reviewers at the time accused her of "overacting". Even Dunaway in an interview blamed the director for not letter her know when her acting was over the top. She believes that's one of the main jobs of a director. Anyway, she was not nominated for a Golden Globe or Oscar for _Mommie Dearest_ .

[@richarddeleon8601]

A great film. Bring me the Axe!!

[@johnflynn9619]

Dunaway got a bad rap for this film. She was Brilliant in her day. Network & Chinatown were her Best. She is not very nice in person.

[@FormerHumanX]

Feud: Bette and Joan handled much of this same material but was much better in my opinion.

[@tentcater4710]

Most of it was completely made up!

[@leewitten4758]

I prefer Jessica Lange as Joan Crawford. You see a humanity and vulnerability to her, but you also wouldn't be shocked seeing her abusing Christina.

[@chrisikaris5891]

Siskel and Ebert both had high standards. Is Mommie Dearest one of the greats? No. Is it a must see? No. But I would still give it a thumbs up for three reasons. One, because it is well made which even they concede. Second, because it is one of Dunaway's finest performances. Her intensity and total commitment to the part she plays is well worth seeing. Third, because we all know that Crawford's public image like that of so many other Hollywood movie stars under the studio system - Rock Hudson's comes readily to mind - was a well crafted lie. As Groucho Marx famously said he knew Doris Day before she became a virgin. Christina Crawford's story is an extremely bitter one but it rings true and deserved to be told. So what if the reason for Crawford's cruelty is not revealed by the movie. Her daughter did not know the reason She was just a child and evidently on the receiving end of Crawford's internal rage. Nor does the movie speculate either. We may never know the reason. However the film makers deserve kudos for having the courage to demolish the finely polished image of one of old Hollywood's stars. P.S. FWIW, the only other actress I could imagine playing the lead role is Meryl Streep. Dunaway got the chance to do it first and gave a first rate performance. So thumbs up from me, and evidently many of you out there as well.

[@nolagospeltracts8264]

Cult Classic!

[@josephlawson9950]

Damm you what are you crazy

[@neilyringworm]

So bad it’s great. Such an enjoyable watch. Crazy overacting

[@Noone9227]

This movie is a hoot! I enjoyed it immensely.

[@ricardocantoral7672]

I loved this film when I was a kid but I have come despise it because I come to appreciate Joan as an actor. There are stories of alcoholism and eccentric behavior but Mommie Dearest did not accurately portray Joan Crawford's life that's putting it mildly.

[@leastlikedcritic7529]

and we wonder why Faye Dunaway hates to talk about this movie

[@mrquiet2009]

Honestly, its.not a very goid film. Campy? Yes. Good? No.

[@richardmills1505]

This movie was total bullshit from a historical perspective, and Christina Crawford's book was largely lies. Faye Dunaway was rightfully maligned for her horrible performance in this film. The editing, the director, screenwriters and the general tone were all a joke. I thought Diana Scarwid and most of the supporting cast was good, given the God-awful script. However, the set and costume design was excellent. Absolutely sumptuous!

[@Ron898]

How do you know she was lying?

[@richardmills1505]

@@Ron898 Because I discovered a tremendous internet resource where this guy heavily documented that Christina was lying and proved hat Joan Crawford wasn't the nightmare from hell her daughter made her out to be.

[@PetePuebla]

This movie looks completely and utterly boring. I'm glad I've never seen it and I'm glad it's not on my watch list.

[@Urvy1A]

John McMillin Especially with the clown-like makeup in said scene, as well as the choppy choppy the tree scene

[@softbatch1]

@@Urvy1A Let's not forget her pissing on the bathroom floor in said scene.

[@boro66]

i found in this episode of siskel and ebert that they dress real bad i mean roger could have put on a sport coat and gene just threw on what was ever lying around, you were on tv for god sakes i give them a thumbs down