This is often pointed to cynically by sportswriters and fans as the ultimate ridiculously sugarcoated sports-hero film. Who's to argue? If you know Babe Ruth and what he was like, you almost have to laugh at some of the stuff in here. That's not to say Ruth was a bad man, because he wasn't. He was extremely likable guy whom his teammates all loved, he was fantastic with kids and very, very generous man. But he also had a lot of faults, too, some of which got him in big trouble with his managers and league officials. His health was a problem at times, thanks, in part to his opulent lifestyle. He was a glutton and an adulterer and life wasn't fun for him as he got unfairly passed over to be a manager, something he desperately sought. Very few if any of these negative qualities are the in the film - just the good 'ole boy - the kind William Bendix played on his TV show, "The Life Of Riley."
Also unrealistic - and typical of sports movies in the "classic era" - is Bendix trying to throw and hit a baseball. Thank goodness modern-day movies don't have actors like this who are clueless on how to play the actual sport they are portraying.
Yet, as sweet and unrealistic as this film can be, it's a lot better than doing the reverse, which is what Hollywood did in 1992. Too bad you usually get two extremes when it comes biographies made in Hollywood. In the "classic era" films, our heroes could do no wrong. Since the '60s, our heroes are shown to be blemished more than anything else. Where is the middle ground.
The solution, obviously, is to be "fair and balanced," but don't look for that in most biographies made into movies, especially dealing with sports heroes.
