Gleason (2002 TV Movie) User Reviews

The Life of The Great One Explored, But Not Entirely Told

[bbwvixen67 · 7/10 · 23 October 2002]

WARNING: My brief comment on this film may contain a spoiler, so please don't read if you don't want your curiosity to be ruined.

This made-for-TV movie about The Great One was brilliantly done, but I felt that whoever cast Brad Garrett (of "Everybody Loves Raymond" fame) in the role of Jackie Gleason made a poor choice. In my opinion, John Goodman should've been picked for this particular role because he definitely had Gleason's build and look. Don't get me wrong--Garrett did a good job, but Goodman would've carried that role VERY far.

This movie covered Gleason's childhood years in a broken home, his stand-up comedy career, his marriage and his various infidelities, as well as his early days in television up until the time of "The Honeymooners"; but what the film didn't cover (but should have) was his later life beyond "The Honeymooners" and his major Hollywood works, from the tearjerker "Gigot" (one of my all-time favorite films) to the hilarious "Smokey and the Bandit" movies.

This film would have merited a rating a ten from me, but I gave it a seven because of the casting choice of Brad Garrett and the film's failure to show us the complete career of Jackie Gleason, who will always be The Great One in the hearts of his many fans.

Pleasantly surprised

[fernreid · 8/10 · 24 September 2023]

Brad Garett was terrific & movie all around entertaining ! Not sure how accurate, but gave some insight on how he became the GREAT ONE! I saw re-runs growing up of THE Honeymooners , but reember The Jackie Gleason Show every Saturday night with the Jane Taylor dancers & his characters he portrayed, just wonderful memories Jackie Gleason believed in himself & why such a success They don't make 'em like that anymore. Such a creative mind & he knew what was funny & just such a great performer.& risk taker, he had nothing' to lose or so he thought. But he had a pretty good life & the 🌎 a better place for him being in it.

Ultimately Unsatisfying & Disarming Bio-Pic...Look at Jackie's Dark-Side & Greatness

[LeonLouisRicci · 8/10 · 9 August 2022]

It's Legacy for Fans is a Betrayal, and Casual Entertainment Fans a Not-too-Pleasant Look at a Deeply Flawed Off-Stage Bully that Throws His Weight Around Anyone Around.

Driven Mostly by Egotistical Self Assurance, "The Great One'' Succeeds, Despite Being an Unlikeable Cad, that Always Clears Away those who Dare Occupy the Same Space, with Insults, Demeaning Put-Downs, and His "Don Rickles" Act Wears Mighty Thin as Things Proceed.

The TV-Movie is Powered by a Commanding In-Skin Performance from Brad Garrett.

But the Screenplay Shows Little Regard for any Layers of Complexity that Made Up the Many-Sides of Jackie Gleason. The Star of Stage, Screen, and TV.

Those who Worked With and those who Claimed to Know Him and His Personality, Say, He Had a More Tender and Sensitive Side to Balance the Domineering Demands and Control that Permeated His Perfectionist Professional Work.

Not a Hint is Made to Offer-Up Anything to Counter-Point the Movie's Point that He was a Very Unpleasant Man to Be Around.

This Behind-the-Scenes Portrayal of Jackie Gleason's Show-Biz Careers is One-Note and that Note is a Sour One Despite His Success and Accomplishments.

Because Little Seems to Exist, in the Periphery, Included in the Public Domain.

About the Inner-Workings of a Performer and Technician of the Arts that Orson Welles Coined "The Great One", and it Stuck, Because it's True.

But it's Sad that this TV-Movie Chose the Melodramatic Method to Sell this to the Public.

With Emphasis on the Most Controversial Traits that Dominate Here and are Very Unflattering.

Things that are Disputed by Many.

Above-average TV flick. Great performance from Garrett

[Bobs-9 · 17 October 2002]

Brad Garrett (now an Emmy-winner for "Everybody Loves Raymond") really pulled this off superbly. Judging from the wealth of mannerisms, tics, vocal inflections, attitudes, and body language, it would seem that he made a careful study of Jackie Gleason in the various stages of his life. The hard work paid off in a vivid characterization that really brought the man to life without any cartoon-like exaggerations. The rest of the cast were uniformly good, but if Garrett hadn't managed as well as he did, it would hardly have mattered.

The writing, direction, and cinematography were above average for a TV movie, in my opinion, and I didn't really find the three-level flashbacks all that confusing. As an earlier commentator said, this was a long, turbulent, and wide-ranging life, and the three levels of flashback were an effective way of touching on several different stages of Gleason's life without expanding it to miniseries length.

I too was interested to see if any of Gleason's movie work would be portrayed, as I have fond memories of "Soldier in the Rain," "The Hustler," "Requiem for a Heavyweight," and that strange film where he tried to do a Chaplinesque turn as a mute simpleton, "Gigot." I'm guessing that in the interest of keeping it under two hours, and in consideration of the fact that most people see Gleason as a TV star first and foremost, that part of the story was jettisoned. It would have been interesting, though.

Before having seen it, I'd read some statements cautioning avid "Honeymooners" fans that they might be annoyed with the recreations in this film. I can see what they were talking about, in that several scenes from the show about Ralph getting a TV set were smooshed together into a single scene. While it managed to get the most memorable lines from the show together in a single compact scene, it could be a bit off-putting to those who know the shows so well that they've memorized the scripts (that's me, I'm afraid). The overall excellence of the production, and Garrett's outstanding performance, made this a forgivable sin for me.

Gleason's personality is not shown in a particularly good light in this piece. He is portrayed as being insecure, egocentric, petty, tyrannical, abrasive, possessive, and yet aloof from even his closest friends and colleagues. From everything I've read about the man, that's pretty much true. I still love Gleason and the expansive, lovable, down-to-earth everyman character he created for himself, even if I know it's not really true, but it tends to confirm my suspicion that it's always best to worship your heroes from afar.

Brad Garret was excellent. Very Good biopic. Ending seemed abrupt.

[ruahe-biz · 7/10 · 2 September 2022]

Brad Garrett characterization of Jackie Gleason was superb! It wasn't only that, while he didn't look exactly like Gleason, his mannerisms and movement allowed me to see Jackie Gleason. At times forgetting the actor playing him. It was the depth of the character portrayed by Garret in the subtle expression as well as the more obvious physical portrayal. Michael Chieffo played Ralph so I could see Art Carney. In a similar way, Kristen Dalton was Audrey Meadows.

This was better than the average TV biopic. The plot and the acting was excellent. The flashbacks were seamless. They helped us to understand his negative behavior. Jackie Gleason character was shown in an honest, less than flattering way. Yet it was not cruel. It showed why. He was still that little boy who was hurting, discounted by a drunk father. Even his mother who showed him love, was flawed by her own pain at the loss of a son and the actions of his father. Doubting himself; always trying to prove himself, in many ways he became just like his father. He caused the same kind of pain to his own wife and kids. It also showed his comic genius.

I do believe they should have at least alluded to his movie career and his great dramatic performances. Perhaps it was the limitations of a TV biopic. It missed out on rounding out his character and talent. The other flaw in the film was the ending. Its abrupt end. He looks back on the Honeymooners, remembering key lines, which seem to also speak to his personal life. The end. There was no transition to get to that scene. It came unexpectedly. There was little to say that part of his career was ending, until that moment. It left me a bit empty. The rest of the movie had led me to expect more.

Excellent presentation and performances

[caa821 · 9/10 · 27 April 2007]

Brad Garrett was outstanding in portraying Gleason, and the director did an expert job in avoiding distractions which would have occurred if his 6'8"+ height had been shown in its true proportion to other cast members.

Jack Benny was noted as perhaps Hollywood's biggest tipper. Vincent Price and Edward G. Robinson were noted art collectors and connoisseurs, not just among entertainment persons, but the entire nation.

There seems often to be a tendency for famous entertainers to possess different personas in real life, and in instances like the above, even to emphasize them when in contrast to either more negative, or less attractive, characterizations in their roles.

Many comedians have also been reputed or shown to be somewhat different in "real life." Certainly one can understand their not wanting to be funny or "on" all the time in their personal lives, and undoubtedly they tire of people often expecting them to be.

But many are simply different from the humorous presences in their performances. Arthur Godfrey, and even Will Rogers, were far from the warm figures they portrayed on-air, on-screen or other professional venues. Jerry Lewis, Johnny Carson and many others have had a sharper edge in private/offstage.

This storyline believably portrayed Jackie Gleason's dominating, egocentric, hard-edged sides, as well as the insecurities he always carried from a childhood far from affluent or very happy.

One might wish the film had included a bit more regarding his movie work, but that aside, it captured not only the Gleason character, but also the flavor of the periods in the past as his success grew to its mammoth proportion..

Since these films don't possess the budgets of Hollywood big-screen offerings, even where well-presented, they can fall short in authenticity and details, like conveying scenes occurring in past times, foreign locales, and the like. But this flick captures the feel of the era portrayed excellently.

Along with Garrett's, all the supporting characters were well-cast, with superior performances

Brad Garrett and Michael Chieffo

[dave_pouliot · 10/10 · 29 December 2006]

This movie captures the raw Gleason to the point of dislike; however, movie reflects that he was a driven man who knew what the audience wanted...frankly, by their reactions to prior performances. Brad Garrett captures this well and Michael Chieffo is an excellent Art Carney (who should play Carney in his own movie as the man is that convincing.)

When viewing this film pay close attention to the earlier years when Gleason is a boy and the expressions used by his father around the house and in treating his mother. Gleason eventually turns what would be deemed as closet skeletons into humor. Nicely done!

How do you sustain an entire bio-pic when the subject is basically a jerk?

[planktonrules · 5/10 · 6 June 2017]

Technically speaking, "Gleason" is an incredible film to watch. Brad Garrett does a terrific job playing Jackie Gleason and the film did a wonderful job of re-creating the look of the old "Honeymooners" shows. But, despite such fine craftsmanship the film suffers from one serious problem...the subject of the film, Jackie Gleason, comes off as a selfish, ugly-spirited jerk with little as a human being to like or appreciate. Because of this, it makes the film tough to stick with until the end. The only thing that keeps you watching is the look and how well it replicated that. Additionally, if you are looking for a complete overview of Gleason's life, you won't find it here. Because of the film's length, it comes off much more episodic and often skips important aspects of his life (such as his second marriage which is never mentioned).

Poignant

[larsr-11298 · 9/10 · 18 November 2020]

Brad Garrett did an excellent job of portraying Gleason in this movie. I'll admit that this story held a very Poignant spot in my heart. Jackie Gleason not only grew up on Chauncey Street in Brooklyn in the WWI era, so did my Dad. And they actually LOOKED a lot alike, though they did not know each other.

Anyway, in the 50s and 60s Gleason was ever-present on our TV. He was not the Funniest guy alive, but you could tell where he came from, by the characters he invented. The Honeymooners' Brooklyn apartment was sparsely furnished - NO decorations, nothing on the walls. Gleason's irascible temper (probably born out of frustration with his Bus-driver job at $60.00 a week) belied his actual love for his wife, played by Audrey Meadows in the Honeymooners series. She was perfect for the role.

Garrett made up for his not-exactly-resemblance of Gleason, by imitating Gleason's voice and mannerisms to a T. The real-life Gleason was sort of a Bull in a china shop. People said he was hard to like. But that, if you got drunk with him, you'd be best buddies forever. His acquaintances and friends likened looking in his eyes to that of a pig's.

I recommend this movie to those (mostly older) viewers who lived through the 1950s and '60s, and to those who are curious about the man they only knew later in life, from the Burt Reynolds movies. Incidentally, Gleason WAS hailed as a very credible dramatic actor, in serious roles such as Minnesota Fats ("The Hustler"), also starring a YOUNG Paul Newman and as a deaf-mute Janitor in "Gigot". Gleason was, if nothing else, an entirely self-made man and a fascinating character.

...and away we (not quite) go!

[rsyung · 5/10 · 15 October 2002]

As a kid growing up in the 60's, I have fond memories of watching Gleason's variety show and The Honeymooners, so it was with some interest that I watched "Gleason". Brad Garrett is uncanny in his portrayal of Gleason, and most of the acting is credible, but the whole thing is somewhat of a letdown. I think successful biopics are extremely hard to pull off successfully...how do you sum up a life as full as Gleason's in a mere 110 minutes? Childhood traumas of a broken family, extra marital affairs, and a long-suffering wife are brought into the mix and, along with a final reconciliation(sort-of) with a neglectful father, are somewhat pat biographical devices we've all seen before. The high point is a scene at the CBS studios, where we see Gleason rehearsing a Honeymooner's sketch with Art Carney and Audrey Meadows. There is a spontaneity and excitement as Gleason reveals his working methods and spot-on creativity and the scene absolutely comes alive. I only wish there had been more like it.

Great performance but confusing

[drichards · 16 October 2002]

I agree that Garrett's performance was amazing, he captured the essence of Gleason perfectly. My biggest issues with the movie were two:

1. Jumping back in forth in time. I got lost after three different levels of flashbacks in the first 5 minutes. Why?

2. Completely ignored his movie career. The movie jumped from his TV work in the mid-1950's to a TV interview in the 90's (probably supposed to be his "60 Minutes" interview in 1991). Why? I hope CBS is not so crass that they mainly wanted to present him in ways having to do with his appearances on CBS! That would be amazing. His movie career occupied a much larger portion of his life than his TV career. Most of us are familiar with his later silly roles, but he did some great movie roles in the 1960s: "The Hustler" (original), "Soldier in the Rain", "Papa's Delicate Condition", etc. You can check IMDB for yourself. All worth seeing.

On the plus side, the cinematography was excellent, and looked very good in HDTV. If you didn't see it in HD, try to next time.

Also Michael Chieffo gives a pretty convincing portrayal (though perhaps a little restrained) of Art Carney, in the few scenes he appears.

Finally, Garrett goes from young and thin to really quite chubby, in both body and face. Either an excellent job of makeup and costuming, or he gained a heck of a lot of weight for the role, or a little of both? If it was done with appliances, it was the best job I've ever seen. Completely convincing, even viewed in HD.

Evocative, even if not quite accurate

[alanpgini · 9/10 · 10 February 2017]

Good Bio drama of a bygone era. Brad Garrett inhabits the role of Gleason. A man who's power overshadowed the 50's and 60's television world, without rival. Even Lucille Ball. Very evocative of the times. I highly recommend it. Its a 9 of 10. I rate it so high, because of the production value, and how it portrays the times Gleason lived in. Make no mistake, there are factual inaccuracies here. I am pretty big on historical inaccuracy in movies. But that's as it relates to real history. When it comes to the entertainment business itself though, malleability is part of what they do. Nonetheless, that's why its not a 10 of 10. To me, this was a film about those times. A gone with the wind era, never to return. This was entertainment for entertainment's sake.

Brad Garrett kills it.

[datamodel · 10/10 · 6 August 2022]

For anyone whose family watched Jackie Gleason on TV in his prime (Honeymooners, American Scene Magazine), this film is a joy. Brad Garrett is stunning in bringing The Great One to life. Supporting actors, script and camera are first-rate.

Fine Performances Undercut By The Script

[garytheroux · 4/10 · 17 July 2005]

Garrett did a fine job recreating Gleason, including his voice -- although his one attempt at singing as Gleason missed the mark. As biopics go, this one was well shot, but loses points for it's chaotic structure (with far too many jarring flashbacks), key storyline omissions and factual errors. Among the omissions: Gleason's film work (all the way back to the '40s and on to the year before his death), his first TV sitcom ("The Life Of Riley" was a 1949-50 Emmy winner!) and what happened to him between 1956 (when the last non-interview scene supposedly takes place) and his death 30 years later (!). Among the goofs: the wrong cue music (his most-used TV theme was also a hit single for him in 1953, "Melancholy Serenade"; after introducing his variety shows, Jackie'd leave the stage to the strains of "That's A-Plenty", etc.) I was surprised to discover halfway through the film that he was still working the more-or-less small-time; too much screen time was devoted to his early years, which could have been greatly condensed. I also agree with another reviewer that the comedy monologues were uniformly terrible; one wonders why ANY of the audiences shown were laughing at all (except during the "Honeymooners" sequences). It's unfortunate that the producers chose to present Gleason in such a relentlessly negative light. Maybe their view was, "Hey, he's dead. He can't answer back and defend himself. He's from another era than we are so who cares? Let's just trash him." Gleason wouldn't have had the career he did is he was really so hopelessly bad and untalented. If he did have any redeeming qualities, the writers of this film chose to leave them out.

Garrett IS Gleason

[hannerac · 9/10 · 1 September 2022]

Brad Garrett embodies Jackie Gleason in this film. No wonder he was nominated for an Emmy for his performance. He looks like Gleason (with the exception of his towering stature), he has Gleason's mannerisms, voice, and walk down to a tee. Amazing performance by Garrett and the supporting cast is good too. The story is a little sad from his childhood to his dysfunctional personal life but Gleason managed to hold it all together professionally. My only negative is the movie ending. I would like a different ending to wrap up the rest of the film in a better way. If you have ever watched The Honeymooners videos or you are a Jackie Gleason fan, you should see this film.

Not A Train Wreck But Not Accurate Either

[DKosty123 · 5/10 · 28 April 2019]

For a tv movie, this film looks good. For an accurate biographic film, it fails miserably. For anything honoring the great one, it falls short. There are some good points. Lets start with this-

Brad Garrett is magnificent in the great ones role. He does make Gleason's stage presence feel like Gleason is larger than life. The trouble is with a script which falls short of letting Garrett really show what he can do.

Of course, in real life Gareett was Art Carney to Raymond Ramano. Here he takes the lead well, which is something Art Carney proved he could do too. Luckily the actor with Art's role did not do that many scenes because Carney was a bigger piece of Gleasons success than is shown here.

The shame here is Gleason is so much more of a person than this script allows him to be. I guess the reason is a tv movie just does not have time to do it right. It's too bad as Garrett's great job is sort of wasted by a narrow script. Bang, Zoom, Pow, there's a lot of Gleason not here. What little is here is a pleasure, but does not compare with the real work done by the great one.

Why so inaccurate?

[mccurdy444 · 18 December 2014]

Brad Garrett did a great job, but why did they have to veer so far from his real life? Did they have to completely fabricate the circumstances of his mother's death? Did they have to show he was fired from the movie Navy Blues when he wasn't? What was the point of that? And Calvacade of Stars? Really? Gleason was the third host, not the first. I would love to see a movie about Jackie Gleason, but not a fairy tale. Garrett's wonderful performance notwithstanding, the lack of accuracy completely ruined this movie for me. Even before I did any fact checking, I found myself scoffing at some of the obvious dramatic license that was taken for absolutely no good reason.

Faithful Representation

[joave · 9/10 · 27 August 2023]

I really enjoyed this biography as it provided insight into Jackie's childhood and why he became the man he did.

I think it was helpful for me to already be a Honeymooners fan and had seen all the episodes at least 20 times each I've the years as I was introduced to the series back in the 70's.

The movie provided a faithful representation of the Honeymooners set and many bits in the skits which I thought was enjoyable.

It didn't go into why the show was canceled after 2 seasons which was disappointing. But overall the movie was entertaining and it also showed a little background as to how Audrey Meadows was cast as Alice.

Also wanted to mention that the acting choices, especially for the leads, were were impeccable. I don't think they could've been any better.

a mess of a movie

[edjas · 5/10 · 2 April 2020]

Since this is the only movie about the great one! it will have to do until a better movie is made. Garrett was excellent as Gleason but the inaccuracies were terrible. and the movie was filmed in Canada! no scenes of NYC!!! I hate movies that lie about the past;makes no historical sense as this one. in the movie Jackie is fired after 5 days on the Navy Blues Movie set!! not true. he made the movie and others for Warner!! why this lie!!!? and he proposed to his wife at the table she was with at the time of his show not following her home to her apt etc! Stupid lies that added nothing to his life but lies!!

Just boring!

[leighc-1 · 4/10 · 5 August 2022]

And I'm a great fan of biopics!

I don't know if it was the script, the direction, or the jumping around in time, but this one just doesn't cut it. Though the actor did a wonderful job of portraying The Great One you are better off reading the Wikipedia entry.

Somewhat scant on professional development

[Nozz · 24 March 2003]

The movie checks in on Gleason's career at a few points and we see that he started out not very good and got better. But we never see how he managed to get better. He seems never to hear criticism, but only to insist that he knows what he's doing.

And where did they get his stand-up material? It sounds like Triumph the Insult Comic Dog, or at best Jack E. Leonard. Was Gleason an insult comic? I don't remember him that way. The material sounds anachronistic to me. Certainly an anachronism is Gleason shouting out "How sweet it is!" on his Stage Show program. He didn't say that until his big TV comeback.

Maybe the comeback would have been a better story to focus on. How Gleason was reduced to taking work as a game-show host, the game show flopped, and he saved the day with a one-man show that in half an hour returned him to the top of the profession.

Might have been better than trying even briefly to recreate the Honeymooners. Everyone did fine, considering. Michael Chieffo was near-perfect as Art Carney, Kristen Dalton was a competent Audrey Meadows though she forgot to stop sounding so aristocratic when Meadows was playing Alice. But the only thing that can possibly stand out in such a recreation is the imperfections. Hey, the chest of drawers is too low.

Brad Garrett did the voice reasonably well, but it was odd seeing him walking down a corridor hunched down to conceal the difference between himself and his average-sized companions. According to the papers, he had wanted very much to do the role. Okay, Brad, it was a fine salute and if they couldn't find a six-foot-four Audrey Meadows to play against you, that's not anybody's fault.

A Carelsss Error!

[ChrisB13 · 5/10 · 30 June 2023]

I thought Brad Garrett was a stand-out as Jackie Gleason and the film filled in many blank spots about his life. I did love "The Honeymooners" but I never cared for Jackie Gleason as a stand-up comedian. He came off as mean spirited, was far too angry and couldn't easily get away with that type of humor. On the other hand, and a few years later, Don Rickles came onto the scene and could throw insult after insult because his demeanor was totally different from Gleason's...and Rickles could also be apologetic!. Gleason was a hard-head and apologized to no one but in those early days, when no one had a clue about television, he got what he wanted and gave us "The Honeymooners." In this film, should you see it again, notice the inside of front door to the Kramden apartment. The handle is on the right side..it should be on the left. That's why Norton was able to slip into the hallway so easily. I'm shocked no one noticed it or thought no one else would. I considered it a thoughtless error on the part of production! As to Gleason as a man...why any woman would see him as an object of desire escapes me but they say that for every pot there's a lid..and Gleason had his share.

a fine slap in the face to the Gleason family and legacy

[frezeframe · 6 May 2012]

First off, I am a Jackie Gleason expert. I'm am not a Gleason biographer, but I know more about this man than the average fan.

This movie is not the story of Jackie Gleason. If you go into it, thinking that you will have any insight whatsoever into the life of the real "great one" you will not only be disappointed, but rather upset.

Brad Garret, a talented actor in his own right- I'll give him that, didn't show you Jackie Gleason, but rather he showed you Brad Garret acting like Jackie. He had some of Jackie's mannerisms down, and was close with the voice; but it was only half way. The real Jackie Gleason was big, and powerful, and smooth, as Garret rightly portrayed. But Jackie was also vulnerable, tender, sweet, loving, and bashful- especially on stage when he would often exaggerate the many sides of Ralph. NONE of that side was portrayed on or off stage. Watch the movie. See for yourself. It's just a disgrace to the legacy of Jackie Gleason. I know it was Brad Garett's dream to portray Jackie Gleason, and I'm glad he got to live his dream. But seriously Brad... you half donkey'd it.

The dialogue was sinful, and the directing was that of a 6 year old. At no point, did any emotion come through, or anything remotely inspiring happen. This made for TV movie makes Jackie Gleason out to be a jerk- a womanizing, ego-maniacle alcoholic control freak, who was always stressed out, upset and who could care less about his family.

We know nothing of how Jackie Gleason really became a star, the effect he had on people, or the real class act he was. We see nothing of Jackie in New York City, or Los Angeles, (I don't think there was one exterior shot in the entire film except for a few car scenes). They spent way too much time in Miami, and his manager might as well have been a co-star, because there's about 45-50 minutes of dialogue between him and Jackie.

Art Carney has about 3 minutes of screen time. The focus was entirely on Jackie, Jackie's manager, and Jackie's poor neglected wife. EVERYTHING else was marginalized. Even the Audrey Meadows character was over-acted, and marginalized with the rest.

It just seems like the filmmakers didn't care to learn about the real Jackie Gleason, his motivation, and his extraordinarily rare talent. Or if they did learn, they didn't get it. They got the misery part down. This is a very negative film. In fact, if you knew nothing of Gleason before watching this, you would probably hate the guy. This film was focused on Jackie getting deals, and smoking cigarettes, and drinking, and arguing with his wife, and talking to his manager, and working random clubs, and just being a real d bag; which is the polar opposite of the real Gleason.

They tried to bookend the movie with the subplot of Jackie's childhood and his long lost father- which just fell apart in the filmmakers hands from the get go. They also decided to just end the film re-enacting(poorly and inaccurately) classic scenes from the Honeymooners. Why?

The two things that they got right were the art direction and costume design, and the actor who played Art Carney was about 75% right on. And that is literally all the good I can say.

The name of the movie is called Gleason. It should be called Train Wreck. Rest in peace Jackie. Let's hope you never had to watch any part of this wherever you are, because how could they make a movie about you with zero integrity, and above all that wasn't funny?