BootDigest Such a frustrating disappointment

Lightdeossk Captivating movie !

FuzzyTagz If the ambition is to provide two hours of instantly forgettable, popcorn-munching escapism, it succeeds.

Plustown A lot of perfectly good film show their cards early, establish a unique premise and let the audience explore a topic at a leisurely pace, without much in terms of surprise. this film is not one of those films.

smoke0 Yes, I am going to be sacrilegious and put this version at the bottom of the pile. Why? Well, I can accept and ignore the fact that Judy sometimes appears to be a bit too old for the part, but James comes off as nothing but a drunken, selfish, abusive cretin for most of the film, especially in the beginning, so Judy's line about him being nice after she meets him is absolutely ridiculous. There are Normans who are obnoxious and charming and "nice" in the other films, and if I include What Price Hollywood, the drunken director is nothing but lovable, but in this film this Norman is presented and played as just an asshole.Even at the end, it appears that the only reason Norman walks into the water is because he overheard the discussion about his career being dead, not because Judy would have to give up hers to take care of him.

grantss Goodish drama, but massively padded. Central story is interesting, though has a large air of inevitability and predictability about it. Biggest negative, however, is the massive amount of padding in the movie: many scenes seem overly drawn out or plain unnecessary. The biggest culprits are the musical numbers (though I may be biased: I am not a fan of musicals at all). Not only do they make the movie excessive in duration, but ruin the momentum of the plot.The movie could easily have been a tight 90-110 minute drama, instead of the 3-hour odyssey it is, simply by editing some scenes and leaving out the musical numbers (OK, not all - some are useful as means to demonstrate Vicki Lester's talent).Decent performances. James Mason's was the standout, especially as he only appears for the dramatic scenes - no musical fluff from him. Plus he clearly has the greatest gravitas and pure acting ability of all the performers. Judy Garland is OK, but mostly there for her singing.

Jeffrey Donahue Taken as a whole, this film is definitely not the classic that it is reputed to be. On the plus side, James Mason gives what may be the finest performance of his career, and that makes this film watchable. He effortlessly succeeds as a movie star playing a movie star, which is considerably more difficult than one might expect. If you don't believe me, watch Jack Palance play a movie star in The Big Knife. The story of A Star Is Born is excellent, although clumsily executed. The Technicolor cinematography is good, and Jean Louis does his usual excellent job of costume design. Judy Garland gives a fine performance and shows herself to be a strong singer, which leads us to the minus side. Judy does her best with the songs but the music score is flat, to put it mildly. There is no Rogers and Hammerstein or Andrew Lloyd Webber quality material here. The Roger Edens and Conrad Sallinger score for Meet Me in St. Louis completely blows the score for A Star Is Born away. If you enjoy hearing Judy sing, watch Meet Me in St. Louis or The Harvey Girls as those films showcases what she can do with good material. The other major defect of this film is poor artistic design. Being a big Hitchcock fan myself, I appreciate good sets and this film does not have them. The weak music score and poor sets for a musical are most likely the result of this film having been made at Warner Bros. instead of MGM. Warner simply did not have the right mix of talent necessary to do musicals; another excellent example of a Warner musical flop is Night and Day, where even Cole Porter songs can't save it. Warner could not pull off making a musical any more than MGM could ever pull off making a film noir. A Star is Born is still watchable. James Mason saw to that, but Judy Garland's performance is wasted by having forced her to sing poor music.

mitchelllockwood As a Christian, i enjoyed this It tells the story of Esther Blodgett (Judy Garland), a singer and Norman Maine (James Mason), a famous actor with a serious alcohol problem. He's smitten by her voice and her talent and takes her under his wing. With his help she gets a studio contract and makes quickly the transition from simple girl to an Oscar-winning star. Their happiness seems perfect as they also fall in love and get married. But Norman cannot control his alcoholism forever, soon he starts to drink heavily again, especially after he is fired by the studio. While Esthers (or Vicki Lesters, as she's renamed by the studio) star rises, his sinks into oblivion, which slowly destroys their marriage as well.The movie never over-dramatize or plays down Normans alcoholism, it's a very realistic and depressing picture we get about this problem. More surprising is the realism and insight we get about how the studios worked when actors were merely contract players, obliged to do what the studio dictated them. Though it never openly criticizes this system, the film definitely shows how little freedom stars had (Change of the name, complete makeover, typecasting). It is also clearly inspired by some real events of that time (just think of Elizabeth Taylors grieve over her husbands death, and the disgusting pictures that were taken on his funeral), which is chilling.Intense is what you can call Judy Garland and James Mason performances. Both are brilliant and are perfectly matched here. Garland, with all her memories of her time at MGM, gives her best performance ever and one of the best performances of the 50's (this should have secured her the Oscar - alas, as so often it was awarded to Grace Kelly for a lesser performance). James Mason, often overlooked, is her equal, seldom are actors so perfectly matched (and with considerable chemistry too).The sad thing about this film is the unnecessary and brutal cutting of several scenes after the film was already released and quite successful. Warner Brothers literally butchered the movie, without the restored scenes (as far as those are still available) some developments make no sense. So be sure to get the restored version, not only to get a feeling of what it might have looked like with all the scenes intact, but also to enjoy the rich colors, the beautiful score and cinematography. A real treat!