Acensbart Excellent but underrated film

Afouotos Although it has its amusing moments, in eneral the plot does not convince.

Nessieldwi Very interesting film. Was caught on the premise when seeing the trailer but unsure as to what the outcome would be for the showing. As it turns out, it was a very good film.

Kaelan Mccaffrey Like the great film, it's made with a great deal of visible affection both in front of and behind the camera.

MisterWhiplash It's impossible not to feel uneasy when one sees a film and it is not complete, and with A Star is Born almost 25 minutes were cut out after the earliest roadshow screenings and only some of those were reinstated. You start to see the cuts really come in to play with the restored version about 35 minutes in, once Esther Blodgett has been given the super-boost of confidence by Norman Maine, and while Esther starts the earliest parts of her career - she sings for an odd (racist against Asians?) commercial, and he is acting in a movie that's right off a boat - there's still images to fill in the visual gaps while the audio still remains. I was worried for a moment the film would lose me after such a strong opening, with certain elements a little rough around the edges (there's one scene that is restored where we see Esther hustling as a waitress at a burger stand that probably will never recover). But this doesn't last too long, and by the mid- point, as Esther-cum-Vicky, is singing the massive number "Born in a Trunk", it's revealed itself as a dramatic classic of Hollywood's (just barely post) Golden Age.I've read a little criticism, not least of which from James Mason, who plays Norman (and damn he's amazing, more on him in a moment), of that sequence, that it stops the movie in its tracks, that it's not really too exciting, that it narratively doesn't work for the rest of the film. Why I'd disagree is simple: it's a microcosm of cinematic storytelling, and like when you look at one of those paintings that has the painting within a painting within a painting and so on. This musical sequence is actually what sets off, in a big way, the career of 'Vicky Lester', as she is performing this sequence in a movie, and her song is telling the story about how she got into show-business, which we get to then see visually. While the sequence at the end (once Garland hits that incredible high note) cuts away to the intermission, I have to wonder if the audience watching the movie applauded crazily after it ended. Every bit of that musical scene is rich, intricate, and personal storytelling; one gets the sense it may (or may not) tell the story of Esther's upbringing - we never really get to know that outside of this, do we? she's just about to tell a rushing-speaking Norman before she's cut off early on - and it may (or may not) reflect Garland's own upbringing as well. It's easy to see why a role and movie like this would appeal to her - and Garland's husband at the time produced the film - because of how it charts the rise of a career and how the entire culture of an industry like the entertainment/movie/singing world is like. It's really rough for people who even *can* hack it, much less those who can't, and while Garland had her own issues with substance abuse, some of that is reflected in Norman who has risen to a point of prominence but... well, a lot of it is in a fog of cover-ups and excuses, and that for all of Norman's talent, he can't overcome his own insecurities and addictions. This is a tough movie that has the guise of a classy movie for families (as all movies in the 50's *technically* speaking were).While Cukor gets the period down, which was what it was at the time, with his production designers and artistic directors and holy-crap- the-CINEMASCOPE is fantastic, the actors bring so much of their best to these roles. Mason is one of those actors that might seem to look a bit ordinary, handsome but not someone with a lot of power. Nope - he's got bucket-loads of intensity, but in a direction that here is used to ends that make one feel uncomfortable. The highlight of this, which makes the worst scene on The Office seem tolerable as far as the cringe-factor goes, is when Vicky wins the Oscar (ironic considering Garland got snubbed for this performance, among the major snubs ever), and Norman stops her mid-speech to do that slow clap, drunk off his a**, and go on the stage to have a pity party (and a slap against her head that feels like it's heard around the world). Incredible! Meanwhile, Garland does it all here, but what's impressive is how much joy she brings to a character who stays positive, or as much as she can try, for the simple fact that she loves her husband. There is that scene in the dressing room, in-between shot set ups on one of those sunny musical numbers that the movies gave us back in the 50's, where she does break down and one wonders if she'll completely fall apart ("I hate him because he fails!" she exclaims). But the power of the performance is the range and high quality of Garland's acting, how she gets to live a full LIFE in a few hours that lasts in the movie over several years. Wizard of Oz will always be the movie she's remembered for, but this is the one where she showed how she was one of the greats - not to mention the voice (though, as a tiny pit-pick, her voice in that dark-jazz club scene early on... don't see her entirely as a jazz singer, but she does fine).If you love the Hollywood of the mid 20th century, you owe it to yourself to see this movie.

graciego Thanks to dear TCM I finally was able to see this much ballyhooed movie in its entirety - or as much of it that remains after the famous lost cuts - see details elsewhere on this page. I loved Judy Garland in Wizard, the Andrew Hardy series and Meet Me in St Louis. As far as I can tell, she managed to ruin her voice before this "come-back" movie was made. All of those forced notes grate on my ears - sorry. How sad that so many people turned themselves inside-out to give her this opportunity. Even sadder that so few people seem to recognize the poor quality of her voice in this movie. The film is beautifully photographed and James Mason is fine but, please - do not try to tell me Judy Garland even came close to earning a nomination for this movie.

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.

mark.waltz This is the movie that legends are made of. It is still talked about, studied, dissected and gossiped about. It features one of the all-time great performances, a role so perfectly played that there is no doubt in my mind that no matter how troubled leading lady Judy Garland may have been, her ego never dominated, only the desire to turn out something excellent.Up until this film, Judy Garland's film career had simply been about "Dorothy", with a bit of "St. Louis" thrown in and a song about Mr. Gable. She had been overshadowed by Mickey Rooney for a while, but when you talk about legends, it is Garland who stands above the rest, her singing, dancing, clowning, dramatics so much the tops. Only a few actors in film could make you cry while you laughed (Chaplin being one of the few others), and you always sensed heartbreak in her acting even when the parts were simply the same as what she had done before.As Esther Blodgett, Garland is an unknown singer. "Got to Have Me Go With You!" is her break-out number, at least for the presence of a drunken superstar named Norman Maine (James Mason) who intrudes on it like a naughty chorus boy. Garland saves the day by getting him into the choreography, and his gratitude when sober turns into the desire to make her a star after hearing her sing "The Man That Got Away". Like Fanny Brice and "My Man", no matter who sings this song, you will always think of her. Even with "Over the Rainbow", that was a beginning, her innocence still prevalent, and here as a mature performer, she can dominate a song without eating it up. Harold Arlen, who wrote the music for both these songs, can truly be called one of the greatest masters of songwriting in the business, still honored today in an Off Broadway show, "The Wizard of Song"."Say Vicky Lester!", she is told upon hearing her new name, and even if there was once a bit actress with this name in real life (around the time of the 1937 Janet Gaynor/Fredric March version), it will be Garland's Vicky who will go down into immortality. Vicki and Norman marry, he attempts sobriety, and she becomes a superstar. While "Born in a Trunk" is considered the hallmark of this film, I truly find her "Somewhere There's a Someone" to be the richest moment where she perfectly chews up every moment this 7 minute dance number takes on. "Loose That Long Face" and "Here's What I'm Here For" also point out her ability to win your heart and rip it out at the same time.Excellent dramatic performances by Mason (certainly not overshadowed in this by his strong leading lady), Jack Carson (press agent) and Charles Bickford (studio head) add dimension to the story, not making this all about the star. Tommy Noonan is touching as her roommate, having just supported another great diva, Marilyn Monroe, as her put-upon fiancée in "Gentlemen Prefer Blondes". Lucy Marlowe makes the most out of her bit role as a rising starlet, but it is obvious that once Vicky Lester enters the scene, there's no doubt who will end up with the man and the Oscar.Having directed such greats as Hepburn, Garbo, Crawford, Bergman and Taylor, George Cukor adds another coupe to his credits with "A Star is Born", and all of the combined talents prove that this was indeed a team effort, not just a showcase for Garland after her triumph at the Palace following her exodus from MGM. With husband Sid Luft at the helm, there is no doubt that there was high hopes of it revitalizing her film career, but the film points out that Garland's best work was on the stage. Like the name of her finale film which proved that Garland could go on singing, it wouldn't take the cows to come home, only audiences to fill up the seats where she won their hearts, even if only able to give part of herself.