Steineded How sad is this?

Matialth Good concept, poorly executed.

CrawlerChunky In truth, there is barely enough story here to make a film.

BelSports This is a coming of age storyline that you've seen in one form or another for decades. It takes a truly unique voice to make yet another one worth watching.

HotToastyRag It's ironic that of the three versions of A Star Is Born, the original is my least favorite. Of course, come October, I'm sure that ranking will be transferred to the newest remake. When you think about it, it's a very simple story, but because Hollywood keeps remaking it, it's one that resonates. In essence, a washed up star falls in love with his protégé, and her career skyrockets.Fredric March played the original Norman Maine, and while he did give a very good performance, it's a character he frequently played in the 1930s, so if you don't feel like renting this one, you can check out Merrily We Go To Hell or My Sin instead. The Artist was a very thinly-veiled remake of A Star Is Born, and it's very clear that Jean Dujardin patterned his performance after Fredric March's in the 1937 classic. Freddie was a wonderful actor, and he was able to project bundles of energy into a performance of desperation.Janet Gaynor played the discovered talent. There was nothing wrong with her performance, but in the three remakes, major stars-Judy Garland, Barbra Streisand, and Lady Gaga-were cast, to help the audience see what Norman Maine sees: a superstar who will blow audiences away. Janet was pretty and an adequate actress, but didn't possess that "star quality" that's necessary for the part. Maybe that's the reason Hollywood can justify so many remakes!If you like this franchise, it's probably a good idea to pay homage to the original, especially if you're planning on going to see the new one in the fall. This version isn't bad at all, but compared to the newer two, it does fall short a little, so just be prepared. I'd recommend watching the 1954 version first.

preppy-3 Esther Blodgett (Janet Gaynor) goes to Hollywood to become a star. There she meets Norman Maine (Frederic March) who was big but whose alcoholism is destroying his career. They fall in love and get married. Esther quickly becomes a big star while Norman's career disappears. Will their marriage survive? Familiar story but beautifully done. It was shot in rich Technicolor and won a special Oscar for it. It also won an Oscar for Best Story. The two leads are great in their roles and the movie moves at a quick pace. Everybody knows how this story will turn out but it's so well-done it won't bother you. It was redone twice--once with Judy Garland in the 1950s and then Barbra Streisand in the 1970s. The Streisand one is terrible but the Garland one is great. This is just as good as the Garland one. Worth seeing.

tmpj Fredric March is one of my very favorite actors, and almost all of his movies are quality merchandise. I've not seen them all, but of all that I have seen, they all rate high in my book. This version of "A Star Is Born" is very special...it was made just a decade after pictures converted to sound. If we put the action 'right in the moment', one wonders how Norman Maine could have been washed up in less than a decade...especially if he passed all the rigorous criteria to make it into the talkie era. But we must suspend common sense for a time, in order to get into the movie. His star is fading even as we are introduced to him. Wine, women, song, and the theatre of the bombastic have all taken their toll on Norman. Everybody is back-biting him as being washed up in the business...and all seem to know it ...except Norman, that is. Meeting aspiring starlet from the Midwest, Esther Blodgett, is a bit of serendipity for both of them...though with different outcomes. He arranges a screen test, even twists the producer's arm to star her in a vehicle, which is a success. As her star rises, his continues to fade and fade until he is practically dead in the business. If he had problems when he was still a star, you can imagine what horrors he must have endured as his career is eclipsed by that of his wife, now known as Vicki Lester, who has begun to appear in her own highly acclaimed movies...even winning a coveted Academy Award (which Gaynor did in fact win some years earlier...the first actress to be awarded in her category). Humiliation is piled upon humiliation for Norman. Vicki loves him so much that she decides to put the brakes on her own career to take care of him. Norman now sees that he has lost all that he had, but cannot endure this selfless sacrifice his wife is making. If you have not already seen the movie ( are there aliens living amongst us?) or one of its several derivatives, I will stop there, and let you see the movie for yourself. The performances are sensitive, and this was probably one of Hollywood's first efforts to look at itself with some measure of honesty. The viewer connects with Esther Blodgett and her aspirations, and they want her to win. Fredric March draws out the true tragedian that Norman Maine represents, and his performance shows how pitiful one can become when one's life is shattered and dreams and ambitions disappear like snowdrifts in the springtime. Kudos go to Adolphe Menjou as producer Oliver Niles, Lionel Stander as the no-nonsense PR man ( what a contradiction in terms), who has no sympathy for Norman and contributes to Maine's ultimate decline...and to May Robson. May we all have a Granny like her to come to the rescue in our darkest hour. This version of a "Star Is Born" is best because it is the most dramatic and most honest of the numerous versions. It is raw and gritty, yet it never loses its focus or sensitivity. See the other versions of the movie if you feel you must, but do make an effort to see this one first.

edwagreen Perhaps, it's because of the crackling of the film, but the 1937 version of "A Star is Born," doesn't hold a candle to the musical version of 17 years later.Janet Gaynor, as Esther/Vickie, doesn't hold a candle to Judy Garland's interpretation of the same role. Fredric March is wonderful, but even he was eclipsed by James Mason in the Garland version.Gaynor seemed rather too shy for the part and there is a total lack of dramatic intensity on her part which was sorely needed.The 1937 film was in black and white and this may very well have been appropriate to set the moody dramatic stage. With the musical version, you needed the necessary color to highlight not only the musical numbers, but the emotional heartbreak as well.