Smartorhypo Highly Overrated But Still Good

MoPoshy Absolutely brilliant

Portia Hilton Blistering performances.

Lachlan Coulson This is a gorgeous movie made by a gorgeous spirit.

Dalbert Pringle "DESPICABLE!!" - Yep. That's right - If I were to describe to you (in just one word) what I thought of Bette Davis as an actress - That one word would definitely be "Despicable!" Believe me - Knowing that Davis is looked upon (by many) as being one of Hollywood's legendary greats - I'm seriously trying to find even one of her films where I'm convinced of that so-called "greatness" of hers. But, so far - I haven't found one yet.Here in 1952's "The Star" - Davis (44 at the time, but looking 64) was downright awful with her hammy, non-stop scenery-chewing.Her performance was so annoyingly self-conscious (as her character wallowed in such a detestable display of self-pity) that, before long, Davis came across to me as if she were, in fact, delivering a grotesque parody of herself (clipped speech, bugged eyes, and all).As I understand it - Davis openly admitted in an interview that her portrayal in said-picture as the sloppy, drunken, aging, has-been actress, Margaret Elliot was, in reality, modelled after her hated rival in real life, actress, Joan Crawford.... Sheesh!!... And, I ask you - How low could this despicable bag go!??

vincentlynch-moonoi I love Bette Davis, but by 1952, just as with her character in this movie, her best days were behind her. But, that didn't mean one couldn't enjoy a good Bette Davis performance.The main problem I have with this film is not Miss Davis (my all-time favorite female actress), but with her co-star -- Sterling Hayden. If ever there was a limited actor, he was it. The desk I'm sitting at is less wooden than he was.The second problem I have with this film, and only slightly less significant is the script. At first it seems plausible. An older Academy Award winning actress is suddenly on the skids, and she is reaching her breaking point (which might have been a good title for the film). But why drop into the depths when television was alive and well, and yes, although "Playhouse 90" was not around yet, there were dramatic television series on the air already, and quite a few actors and actresses (including people like Ronald Colman) were beginning to do work in television. But, that logical storyline wouldn't have made a dramatic film, even if it had been based on reality. And then there's the ending of the film. She basically kidnaps her own daughter (gee, no problem there) because she has suddenly realized that true love conquers all, and heads off to a relationship which is outside of show biz. Really, that's sort of pathetic.But back to Bette Davis. Her performance here is, in my view, flawed. There are scenes with brilliance. And there are scenes where I really felt she was "overacting".Natalie Wood is here as the daughter, but isn't given much of do of significance, but wow -- this was his 17th film! It was good to see an older Minor Watson here...always a welcome character actor.I see this film as abounding in transition. Bette Davis transitioning into films where she played older character. But even the film industry transitioning (coarsely at times) into what it saw as more realistic and gritty film-making. But is this a top-notch film? No. Good, but not great.

nomoons11 If this film isn't a thinly disguised portrayal of Joan Crawfords life I don't know what is.Can you imagine Bette Davis playing the part? Wow. I bet Joan Crawford just loved this.Obviously this film doesn't show her whole life but one part at the end of the 40's to early 50's. The great, or should I say sad, part of this film is how vain this character is. All she seems to care about is her vanity and the "next part" she'll get when she doesn't see that her time has came and gone. Everyone tells her but she just won't have it.Another odd similarity to the "Times Gone" Hollywood life is the part where she works in a department store. There have been so many former Hollywood starlets who have worked in department stores after their careers came and went. This film seemed to have predicted the future for a lot of these glamour queens(I won't mention names). There were old silent stars who worked in these places but this film is about a star from the 30's.I can see why Davis' was nominated for an Oscar but I can also see why she didn't win. This isn't a massive Oscar caliber performance IMO but it's a good film to watch if you wanna see the sadness of vanity.If you wanna get a real good idea about who Joan Crawford really was, Watch these 3 films in succession. With these, you'll see how vain her life really was and how she had a reputation of not being the nicest lady anyone ever met.The Star...Torch Song...Mommie Dearest

wes-connors Desperate for money, fading movie queen Bette Davis (as Margaret "Maggie" Elliot) reluctantly auctions off some of her possessions. What she really wants is one good picture; but, Ms. Davis is thought too old for the kind of films audiences attend. When her fresh-faced daughter Natalie Wood (as Gretchen) asks if she's "washed up," mother Davis says she's making a movie in a few weeks. But, there is no film deal. Sadly, Davis picks up her Academy Award and says, "C'mon Oscar, let's you and me get drunk!" "You don't seem to know why I am!" screams a drunken Davis, after reckless driving lands her in jail. She is bailed out by hunky ex-actor Sterling Hayden (as Jim Johannson), an actor she once helped get a movie role. He tries to get Davis back on her feat, and encourages her to take a job as a saleslady in a department store. The two go sailing with little Natalie and look like they are forming a nice family of three. But, Davis wants to make a comeback, and reestablish herself as "The Star" of Hollywood.This film was purportedly prepared for Joan Crawford, who would seem more suited to this particular character. In real life, Davis would have embraced the "older sister" part addressed in the storyline; and, Crawford would have done to the role exactly what Davis' character does. Both actresses knew their routines. There is nothing revelatory here - but Davis, who had the role in her back pocket, is excellent. Her typically fine, and entertaining, work resulted in another "Academy Award" nomination.******* The Star (12/11/52) Stuart Heisler ~ Bette Davis, Sterling Hayden, Natalie Wood, Warner Anderson