A Star Is Born

As a drama, it's not bad at all. The story and characters are compelling, and Judy Garland does a good job acting. And of course, singing; there's no denying she's got a great set of pipes. Too bad the songs she has to work with are so bland, hacky and forgettable. Sometimes they're interminable... the "Born in the Trunk" medley lasts a torturous 14 minutes. The direction shows a few inspired touches, but nothing too spectacular. If you want a great Cukor musical, stick with My Fair Lady.

Completely inferior musical version with some hammy acting from Garland. And it goes on and on for what felt like an eternity.

Why is this 3 hours long, or even 2? Mason and Garland give strong performances and the drama is well executed but everything drags and drags.

This is worse than the original, story-wise, with the musical numbers putting the film to a screeching halt, in one of the most vicious cases of padding I've ever seen in a film. If it weren't Judy Garland and James Mason, it would be a massive waste. That being said, this general pacing gives me a good idea of the direction superhero films have taken. Why? Purely for its length.

The musical numbers feels endless and pointless and the whole thing just goes on and on and on. But see it for James Mason. It's his movie.

I agree that this film should have never been cut down by the studios without Cukor's permission (and the restored sections are devastating), but that doesn't mean it isn't too long. Once it gets to its second half it just drags, and the often wonderful musical numbers don't help since they grind the film to a halt. Yet the film's highs are quite something, Judy Garland is great, and it's very mature and emotionally affecting. I know it isn't perfect, but I was charmed by it faults and all.

Rarely does it even warrant batting an eyelash, much less being the kind of movie it's cracked up to be. I've no problems with Garland's voice, but in this movie she seems to be singing the same song over and over--and if she isn't, it kind of befuddles me how that bland of songwriting got approved. Mason is good and that's the only thing here worth it. Do yourself a favor and find a pre-83 restoration version, that's if you must watch this.

"This updated version is a terrible, fascinating orgy of self-pity and cynicism and mythmaking."--Pauline Kael. Right on the money, as usual.

Not nearly as good as the original (with Janet Gaynor and Frederic March).

"Hollywood over-indulgence at its best."

A fine example of the type of musical that I just can't stand.

Probably an hour too long, but Judy Garland and James Mason are great.

Surprisingly, the movie pushes back against some of the more troubling behaviors in the American cinema machine. Garland, who can often feel artificial in dramatic moments, here carries the movie on her genuine emotion, no doubt influenced by her real-life personal struggles at the time. The movie constructs some touching romantic drama that hits hard by the end, and even if it served as the basis for countless Hollywood-worship movies, it treats the subject with surprising grace.

Great performances by both Garland and Mason.

I liked this movie. It was a bit reminiscent of Singin' in the Rain (1952), though not as fun. Garland was fantastic, especially in the music/dance sequences. It was probably a bit long, but it was a decent story with some heartfelt emotion.

James Mason and Judy Garland really put in something of note.

I enjoyed it more than Singin' in the Rain. The apartment scene was memorable. The 3 hours weren't so bad but some musical numbers definitely felt long.

Classy musical remains a sterling showcase for its two stars (and an uneasily prophetic one for Garland), though the restored version does show that a few judicious cuts by Cukor would have pushed it closer to masterpiece territory. What we have is still superb, with an excellent score sold by Garland's expectedly outstanding vocal performances (with ...GOT AWAY a memorable highlight). Leads to a remarkably hard hitting (and somber) climax

A three-hour marathon that’s alternately engaging and sloggy. Everything we love about younger Judy Garland is right here, as if the film were written about her, and everything some of us (me) hate about 1950s movie musicals and their showtunes is right here as well, in overwrought, boring excess. Take out most of the songs, and the film would be a pleasant length, but the filmmakers are determined to make it a comeback for Garland, who’d been out of movies for four years.

# 228

Mixed feelings about this musical - Judy Garland is always a great screen presence and does fine in her role, but the entire plot involving the older actor who marries her before becoming an alcoholic... the age gap nullified any potential chemistry they could have had, for me. Plus, not many memorable song or dance numbers.

If you don't like Judy Garland you won't like this movie and must have a heart made of stone.

214

Absolutely excellent. The Janet Gaynor version is really good, but this one does just about every scene better, plus there's a lot of fine musical numbers thrown in besides. It doesn't even look the same as other '50s movies; what you are witnessing here, really, is an art film that just happens to have a big budget and A-list stars. Priceless. See the restored version

89.00

May I confess that I didn't much care for the music? And that even the better numbers dragged on, and on, and on... yet this is still easily the most potent version of the story which I have seen (I have yet to put myself through the Streisand film) and the two central performances are exemplary... Garland is extraordinary, of course, but I would argue that Mason is even better, a searing, harrowing portrayal.

A showcase for Judy Garland's amazing singing

86.500

Just listen to Judy Garland warble "The Man That Got Away" & you'll feel like you've died & gone to heaven. Garland is at her absolute pinnacle playing Esther Blodgett/Vickie Lester. James Mason is equally fabulous in this classic tale of show business - its trials, tribulations & reversals of fortune.

Most of it is just same as the original made in 1937, better shot and having better acting (though the original wasn't bad). Sadly I see no reason for it to last 3 hours, what felt added was the musical part (most of it irrelevant for the story) and a tedious still photograph sequence (a reconstruction made in the 80s because the original was destroyed). Pace is seriously affected by this in a way I didn't enjoy at all. Maybe I would have liked the 2h30m version more.

A big, glossy musical remake of the 1937 showbiz drama that largely hits its marks. The story itself is a strong one, and Garland and Mason are excellent as two married stars in opposite showbiz trajectories. Main complaint is the musical numbers themselves, which aren't particularly memorable and pad the film out to a length far in excess of what it needs to be. A solid showbiz drama that falls short of greatness.

I liked the compactness of the '37 version a bit better, but how can it compare to eye-popping color and Garland belting out all those songs? Personally, I would have preferred the "movie-within-a-movie" to be cut (and maybe one or two more music numbers shortened). I also couldn't help thinking throughout that Mason would have made a clever Bond villain, although this version does make his character arc at least co-equal to Garland's.

Not my kind of film but good none the less.

Wonderful. The movie musicals of this era are overlong and bloated but other than that it's brilliant. Great leading duo.

A outstanding artist that can sing, act, and dance and do her best, deserve wins the Oscar knowing how the academy is i can't even be surprised, but still one of the best musicals of all time and the best version of ASIB.

One of Judy's best performances. At the Academy Awards, she was totally robbed.

I love miss Garland. She is amazing here as usual.

233

A strong effort from the principal players here--Cukor's patience and visual sensibility, Mason's move from smug and entitled to broken and terrified, and of course Garland's energy and fragility throughout. The real stand out sequence for me is the film's climax, shot with a mind toward visual (rather than verbal) communication. The film's ending double's down on that climax by offering a layered conclusion that is poignant and striking.

If the whole "Born in a Trunk" bit had been excised after the first screenings rather than the actual plot, I doubt anyone would have missed it. But while I personally have a lot of problems with Garland's singing, there are enough moments where it actually justifies being a musical, and Mason in particular is incredible - at once much nastier and much more human than any of the other versions of the character.

It's been too long since I've seen this film - I feel it's time for a re-watch. (Especially considering KasperL's recent rating)

#245