Lancoor A very feeble attempt at affirmatie action

Lidia Draper Great example of an old-fashioned, pure-at-heart escapist event movie that doesn't pretend to be anything that it's not and has boat loads of fun being its own ludicrous self.

Payno I think this is a new genre that they're all sort of working their way through it and haven't got all the kinks worked out yet but it's a genre that works for me.

Gary The movie's not perfect, but it sticks the landing of its message. It was engaging - thrilling at times - and I personally thought it was a great time.

HotToastyRag There have been three versions of A Star Is Born, and a fourth is coming out this fall. It's a daunting task to figure out which one to watch first, but I'll help you out: watch the 1954 version first. The 1937 one isn't nearly as fantastic, the 1976 is incredibly different, and the 2018 one doesn't look like it'll be very good. The only exception to my recommendation is if you hate Judy Garland. She has several extremely lengthy-and pretty irritating-songs and if her voice gets on your nerves, you might want to watch the 1937 one instead. I don't have a problem with Judy, but even I keep my remote control handy during those scenes so I can fast-forward. The only good song to come out of A Star Is Born is the iconic "The Man That Got Away," so don't speed through that one. It's a classic Judy Garland spastic, emotional performance.James Mason starts the movie drunk off his adorable fanny. He's an actor whose off-screen behavior has wrecked his career, and during the Academy Awards ceremony at the start of the film, he makes an absolute fool of himself on national television. Judy Garland, an unknown singer at the time, sings a song at the Oscars and helps James maintain a hangnail of dignity. Once he hears her sing "The Man That Got Away" at a nearby nightclub, he sees her star quality and tries to help boost her career. And, since it's James Mason and he's ridiculously handsome, they fall in love.In case you're wondering why Judy Garland was also nominated for an Oscar in 1955, since all I've said she does is sing a bunch of songs, most of which even I fast-forward through, let me explain. In a movie, usually the person with the substance problem is given the only choice scenes, but in A Star Is Born, the woman who loves him is given just as many dramatic scenes. There's a famous scene, affectionately referred to as "the dressing room scene", in which Judy Garland tearfully describes to Charles Bickford how difficult it is to love someone who can't help but destroy himself. It's a very powerful scene, and one of the most famous monologues in classic screen history, because of the real-life undertones behind her lines. Believe me, she absolutely deserved her nomination.It's really too bad that this movie came out the same year as The Country Girl. Both movies center around a washed-up alcoholic actor, and both movies feature exceptional acting from the pair of leads. If it weren't for Bing Crosby's once in a lifetime performance, I would have given the 1954 Oscar to James Mason, hands down. His heartbreaking, harrowing performance makes me cry every time I watch it. It's not often a male actor at that time period felt comfortable sobbing in a closeup, and James Mason trusted the camera with his vulnerability as he's never done before. I know there are a lot of Brando fans out there, but do me a favor and rent The Country Girl, A Star is Born, and On the Waterfront during the same weekend. If you still think Marlon Brando's performance should have beat out the other two, then you and I have different tastes and count yourself on the side of The Academy. DLM warning: If you suffer from vertigo or dizzy spells, like my mom does, this movie might not be your friend. During one of the songs about two-thirds into the movie, there's a strobe light for about ten seconds, and it will make you sick. In other words, "Don't Look, Mom!"

jc-osms A star is reborn as Judy Garland returns to Hollywood after a four year absence for this headlining role where you can clearly see the woman in her replacing the young girl whose career started so spectacularly in "The Wizard Of Oz" some 15 years earlier. Yes we all know the story about the falling star coming into the orbit of the rising comet but played as convincingly as it is here and with marvellous song production numbers to boot, this really is almost a last hurrah for golden age Hollywood and all it stood for but at the same time it's adult themes of alcoholism and disintegrating marriage point forward to more a modern, sophisticated realism.We're properly introduced to Garland when she sings perhaps the ultimate torch song "The Man Who Got Away", with a powerhouse delivery which still doesn't overpower the song and immediately ensnares the passing ear of Hollywood legend Norman Maine, played with understated and underrated elan by James Mason. Yes, the movie plays Mason's alcoholism less like the disease we nowadays understand it to be today and more like an almost wilful career-choice done almost to attract attention by a fading yesterday man such as Maine.Wonderfully staged and sympathetically directed by George Cukor, Garland's musical numbers are vivacious and heartwarming apart from a hackneyed Vaudevillian medley of over-heard Jolson songs, the best of them for my money probably being Judy putting on a one-woman show for Norman in her own living room.Both leads you feel get right into their roles only very occasionally teetering into florid melodrama. Jack Carson and Ronald Bickford also deserve praise for their supporting turns, the former as Maine's long suffering press agent who eventually has his day and the latter as the supportive, nurturing film producer caught between both camps.Sure the ending is maybe slightly over the top as Maine makes the ultimate sacrifice for his wife but you'd have to be made of stone not to be affected by the final scene with Garland in close-up delivering one of the classic final lines you'll ever hear in any movie.This is a musical good enough to stand as a drama without its songs and with songs good enough to carry any other straight movie with even the flimsiest of story-lines. Put both these aspects together, mix in with convincing performances by the leading actors and a fine soundtrack and you really do have one of the very best musicals, indeed calling it just a musical is to somehow miss the point of a brave, ambitious and greatly rewarding film.

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.

malcolmgsw I saw this yesterday at the Regent Street Cinema.I had no idea that it was the reconstructed version that they were showing,if i had know then i am not sure that i would have gone.To me the problem was that every time the drama seemed to gain momentum it was stopped in its tracks by yet another interminable musical number by Judy Garland.In fact it went on that i had to leave before the end to deal with more pressing matters.I have to say that Judy Garland did not look in good shape at times.It was rather difficult to understand why she would ever fall for someone so obnoxious as Norman Maine.Also it has to be said that the portrayal by Charles Bickford made him look more like Mother Theresa than the real article such as Jack Warner.Given the fact that this film cost over $5million and made a loss it is little surprise that Graland made so few films after this or that she failed to win an Oscar.She had rubbed enough people up the wrong way and was never likely to win a popularity contest.