Scanialara You won't be disappointed!

Cathardincu Surprisingly incoherent and boring

Ameriatch One of the best films i have seen

Claysaba Excellent, Without a doubt!!

ritasabrina It seems you can't help making comparisons...well, I must admit that before seeing "A star is born"1937 version I was sure nothing could surpass the intensity that Judy Garland brought to the role of Vicky Lester in the fine Cukor version; I was wrong ,I was moved beyond words by this picture which is at the same time one of the most cruel and adult movie ever made on Hollywood and a poignant, heartbreaking love story. I admired so much the superior dialogue and, most of all,the brilliance of the whole cast-.Janet Gaynor, though maybe not the ideal choice for the role of Vicky Lester, gives a sincere, sensitive performance but what really makes this picture outstanding is Fredric March's superb portrayal of Norman Maine.He really makes Norman came alive as a real human being, weak, charming, self disruptive but generous and capable of love. A multi-faceted, restrained performance that after so many years still touches the heart

sddavis63 It struck me that the focus was a bit off in this movie - a focus established by the title, which seems to put the spotlight on Esther. Janet Gaynor was excellent in the part of Esther in what was basically a very good movie - but nothing (not even the title) should have implied that Esther was the focus of the movie. Esther as a character just really didn't make that much of a connection with me. I didn't care all that much about her.Esther was a naive and innocent country girl - dazzled by the movies; attending the "moving pictures" in town, and reading all the gossip magazines. She harbours a dream to go to Hollywood and become a star herself. Her family is either amused by her dream, or they're disdainful of it and even antagonistic toward it - except for her grandmother, who finally gives her the cash to travel to California. Once there, Esther doesn't have much luck finding acting jobs, and money is hard to come by. But one day, working as a waitress at a big Hollywood party, she meets movie star Harold Maine (Fredric March), who is smitten with her and arranges for her to star opposite him in his next movie. Renamed Vicki Lester, Esther becomes a huge star. It's a success story, a story of following your dreams. And that's fine - except that the focus of this really needed to be on Harold.First, March was absolutely superb in the part. But more than that, Harold was simply the more interesting character. His career was on the downswing by the time he met Esther. Parts were getting harder for him to find, the reviews were getting worse and he was starting to drink heavily. I was sympathetic to him, as I watched his entire life crumble around him. I was embarrassed for him as I watched him stumble from one drunken public escapade to another. He loved Esther, but even then he found himself overshadowed by her, to the point at which he was barely recognized, and referred to as "Mr. Lester." March's concluding scene (after he's heard Esther say that she's going to give up her career to help him) is powerful. There's a marvellous message sent by director William Wellman as, during that final scene, he has Harold staring out the window at the sun setting over the ocean, and you know what's coming: an act of self-sacrifice, so that Esther won't have to give up her career to care for him. March's performance and the character himself is powerful; at times riveting.There's also a lot of reflection on the idea of "stars" - the publicity machine that makes them but just as easily spits them out; there's an early look at a sort of paparazzi frenzy around Harold; there's the adoring fans who pester Esther for an autograph - while she's leaving the church after Harold's funeral!It's a very well done movie. I just thought that it was a mistake to have the title focus on Esther, when the power of the movie was Harold's fall and ultimate demise. (9/10)

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.

Roger Burke This movie has been done three times: this one in 1937, then in 1954 and finally 1976. I've now seen only this original, and only because I wanted to see a young Janet Gaynor for the first time. Beware, however: a 2012 version is now in pre-production; although, as we all know, it may never be completed – Hollywood being what it is.Of course, this story – rags to riches in the acting business - was done first by others – principally Katherine Hepburn in Morning Glory (1933) and, oddly enough, again in Stage Door (1937), and again with Katherine Hepburn ably assisted by a host of well-known Hollywood actors, including the tireless Adolphe Menjou who never seemed to mind playing a Hollywood boss, in this and many other similar movies. The difference with Star, of course, is it's maybe the first movie to dig into Hollywood screen acting and make an attempt to lay it bare.So the story is banal, as most rags to riches fantasies are. Equally, however, it's an exceptionally well-done narrative that strips the gloss off Hollywood – in a genteelly, low-key manner – to show 1937 viewers just what it took to claw your way to the top. And, let's face it: being released in the dog days of the Great Depression and as America geared up for war, audiences of the day lapped it up. Hard times and war drums were on the way again: the people needed to see rags to riches in action, needed to know that hardship and sacrifice were just around the corner. And, failure was not an option.Today's mainstream audience, on the other hand, would probably laugh at the perceived and implied naivety of the 1930s crowd.The acting – from Frederic March as Norman Maine (the main actor in the story – such an appropriate name!) who is already on the slippery slopes to alcoholic and acting oblivion just as he meets and falls in love with Janet Gaynor as Esther Blodgett as the aspiring Hollywood wannabee; and both ably assisted by Adolphe Menjou as Hollywood producer, Oliver Niles – raises it to the level of simplistic melodrama and without descending into bathos, fortunately. And that's largely due to March, who is outstanding – literally and figuratively – as the actor with everything to lose. Menjou does his usual, highly professional turn – and never misses a turn or beat. And Gaynor? Well, I'd say she was perfectly cast as the newcomer who makes good, to a point: her down-to-earth, home-spun, wide-eyed trusting nature is personified with her looks, tone and carriage – almost to the point of outdoing Shirley Temple.Oddly enough, though, Gaynor made her last movie in 1938 and did not reappear until 1957, with a guest appearance in Bernadine with Pat Boone, whom some would remember.This production of Star, in color, certainly appeals to the visual senses, displaying the lavishness that beckoned neophytes and to which stars become accustomed, all too easily. In contrast, it also shows – with comedy or gentle satire – the daily grind of making movies and is, perhaps, the genesis of the much over-use of out-takes, bloopers and so on in some of today's productions. Photography, editing and script – particularly the last – are all up to scratch, as you would expect from a Selznick/Wellman venture. Dorothy Parker – who wrote the screenplay and who was one of literature's bete noire of the 1930s set – constructed some of the most memorable lines in Hollywood history, especially those from Menjou. Worth seeing just for that alone, in my opinion.Interestingly and coincidentally, Nathanael West – one-time Hollywood screen writer – published The Day of The Locust in 1939, a novel that takes the Star story and twists it into a horrific nightmare. Not until 1973, however, did John Schlesinger direct a screen version of the same name that has not been repeated; see that one and find out why. Not to be outdone, David Lynch, film noire auteur extraordinaire, has gone one further with Muholland Drive (2001), arguably the ultimate screen statement to date about the prostitution of screen art in the pursuit of fame and fortune, and one of the grittiest horror stories ever put to film. Considering some of the scenes of both, I wouldn't at all be surprised if Lynch has seen this version of Star.As a significant piece of Hollywood history, this 1937 version should be seen by all film lovers and the starry-eyed. Highly recommended.Then, come down to earth with The Day of The Locust and deliver a coup de grace with Mulholland Drive, both of which I've reviewed for this site. Enjoy.