A Star Is Born (1954)

Great Film overall

Brilliant and touching

The movie turns out to be a little better than the average. Starting from a romantic formula often seen in the cinema, it ends in the most predictable (and somewhat bland) way.

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.

There is no doubt Judy Garland was an extraordinary singing talent, with one of the best voices ever heard on the silver screen. However, I feel her actual talent as a dramatic actress was overlooked because of her ability as a singer. Here, she is able showcase both the singer and the dramatic actress.Some people think that Judy didn't have to stretch very far to act in this role (unlike Grace Kelly who won the Oscar that year which many thought was rightfully Judy's), but I have to disagree. She got the chance to stretch her dramatic acting skills plenty, and gave a performance that perhaps was not expected of her after spending the majority of her MGM career in musical comedies, minus her dramatic, non-singing performance as a young war bride in "The Clock." This is Judy's movie all the way, and she makes the most of every moment. Still, the charismatic James Mason's contribution to the film should not be overlooked. In my opinion, he was an extremely underrated actor. This is a great film that gives her fans the complete Judy Garland package. Definitely worth seeing.

I have nothing against musicals. Story can be told by regular acting or through singing and dancing and both ways have their own charm. But when you make regular 90 minutes movie and then add same length of musical numbers that contribute to story only by extending the movie twice, you end up with 3 hours of agony. Although movie is great, I barely held until the end. It is remake of the 1937. movie of the same name with added musical numbers and if we cut out all of them it would have no impact on the story, but we would be deprived of fantastic singing. So, in my opinion, they should have interpreted the original story through singing and dancing instead of adding musical numbers to regular movie. They should have made 90 minutes or real musical that would keep our attention from beginning to the end. Like Moulin Rouge was done, for example...

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.

Taken as a whole, this film is definitely not the classic that it is reputed to be. On the plus side, James Mason gives what may be the finest performance of his career, and that makes this film watchable. He effortlessly succeeds as a movie star playing a movie star, which is considerably more difficult than one might expect. If you don't believe me, watch Jack Palance play a movie star in The Big Knife. The story of A Star Is Born is excellent, although clumsily executed. The Technicolor cinematography is good, and Jean Louis does his usual excellent job of costume design. Judy Garland gives a fine performance and shows herself to be a strong singer, which leads us to the minus side. Judy does her best with the songs but the music score is flat, to put it mildly. There is no Rogers and Hammerstein or Andrew Lloyd Webber quality material here. The Roger Edens and Conrad Sallinger score for Meet Me in St. Louis completely blows the score for A Star Is Born away. If you enjoy hearing Judy sing, watch Meet Me in St. Louis or The Harvey Girls as those films showcases what she can do with good material. The other major defect of this film is poor artistic design. Being a big Hitchcock fan myself, I appreciate good sets and this film does not have them. The weak music score and poor sets for a musical are most likely the result of this film having been made at Warner Bros. instead of MGM. Warner simply did not have the right mix of talent necessary to do musicals; another excellent example of a Warner musical flop is Night and Day, where even Cole Porter songs can't save it. Warner could not pull off making a musical any more than MGM could ever pull off making a film noir. A Star is Born is still watchable. James Mason saw to that, but Judy Garland's performance is wasted by having forced her to sing poor music.