Featured Audience Ratings

• Morgan S

  
  Altough slow at times, a Perfect movie. How Judy Garland could have lost this oscar is unbelievable. One of the best performances of all time!

• AJ V

  
  Garland was already a star, I wouldn't have chose her to star in this remake. I want to see the original movie eventually.

• Jennifer D

  
  Wow, I was expecting more... About an hour in I was bored and confused. it wasn't until I read turfseer's review was some of my confusion explained. About the production stills and lost footage, etc and it's one of those things where I understand that they couldn't… More
  Wow, I was expecting more... About an hour in I was bored and confused. it wasn't until I read turfseer's review was some of my confusion explained. About the production stills and lost footage, etc and it's one of those things where I understand that they couldn't have done anything about it, but yikes does it really rake on the flow of storytelling. Anyway, if you're looking for a flashy stage musical, this isn't it. But if you do want to hear powerful, belting Judy Garland songs, this is your film! And it does sound bolder than Wizard of Oz (LOVE it, and the only other Garland I'd seen before this). 'Somewhere There's a Someone' was the most amusing and cute number, while Garland's breakdown in the dressing room and then having to pull it together for another take was really powerful and shows how actors have to do it. Respect. Now as for story, the focus seemed to vacillate between Blodgett and Maine. Who was the story really about? I liked the last hour, but it could have been severely edited. Almost 3 hours?! Sheesh. I dunno, I expected more and it could have been better. A lot better.

• Devon B

  
  Gay icon Judy Garland brings her considerable vocal talent to A Star is Born. a story of the rise and fall of actors in the cold, cruel world of Hollywood. The film itself is rather like the actor's rise and fall: it starts off full of wide-eyed optimism and ends on a cynical,… More
  Gay icon Judy Garland brings her considerable vocal talent to A Star is Born. a story of the rise and fall of actors in the cold, cruel world of Hollywood. The film itself is rather like the actor's rise and fall: it starts off full of wide-eyed optimism and ends on a cynical, embittered note. Garland plays Esther Blodgett, a young singer whose emotive vocal style strikes the fancy of Norman Maine (James Mason), a successful movie star who, despite his alcohol-fueled offstage shenanigans, is well-connected in Hollywood and offers to give Esther her big break. There are all-too-real scenes of struggle as Esther must either quit her position in an act she's worked so hard to estabilish or miss her opportunity to fulfill her lifelong dream. It's a gamble that pays off, and soon Esther (now known as Vicki Lester) begins a meteoric rise to fame (and Norman a sad descent into defeat). Obviously, one of the focal points of this film is Judy Garland's talent as a singer, and a few of the numbers in this film showcase that talent in a way not many of her other films have. James Mason is, as always, excellent, and Jack Carson also gives a great performance in his supporting role (as Norman Maine's studio P.R. man). Show business is a brutal industry, and the casualties are many, including Judy Garland herself. A Star is Born doesn't sugarcoat the price of success in this field of vanity and self-promotion. Norman forces Esther to look at herself and her talent, and to take what she deserves from the world. It's not a world or career for the meek and humble. By the way, I saw the "restored" version of this film on TCM, and I have to say the restoration does not impress me. Apparently the original film has been destroyed, but the soundtrack remains, so we have scenes where the actors are reciting their lines as still photos are flashed on the screen. This may restore the narrative, but it jars one out of the cinematic experience. I can only recommend the restored version for the diehard fans who've already seen it.

• Mark H

  
  Landmark musical remake of the 1937 original about two star-crossed lovers in show business. Her fame is rising, his is starting to fade and their career trajectories form the plot of this film. Rarely has a musical featured such happily upbeat numbers ("Gotta Have Me Go With… More
  Landmark musical remake of the 1937 original about two star-crossed lovers in show business. Her fame is rising, his is starting to fade and their career trajectories form the plot of this film. Rarely has a musical featured such happily upbeat numbers ("Gotta Have Me Go With You", "Lose That Long Face") and simultaneously presented a storyline that is so profoundly sad. One quibble: extended "Born in A Trunk" number is dispensable and drags on the film's excessive 176-minute length. Otherwise Judy Garland and James Mason are spectacular in their respective Oscar nominated roles. The film may have surprisingly gone home empty handed on Oscar night, but time has proven this to be one of the greatest musicals ever filmed.

• danny d

  
  although the technical elements and direction were superb, and the story was ambitious, this film is overlong and far too bipolar. the first half is actually quite good, but the second half loses focus and takes its eyes off of the supposed star of the picture. the film becomes far… More
  although the technical elements and direction were superb, and the story was ambitious, this film is overlong and far too bipolar. the first half is actually quite good, but the second half loses focus and takes its eyes off of the supposed star of the picture. the film becomes far too dramatic to fit its own tone, and it spins into depression almost without warning. certainly an important film and one of the more well received, but its charm was lost on me.

• Jeremy S

  
  Ester Blodgett: "Hello, everybody. This is Mrs. Norman Maine."

• Jennifer X

  
  Magnificent if you can get past the first hour and you stop expecting them to burst out in song every 5 minutes. This isn't one of those classic MGM musicals per se, as in, nobody does any singing but Judy Garland and she only does it when she's supposed to. The first hour… More
  Magnificent if you can get past the first hour and you stop expecting them to burst out in song every 5 minutes. This isn't one of those classic MGM musicals per se, as in, nobody does any singing but Judy Garland and she only does it when she's supposed to. The first hour was extremely boring (excluding two showstopping songs), the second was magical, and the third sublime. Best songs I have ever heard anybody belt out in a while. Even though Judy Garland was supposedly declining from drug use her singing pipes certainly hadn't.

• jay n

  
  judy at her peak

• Leigh R

  
  JUDY! JUDY! JUDY!

• Cameron J

  
  Shoot, as much as they advertized this film as Judy Garland's big comeback, they may as well have called this "A Star is Born Again", and not just because it's a remake. I don't know if she had to click her red shoes and say, "There's no place like… More
  Shoot, as much as they advertized this film as Judy Garland's big comeback, they may as well have called this "A Star is Born Again", and not just because it's a remake. I don't know if she had to click her red shoes and say, "There's no place like the musical film industry" or whatever, but either way, this film brought good ol' Dorothy Gale back home, as well as nomination for an Oscar that she probably would have won if that darn and pretty Grace Kelly didn't win for "The Country Girl". Hey, if you asked me, Kelly earned that Oscar, simply because she was in five films in 1954, two of which were by Alfred Hitchcock, who wasn't exactly notorious for being the nicest dude around pretty women, so she deserved some kind of recognition for her hard work, as opposed to Judy Garland, whose comeback isn't quite as special as they said, seeing as how the three years without her in a film were probably spent just watching the final cut of this film. No, this film is good and all, but seriously, the formation of an energy force of burning gas from the collapse of a galactic cloud sounds cool and all, yet after three hours, I think that I'll be hitting the yellow brick road to bed. Oh no, wait, this is just some film about some girl who wants to be a movie in the 1950s (Yeah, take a number, sweetheart), but either way, the point is that this film probably outstays its welcome. Eh, whatever, I reckon I'll run with it, because this film entertains just fine. Still, it's not like the film hits every key as smoothly as it should, because as entertaining as this film is, it hardly shines like a star, no matter how much the filmmakers or, of course, restorers try. At 58 years of age, this film is no spring chicken, thus dating and technical faults ensue, as you would expect, with the biggest technical mishaps being found within, well, the sometimes painfully obvious lip-syncing during musical numbers, and also, of all things, something that you would expect to be particularly inspired in its handling: restored footage within the extended version that delivers on plenty of comfortably incorporated additional footage, yet often delivers on recovered footage that suffers from unmissable quality faults that contradict general quality and throw off momentum, though not as much as the footage that isn't recovered, because although this film's over 20 minutes worth of extensions find plenty of material, the film will often have to resort to placing recovered audio over pan and scan of production stills, whose incorporations are more jarring than they sound. Of course, if nothing else is problematic about the noble yet ultimately faulty attempts at reconstruction, then it's much of the restored footage's being simply detrimental to the structure of the storytelling, whether it be because it awkwardly forces in excess material that lands a hard blow to momentum, or because it presents unfinished expository spots that present opportunities for flesh-out moments that awkwardly never come. Ronald Haver's restoration is clearly powered by commendable ambition, but in the long run, this film's extended version doesn't do too much more than simply run out the clock and even add further inconsistency to a story structure that's tainted enough by unevenness, which wouldn't be so problematic if the extremes found on either ends of said unevenness weren't so problematic by their own rights, with the tighter moments getting to be so tight that they become hurried and gloss over many points in exposition, particularly when it comes to the development of our leads' incredibly crucial relationship, the key chemistry of which suffers considerably at the hands of a near-profoundly glaring flesh-out lapses. This hurrying doesn't really kick in until about nearly an hour into the film, but once rushing comes into play, the film darts along too swiftly for its own good, laying a blunt blow to the momentum that is rivaled only by the blunt blow delivered by padding, because as much as I joke about how overlong this film is, the final product really does outstay its welcome, even with the hurried spots, going bloated by repetition, as well as excessive and overdrawn material that blands things up something fierce especially when accompanied by a dry atmosphere that dulls things down. Speaking of atmosphere, with all of complaining about the unevenness within Moss Hart's often either too tight or too bloated story structuring, director George Cukor makes unevenness within story structuring all the more glaring through unevenness within atmospheric pacing, which will awkwardly dance between pacelessness, if not slowness that emphasizes bloating, to slickness that leaves you feeling the hurrying more than smoothness in the passage of the overlong length. The film is all over the place in its structure and pacing, and such an issue spawns at least one consistent aspect: disengaging aimlessness that leave the final product to meander along with limited punch and even more limited memorability, thus making for a film that all but borders on mediocrity, into which films this flawed can easily collapse, without compensation that is. Well, sure enough, as messy as this uneven and often disengaging film is, it sustains your investment and entertainment value more often than not, largely through style, including that of a musical persuasion. Certainly, musicality can be found within this film, and enough of it to make the final product an honest-to-goodness stylish musical piece, but all but just barely, as the musical numbers are quite surprisingly rather few and far between, yet when they do show up, well, issues still stand, as they outstay their welcome, stretching on and on, until they stand as one of your more notable components to this film's excessive padding, though one that you'd be hard pressed to mind as much as the other components to padding, because as underused and overdrawn as the musical numbers are, they're nothing short of upstanding in their dynamic grandness, rich with strong lyrics and lively music, complimented by Judy Garland's predictably knockout singing. I wish I could say that the film's musicality is more prevalent in overall presence and tighter in abundance upon arrival than it is, yet there's no denying that the musical numbers are worth waiting for and worth sitting through, being dazzlers to the ears that go complimented by just as dazzling production designs, which are arguably at their sharpest during the musical numbers, yet are nevertheless consistent in sharpness, spawned from Gene Allen's clever production designs, George James Hopkins' intricate set decoration, Jean Louis' and Mary Ann Nyberg's fine costume designs, and Malcolm Bert's lavish art direction, all of which go into subtly, if not emphatically, but, either way, surely bringing to life the grandly intriguing scale of a life graced by stadrom. The film's production value is somewhat realistically subdued, rather than all-out immensely appreciable, yet remains remarkable as the pronounced streak of paint to the crafting of a handsome portrait on stardom, whose razzle dazzle goes further complimented by Sam Leavitt's cinematography, which has dated, sure, but was, for its time, lushly colorful and strikingly defined, and remains attractive to this day, being faithful to the film's glamorous themes and style, and, by extension, complimentary to the stylistic livliness that does quite a bit in saving the final product from mediocrity. Still, as today's tediously boring abstract art films that the critics just love, for whatever unfathomable reason, will definately tell you, sheer style and artistry isn't enough to spark enough livliness to save a film as generally likeable, thus it rests upon substance to truly drive the final product from dark depths, and as far as substance is concerned, things are, as I said, considerably improvable, or at least in execution. William A. Wellman's and Robert Carson's original story concept, introduced in the 1937 film directed by Wellman upon which this film is based, is an intriguing one, with potential for depth and range that ever so sadly goes underexplored by this uneven re-imaging, though not so much so that the value within the story concept goes obscured, because as messy as the final product is, potential is palpable enough to spawn immediate intrigue that goes on to be expended upon about as much as it can be by both the occasional high point in George Cukor's direction, and consistent high points in the lead performances. It's not until the film, or at least the extended version of the film, reaches its final hour before major acting material shows its face, and it's not until the final act when acting material really starts to flourish, yet neither the lovely Judy Garland nor the slick James Mason fails to sustain your investment throughout the film, delivering on fine charisma, intensified by chemistry between the performers that is diluted by storytelling issues, yet remains pronounced enough for you to get an adequate grip on the key relationship between the Esther "Vicki Lester" Blodgett character and Norman Maine character, and when the aforementioned acting material does, in fact, arise, Garland and Mason knock it further out of the park than you'd expect, delivering on charged emotional range that defines their characters' layers and extract genuinely effective emotional resonance, even with directorial shortcomings by George Cukor. The film's final act has quite a bit of power to it, and is preceded by high points throughout the film, and while I really do desperately wish that this film could have fulfilled its ambitions and potential, there's enough livliness to make the final product, if nothing else, much more entertaining than not. As the music fade, a promising project is left beaten much too much, with a restored version that is rich with questionable moments, and a story structure tainted by unevenness, the extremes found on either side of which either dart the film through crucial exposition or bloat the film excessively through dragging and repetitious, and are made all the more glaring by an unevenness within atmospheric pacing that at least keeps consistent in delivering distancing aimlessness that nearly crushes the final product as mediocre, but never makes that fatal blow, going battled back by fine musical numbers, excellent production designs and handsome cinematography that sell you on thematic glamour with dazzling style, while an intriguing story concept - whose execution goes carried by charismatic, when not simply compelling performances by Judy Garland and James Mason - holds your attention enough to make George Cukor's "A Star is Born" a generally entertaining portrait on stardom, even if it is a ways away from sparkling. 2.5/5 - Fair

• Matthew Y

  
  Being quite the fan of the original 1937 version I was curious to see how this updated colored version would stack against it. For the most part I prefer the original with its witty dialog (especially Matt Libby's degrading jives about Norman Maine) and the opening where… More
  Being quite the fan of the original 1937 version I was curious to see how this updated colored version would stack against it. For the most part I prefer the original with its witty dialog (especially Matt Libby's degrading jives about Norman Maine) and the opening where Ester's living on her parents farm and leaves to pursue her dreams of "being somebody". Despite this film lacking in those areas it does benefit from the advent of color, which is utilized in the lavish sets and costume designs. Judy Garland was a wallflower in the 40's but she's in her odd short hair-cut tomboy look here, though her voice is as strong as it ever was. It's a fine re-make and the musical numbers keep you entertained through its exhausting run-time. Worth checking out if you're a fan of musicals, Judy Garland or old-school Hollywood material.

• Joey N

  
  Judy Garland has some great, undisputable scenes here. The best of which is her beautifully framed "The Man that Got Away".

• Brian R

  
  What a very long boring movie. "A Star Is Born" reminds me of "What's Love Got To Do With It" taking place in 1954. James Mason plays the Ike Turner character Norman Maine and Judy Garland is the Tina Turner character Esther Blodgett / Vicki Lester. Maine is… More
  What a very long boring movie. "A Star Is Born" reminds me of "What's Love Got To Do With It" taking place in 1954. James Mason plays the Ike Turner character Norman Maine and Judy Garland is the Tina Turner character Esther Blodgett / Vicki Lester. Maine is an alcoholic, meets Esther and wants to make her a risin acting star. Esther is reluctant at first because she belongs to a music group and is profesional singer. Should Esther throw her music career away in order to follow Norman Maine's wishes? She does and things don't go smoothly at first. Esther does a few odd jobs to make ends meet. Later on Esther meets Maine and this time he tries to get her a deal with the studio which he does, the two fall in love and then the picture goes into this melodramtic heartbreak. This film kinda annoyed me with the distracting restoration editing techniques, Judy Garland's melodramtic acting, and the obvious things that was going to happen to Norman. "A Star Is Born" is a very long movie which didn't need to be. George Cuckor is a great filmmaker but im not sure if this material was suited for him. Great musicals were known to be epic and exciting, this film goes the opposite way making me wonder as to when on earth is this film going to end?

• Edward S

  
  Despite the editing quirks, offbeat montages, and diluting length, Judy Garland shines like never before. She not only redeems "A Star is Born" from any flaws, some which may have resulted from the reconstruction of the film, but also adds an unforgettable charismatic charm… More
  Despite the editing quirks, offbeat montages, and diluting length, Judy Garland shines like never before. She not only redeems "A Star is Born" from any flaws, some which may have resulted from the reconstruction of the film, but also adds an unforgettable charismatic charm to the picture, giving it life and exceptionality. Even though the musical numbers may not be as visually grand as the ones in, say, "Singin' in the Rain" or "West Side Story," Garland's impeccable acting, empyrean voice, and pitch-perfect singing elevate every number she is in. Cukor's direction, though occasionally pedestrian, would also become livelier and innovative during these numbers; combined with Garland's presence, indubitable cinematic magic is created. Needless to say, I enjoyed the numbers here more than the ones in any other musical. The story itself is deceptively simple. "A Star is Born" may give away the cliche rags-to-riches story everybody is so familiar with but underneath the familiarity is a beautiful love story of sacrifice, involving Esther Blodgett (Garland) and Norman Maine (played by James Mason; the man who played the increasingly psychotic scholar in "Lolita" now plays an increasingly psychotic drunk in "A Star is Born.") Maine creates a star and a lover out of Esther, and his inner motivations (revealed in a dialogue near the end) buttress the unconventionally romantic undertone of the film. Also commendable is the cinematography; though throughout the entire film it's mostly dormant or reserved, the penultimate sequences that take place in the Maine household near the seaside is breathtakingly beautiful. Look at how the colors change from a bright and fresh outdoors scheme to a darker, alarming, yet warmer reddish orange aura. All nostalgic, all puissant, and all wonderful. There are missteps along the way, but in the end the positives outweigh the negatives by galaxies. "A Star is Born," though clocking in at nearly 3 hours, will by no means waste your time.

• Dimitris S

  
  It's this tiny difference like Kurosawa's Idiot which brings me to the point of applauding the boldness of this whimsical restoration,even without the missing bits and deleted scenes,Star is Born is placed amidst the unique triumphs of Cukor,"give me a reason to love… More
  It's this tiny difference like Kurosawa's Idiot which brings me to the point of applauding the boldness of this whimsical restoration,even without the missing bits and deleted scenes,Star is Born is placed amidst the unique triumphs of Cukor,"give me a reason to love you" as Portishead recently sang...(Mason is quite the charmer to be frank)

Read all 16 featured audience ratings