graciego Thanks to dear TCM I finally was able to see this much ballyhooed movie in its entirety - or as much of it that remains after the famous lost cuts - see details elsewhere on this page. I loved Judy Garland in Wizard, the Andrew Hardy series and Meet Me in St Louis. As far as I can tell, she managed to ruin her voice before this "come-back" movie was made. All of those forced notes grate on my ears - sorry. How sad that so many people turned themselves inside-out to give her this opportunity. Even sadder that so few people seem to recognize the poor quality of her voice in this movie. The film is beautifully photographed and James Mason is fine but, please - do not try to tell me Judy Garland even came close to earning a nomination for this movie.

grantss Goodish drama, but massively padded. Central story is interesting, though has a large air of inevitability and predictability about it. Biggest negative, however, is the massive amount of padding in the movie: many scenes seem overly drawn out or plain unnecessary. The biggest culprits are the musical numbers (though I may be biased: I am not a fan of musicals at all). Not only do they make the movie excessive in duration, but ruin the momentum of the plot.The movie could easily have been a tight 90-110 minute drama, instead of the 3-hour odyssey it is, simply by editing some scenes and leaving out the musical numbers (OK, not all - some are useful as means to demonstrate Vicki Lester's talent).Decent performances. James Mason's was the standout, especially as he only appears for the dramatic scenes - no musical fluff from him. Plus he clearly has the greatest gravitas and pure acting ability of all the performers. Judy Garland is OK, but mostly there for her singing.

sme_no_densetsu In 1950, Judy Garland's contract with MGM was suspended when the turmoil in her personal life finally became too much for the studio to bear. For four years, she was away from movie screens until her then-husband Sidney Luft helped to her orchestrate a much-hyped comeback at Warner Brothers."A Star is Born" is a remake of David O. Selznick's film of the same name from 1937. That version garnered 7 Oscar nominations (resulting in one win), so the remake had a lot to live up to. In the end, it did more than live up to original, it surpassed it by becoming the definitive version of the story to date (out of three versions and counting).The story is a relatively simple one. A talented female singer is discovered by an alcoholic movie star whose best years are behind him. The two become romantically involved but her meteoric rise to fame starkly contrasts with his ever worsening fortunes. (This premise should sound vaguely familiar to anyone who's seen 2011 Best Picture winner "The Artist", which borrows liberally from both "A Star is Born" & "Singin' in the Rain".)As you might expect, the movie is first and foremost a showcase for Judy Garland. She did not disappoint, landing her first Oscar nomination for her iconic performance as the titular 'star'. However, to the surprise of many (including myself), she didn't end up winning. Also nominated in a losing cause was James Mason, whose excellent performance in the male lead was up against some stiff competition from Brando & Bogart. Supporting actors Jack Carson & Charles Bickford also delivered top-notch performances, though they received no recognition from Oscar voters.Musically, the movie stands out, mostly due to Garland's powerful voice. "The Man That Got Away" is today a recognized classic (for good reason) and the big production number, "Born in a Trunk", is outstanding too. The songs by Harold Arlen & George Gershwin are generally well done, though one or two (most notably, "Someone at Last") could have been dropped with minimal impact to the story.Visually, George Cukor's direction is well handled throughout as he takes full advantage of the CinemaScope frame. Meanwhile, Sam Leavitt's cinematography is drenched in beautifully saturated Technicolor.Unfortunately, for all of the movie's high points, there is a drawback. Prior to wide release, Warner Brothers somewhat haphazardly cut the film without the director's involvement. As a result, some of the original footage has been lost. The current version available on home video is a reconstruction that is almost complete but has some gaps filled in with still photos (with the complete soundtrack, though). This is a real shame but, thankfully, it isn't enough to wreck the film.In the end, "A Star is Born" qualifies as one of the best movie musicals of all time. The memorable musical numbers are augmented by a pair of stellar lead performances and high production values all around. Hopefully someday we'll be able to see the missing footage, which will only serve to enhance an already impressive cinematic experience.

vincentlynch-moonoi This is a remarkable film. Remarkably long, for starters, and I can see why Warner Brothers execs wanted it trimmed down from 182 minutes to 154 minutes (the restored version seen today is at 176 minutes).It's also remarkable because it shows a bit about what Hollywood was like, since many of the scenes used real movie studios locations.But, of course, it's most remarkable because of the performance by Judy Garland. But it's remarkably pathetic that this role -- of a woman standing by her husband, who is a drunk -- so paralleled her own life (in reverse) of drug addiction and alcohol. I'm old enough to remember Judy Garland's television specials in the 1950s and 1960s, and my grandparents (whom I lived with) commenting each time about how Garland looked and that she "wouldn't be alive much longer". And their predictions that she'd commit suicide successfully before long. Nevertheless, she was a grand actress, and her musical numbers here (especially "The Man Who Got Away") are truly impressive.The film is also remarkable because of co-star James Mason. Not usually of my favorites, although aside from Ronald Colman, the actor with the most distinctively charming voice. But he is excellent in this film.Jack Carson and Charles Bickford, in supporting roles, are excellent, as well.Well worth a watch, and this will end up on the DVD shelf of anyone who follows Judy Garland. And, this outshines the earlier and later versions of the story.