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.

Smoreni Zmaj 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...

LeonLouisRicci This, Contrary to Many, is not Judy Garland at Her Peak. It is More like an All Out Performance that says with Bravado, "Don't count me out quite yet." After Seeing this No One did, and it Reaffirmed that Her Talent had not Dissipated, but was on Demand Anytime She Wished it.It is a "Pull out all the stops." Movie with Technicolor, CinemaScope, Top Talent, and a Length that would have Judy's Fans Saying give us more, but Others saying that a Good Trimming is in Order.What is Available Today is Mostly its Full Length and the Movie is Full to the Brim with Garland Singing at Every Turn and some of Her New Found Belting Style is Either Ecstasy or Cacophonic, depending on Taste. There are some Charming Musical Numbers, but the Often Praised "Born in a Trunk" is Clunk and at 15 Minutes it does Test the Tolerance of Anyone not Hypnotized by Judy's Personal Charm.You can Feel the Strain Many Times in this Overlong Attempt to Give Them Everything (those wishing for a Garland comeback and her masses of admirers) and the Movie cannot be Faulted for its Effort. But the Film does not Fully Succeed. James Mason is Fine and Judy's Dramatic Acting is Soulful, but Overall it Seems Disjoined, Uneven, with what may be a Sub-Conscience Apologetic Embrace that Might just be Hugging the Fragile and Charming, Multi-Talented and Ever Popular Judy Garland as a Performer more than this Inconsistent Picture.

Dave from Ottawa This was an attempt to restore this classic musical romance to its full almost 3 hour length. Unfortunately the 'restored' bits are often still photos taken from the production photo library, with the restored dialogue track playing behind them. Better than nothing, it at least gives the viewer a glimpse of what the total package once contained; a more complete restoration would certainly have been preferable. That said, this is Judy Garland's last great screen musical performance - before pills and stage fright made her too unreliable to center a film around - and it is a wonderful showcase for one of the Hollywood Musical genre's greatest talents. As an actress she had few peers and as a singer none, and this film and especially its staged production numbers create a permanent record of this. Recommended for any fan of the musical genre and essential for any fan of Judy's. Oh and James Mason was in it too...