Flyerplesys Perfectly adorable

Matialth Good concept, poorly executed.

mraculeated The biggest problem with this movie is it’s a little better than you think it might be, which somehow makes it worse. As in, it takes itself a bit too seriously, which makes most of the movie feel kind of dull.

Humaira Grant It’s not bad or unwatchable but despite the amplitude of the spectacle, the end result is underwhelming.

JohnHowardReid Copyright 7 June 1937 by Selznick International Pictures, Inc. Released through United Artists. New York opening at Radio City Music Hall, 22 April 1937 (ran 3 weeks). U.S. release: 30 April 1937. 12 reels. 111 minutes.SYNOPSIS: Unknown becomes star but finds that professional success doesn't bring domestic bliss.NOTES: Academy Award, Color Photography, W. Howard Greene. Academy Award, Original Story, William A. Wellman and Robert Carson (defeating Black Legion, In Old Chicago, The Life of Emile Zola, 100 Men and a Girl).Also nominated for Best Picture (The Life of Emile Zola), Best Actor, Fredric March (Spencer Tracy in Captains Courageous), Best Actress, Janet Gaynor (Luise Rainer in The Good Earth), Best Directing (Leo McCarey for The Awful Truth), Assistant Director (In Old Chicago), Screenplay (The Life of Emile Zola).Number 4 on The Film Daily annual poll of U.S. film critics. Negative cost: $1,221,382. Initial domestic rental gross: $2,550,000.Shooting commenced 31 October 1936 and finished 28 December 1936. Re-made in 1954 and again in 1976. The 1954 version starring Judy Garland, James Mason, Charles Bickford and Jack Carson, directed by George Cukor, is the best.COMMENT: A bit disappointing to see the original after all these years. Gaynor is no match for Judy Garland in the 1954 version. She looks far too old for the part. (She was in fact only 31, but the color camera is most unflattering. Nevertheless A Star Is Born was the high point of her professional career. Two films later, she married Adrian and retired, returning to the screen only once, co- starring with Pat Boone in the 1957 Bernadine.) The miscasting of Gaynor throws the whole film out of balance and off-key. March, however, does remarkably well and is more than a match for Mason in what is basically an unsympathetic part. We also much prefer Menjou to Bickford (a dull, heavy actor even at the best of times). Stander's vicious press agent is evenly matched with Jack Carson's 1954 interpretation. In each case, the role has been cleverly tailored by the writers to suit the player's distinctive personality. In fact, it's remarkable how closely the Garland remake follows the original script, merely eliminating the rustic background (and the May Robson role)* to make room for the musical numbers. All the same, the original screenplay doesn't have the sharpness, the wit, the incisiveness of the 1954 version and seems much tamer (and even duller) today than it was in 1937. The fault is compounded by Wellman's direction which is fairly straightforward and lacks the style Cukor brought to the later picture. Appealing color photography and great production values compensate.* Oddly enough, Selznick himself wanted to eliminate these scenes but was talked out of it by writer John Lee Mahin.

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

kenjha A rising young Hollywood actress marries a washed-up alcoholic star in the original version of the story that was remade twice. While March is fine as usual as the actor whose boozing ruins his career, Gaynor seems all wrong in the role that Judy Garland made her own. Gaynor has neither the looks nor the charisma needed to make it believable that a movie star would fall flat for her or that the movie-going public would make her an overnight sensation. Menjou heads a good supporting cast that includes veteran character actors Stander and Devine in early roles. The cast also includes Robson, who was born thirty years before Hollywood was founded!

moonspinner55 A Hollywood love story, with the participants at cross-purposes in their respective careers, and alcohol a constant troubling factor. Though not profound--and steeped in sentiment, besides--this initial version of "A Star Is Born" makes a direct connection with the audience based on empathy for its characters, not songs or razzle-dazzle. Janet Gaynor, though a very big star in the 1930s, hasn't attained a large latter-day following for (most likely) the very reason she became an attraction initially: her giving, unselfish nature makes her a prime victim for love's heartaches, and one longs for her Esther Blodgett/Vicki Lester to mature on-screen. However, the set-up for this collapseable union doesn't allow for grown-up emotions, and Gaynor remains a noble, twinkling doormat for fading actor Fredric March. If you can get passed the tearjerker angle (which also permeated the 1954 and 1976 remakes), this look at early Hollywood is surprisingly canny and sharp, and the deep, rich Technicolor makes it a marvel to look at. Story idea lifted from 1932's "What Price Hollywood?", with a screenplay worked on by at least ten different writers (some credited, some not). **1/2 from ****