Waste of time

Pretty Good

Blending excellent reporting and strong storytelling, this is a disturbing film truly stranger than fiction

Story: It's very simple but honestly that is fine.

...and STAR is one of them.What an enormous talent... She was playing against herself the whole way through... More autobiographical than she ever could know...And only Frances - Judy - could do it.It took along time for me to see this, passing on most musicals as I tend to do. But, I understand it better, than if I'd ever had seen it earlier in my life.

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.

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.

George Cukor's remake of William A. Wellman's masterpiece comes across as a reflection of Judy Garland's career. She plays the rising star whose husband (James Mason) sees his career fall apart. The purpose of both movies is to indict the entertainment industry's policy of chewing people up and spitting them out. This version of "A Star Is Born" got turned into a musical to showcase Garland's singing skills, but it maintains the original's spirit.I wouldn't go so far as to call this version a masterpiece. The singing gives it a flashy feeling that interferes with the main story, and some of the scenes would not get considered politically correct in the 21st century. Even so, the movie remains a fine achievement, compounded by the damaged life that Garland led. The later version starring Barbra Streisand* and Kris Kristofferson was OK but seemed like more of a spectacle than the previous versions. I recommend this one.*When "60 Minutes" interviewed Streisand, it showed footage of her as a guest on Garland's show in the early '60s, and the two of them sang a duet.