I like Black Panther, but I didn't like this movie.

I really wanted to like this movie. I feel terribly cynical trashing it, and that's why I'm giving it a middling 5. Actually, I'm giving it a 5 because there were some superb performances.

The story, direction, characters, and writing/dialogue is akin to taking a tranquilizer shot to the neck, but everything else was so well done.

Blistering performances.

If you read about the real life Belle Starr, you'll soon notice that her life has almost nothing to do with the film "Belle Starr"....nothing! Heck, when the film began, they couldn't even get the state where she lived correct! And, she hardly was the sort that should have been portrayed by the beautiful Gene Tierney! So, when you watch the movie you need to remember that it is complete fiction from start to finish.Another thing about the film that is pure fiction is the film's depiction of the Reconstruction era. Instead of showing what life was really like in the post-war South, it shows images that seem straight out of the film "Birth of a Nation"--with horrible stereotypes of blacks running amok, dancing in the streets and being 'uppity'. The only horrible stereotype missing is the watermelon! Again, this film is definitely NOT a history lesson but promotes a racist view of this time. And, sadly, at the time the film was made, it was the popular view of this period. I really wish that when Turner Classic Movies showed the film that it would have been introduced by Robert Osbourne with a disclaimer about all this! The real life Belle Starr was NOT a woman crusading against the evil Yankee and political injustice. No, she was a crook and had a long history of marrying crooks who ended up getting themselves shot. And, not surprisingly, eventually she was shot at age 41. She wasn't pretty and she was just plain vicious.Now if I completely turn off the parts of my brain that balk at these historical inaccuracies (which is tough, as I am retired history teacher), what are the film's merits? Well, the story is occasionally interesting and the production values are very good--with nice color film stock and music. But the film also is full of ridiculous acting by Tierney--who seems more shrill and silly than anything else. As for her co-stars, Dana Andrews and Randolph Scott, they are both fine actors who are given little to do other than to stand back and watch Belle over-act badly. The only one who came off well was Belle's brother (Shepperd Strudwick)--he had some good lines and was able to put across his character well. Overall, a silly and inconsequential film. You can easily do better.

The first time I saw this film, being a "horse crazy" kid, it made me idolize Belle Starr--but only because I thought the movie was supposed to be about some famous horsewoman! (Like I said, I was a really horse-crazy kid!!) A few years ago, I was researching my family history and found out I was actually related to Belle Starr so this movie took on much more significance and I searched for a long time to find a copy. Then, when I watched it again, I was very disappointed by the almost complete lack of historical accuracy! To say the film is "based upon" historic figures is TECHNICALLY correct, but it is definitely NOT an accurate depiction of the "real" Myra "Belle" Shirley-Starr! In fact, ONLY the names are the same. Belle was a much stronger, darker, cruder, more troubled woman and her ties to the most notorious outlaws (like the James-Younger gang) along with her own devious, scandalous behavior make her much more fascinating than she was in this movie. In her case, the true story is MUCH more interesting! It's a good movie, BUT, if you want to know the true story of Belle Starr, you won't find it in this one.

This movie really left me cold. Usually I can enjoy nearly anything that Randolph Scott is in, but in this case I just can't. Maybe the reason his performance in this film is so uninspired is that he realizes how far from reality this story has strayed. The real Belle Starr was hardly an 'outlaw queen' - she was as ugly as a pig's rear end and about as charming. According to something in the plot, some guy - a military guy or a marshal, I forget which - was so smitten with her that he followed after her. He must have been blind. The problem as I see it is that the woman had a pretty name and a questionable history, so they made her into an 'outlaw queen'. However, if her name had been a reflection on this 'queen's' beauty, she would have been named 'Selma Klagshultz' or maybe 'Ethel Gumpox'. Would they have made this same movie with an 'outlaw queen' who didn't sound like one? They made a movie out of a pretty name, and modified the ugly wearer to suit.I don't know why they insist on making these stories so romanticized but this was so far from reality it was a joke. If the real story isn't good enough then write something else altogether. The real Belle Starr's story was maybe, just MAYBE good enough to make into a movie, in my opinion, but this movie is just a waste of time and film. If the makers wanted a movie like this, they should have invented a whole character, name and all, and created a story, rather than taking a historical character and turning her into something she was not. Blech.

How many westerns have there been about the life of Belle Starr? For that matter who knows that much about her real life? I remember seeing this film as a youngster and fell in love with it. I have always liked civil war films and 20th Cent. Fox put together a very good cast in the 1941 version. Gene Tierney plays the bandit queen very well, despite forcing herself to use a phony southern accent throughout the film. Randolp Scott is resplendent as captain Sam Starr, a renegade who rounds up bunch of confederate soldiers near the end of the civil war to stir up trouble in post war Missouri. Scott hates carpetbaggers and yankee soldiers in equal amounts and has no problem raiding banks and railroads for booty. Along the way he meets up with Belle Starr, who finds Scott very brave. Belle Starr is a fiery southern belle and when the yankees burn down her home because she is caught harboring Captain Starr, she joins forces with the rebels in her hatred against the transplanted Yankee forces sent to Missouri to clean out the "rebel rabble". An odd love twist forms when her childhood friend, Dana Andrews, a yankee captain, fights to conceal his true feelings for her and his hatred against Sam Starr and his rebel friends. Along the way Scott and Tierney become married and continue raiding and chasing out carpetbaggers out of Missouri. The twosome become a Missouri legend, much to the anger of the yankee forces trying to capture them. Jasper Tench, a town misfit and drunk, shoots and kills Belle Starr near the end of the film, sending Scott into surrendering to the yankee forces. Good scene at end when Scott surrenders to Andrews and both men nearly lose their composure in sadness over Belle's death. Belle's "mammy", played by Louise Beavers in a good supporting role adds a touch of warmth and comfort to Belle throughout the film.Good performances by Chill Wills as a redneck southern soldier, and John Shepard who plays Belle's brother, Ed. You might get teary eyed at the end of this film. Excellent western.