ada the leading man is my tpye

Boobirt Stylish but barely mediocre overall

Lidia Draper Great example of an old-fashioned, pure-at-heart escapist event movie that doesn't pretend to be anything that it's not and has boat loads of fun being its own ludicrous self.

Sarita Rafferty There are moments that feel comical, some horrific, and some downright inspiring but the tonal shifts hardly matter as the end results come to a film that's perfect for this time.

TheLittleSongbird This said though, the 1954 Judy Garland film is still a fine film with timeless songs and Garland's best ever performance. Both are streets ahead of the 1976 Barbra Streisand version where the only outstanding things are three of her songs and her singing, the rest is an example of a film with a couple of other small pluses and too many big minuses. This version from 1937 is wonderful, it is too short and it is a case of the second half is better than the first half(though this is more an even better rather than a significantly better) but there's still plenty to love. The early strip Technicolor is ravishing, and the film looks just as lavish as the 1954 film with a real Hollywood behind-the-scenes feel. It's beautifully scored too, you don't have those truly great songs from the 1954 which is a pity in a way but when everything is done as well as it is you don't miss them either. The screenplay has since become classic status, and with dialogue that is vibrant, witty, heart-breaking and caustic along with one of the greatest ever last lines it is very easy to see why. It is the story mainly where this scores a little over 1954(very close together these two are), the pacing is more fluid, the storytelling is perhaps more sensitive and I found myself moved more, the ending is genuinely poignant. The drama is hugely compelling in the second half, aided by William A Wellman's intelligent direction, the first half is not quite so much but unlike the 1976 film hardly is it a slog either. The performances are top-notch, Adolphe Menjou and Lionel Stander coming off the best in supporting roles, of the three films it's this version with the most well-fleshed-out characters in my opinion. Janet Gaynor is eclipsed by Judy Garland, but does wonderfully in her own way, her character is the kind that goes on a journey(literally and in character) and Gaynor captures that youthful naivety developing into maturity very well. Best of all is Fredric March in one of his finest performances, a more meaty role than Gaynor's but one done with great theatrical command and touching nuance. One of the best things about this film absolutely. The two do have good chemistry and you do at least believe what the two characters individually and together are going through, it's done a little better in the 1954 film but you don't get any of this at all in the one from 1976. To conclude, poignant, lavish, beautifully performed and superbly written, a great film and the best version. 9/10 Bethany Cox

Steffi_P Director William Wellman notoriously hated actors. It seems bizarre then that the one time he wrote his own screenplay it was a rather affectionate look at the lives of the stars. Hollywood didn't do introspection all that much, but here was woven a tragical drama that was absolutely in tune with the Tinseltown ethos, even as it brought to light its more troubled aspects.Wellman was, for the biggest part of his career, a director of action movies. And even though A Star is Born is a drama centring on a female character, he still films it with an emphasis on dynamics and rugged impact. Janet Gaynor is introduced with a rapid dolly-in as she comes through a doorway. In the scene that follows everyone is spitting out their dialogue. The scene ends with a close-up of Gaynor, after which she swiftly exits from the frame, leaving the screen totally black. And this is very much the pattern for the rest of the picture. It's a neat approach which gives things a fast-paced and punchy feel.As to the actual stars of this movie, Gaynor and Fredric March were two of the most experienced players around who were still in the right age and popularity bracket to get lead roles. Janet Gaynor was one of the more subtle and realistic performers of that era. She has such earnestness in her eyes, and despite actually being at the end of her own illustrious career, she utterly convinces as a keen youngster taking her first steps in the industry. March is much more theatrical, but he has an intensity that makes him very watchable.A Star is Born seems to have become a kind of touchstone story of Hollywood stardom. It's been remade twice for different generations, and a fourth version is reportedly in the works as I type. This first version is not quite the best, but it lays down a story that will remain timeless for as long as Hollywood continues to thrive.

cbays2011 i consider this one of the greatest films ever made.i watch it often for all of us who have ever dreamed of moving to Hollywood,its a great film,watching her in the movie makes me dream about being in the movies as i did as a boy,i often thought she played the part as best anyone could, and then i found out Judy garland was in a remake of it,haven't seen it yet, but gotta be one hell of a movie movie.well I've said what I've wanted to say and have to write four more lines before it will let me post it. cant wait to see the remake with Judy garland.i think ill find it on internet and watch it tonight. I've never taken 5the time to write a review before,but had to on this movie.

Roger Burke This movie has been done three times: this one in 1937, then in 1954 and finally 1976. I've now seen only this original, and only because I wanted to see a young Janet Gaynor for the first time. Beware, however: a 2012 version is now in pre-production; although, as we all know, it may never be completed – Hollywood being what it is.Of course, this story – rags to riches in the acting business - was done first by others – principally Katherine Hepburn in Morning Glory (1933) and, oddly enough, again in Stage Door (1937), and again with Katherine Hepburn ably assisted by a host of well-known Hollywood actors, including the tireless Adolphe Menjou who never seemed to mind playing a Hollywood boss, in this and many other similar movies. The difference with Star, of course, is it's maybe the first movie to dig into Hollywood screen acting and make an attempt to lay it bare.So the story is banal, as most rags to riches fantasies are. Equally, however, it's an exceptionally well-done narrative that strips the gloss off Hollywood – in a genteelly, low-key manner – to show 1937 viewers just what it took to claw your way to the top. And, let's face it: being released in the dog days of the Great Depression and as America geared up for war, audiences of the day lapped it up. Hard times and war drums were on the way again: the people needed to see rags to riches in action, needed to know that hardship and sacrifice were just around the corner. And, failure was not an option.Today's mainstream audience, on the other hand, would probably laugh at the perceived and implied naivety of the 1930s crowd.The acting – from Frederic March as Norman Maine (the main actor in the story – such an appropriate name!) who is already on the slippery slopes to alcoholic and acting oblivion just as he meets and falls in love with Janet Gaynor as Esther Blodgett as the aspiring Hollywood wannabee; and both ably assisted by Adolphe Menjou as Hollywood producer, Oliver Niles – raises it to the level of simplistic melodrama and without descending into bathos, fortunately. And that's largely due to March, who is outstanding – literally and figuratively – as the actor with everything to lose. Menjou does his usual, highly professional turn – and never misses a turn or beat. And Gaynor? Well, I'd say she was perfectly cast as the newcomer who makes good, to a point: her down-to-earth, home-spun, wide-eyed trusting nature is personified with her looks, tone and carriage – almost to the point of outdoing Shirley Temple.Oddly enough, though, Gaynor made her last movie in 1938 and did not reappear until 1957, with a guest appearance in Bernadine with Pat Boone, whom some would remember.This production of Star, in color, certainly appeals to the visual senses, displaying the lavishness that beckoned neophytes and to which stars become accustomed, all too easily. In contrast, it also shows – with comedy or gentle satire – the daily grind of making movies and is, perhaps, the genesis of the much over-use of out-takes, bloopers and so on in some of today's productions. Photography, editing and script – particularly the last – are all up to scratch, as you would expect from a Selznick/Wellman venture. Dorothy Parker – who wrote the screenplay and who was one of literature's bete noire of the 1930s set – constructed some of the most memorable lines in Hollywood history, especially those from Menjou. Worth seeing just for that alone, in my opinion.Interestingly and coincidentally, Nathanael West – one-time Hollywood screen writer – published The Day of The Locust in 1939, a novel that takes the Star story and twists it into a horrific nightmare. Not until 1973, however, did John Schlesinger direct a screen version of the same name that has not been repeated; see that one and find out why. Not to be outdone, David Lynch, film noire auteur extraordinaire, has gone one further with Muholland Drive (2001), arguably the ultimate screen statement to date about the prostitution of screen art in the pursuit of fame and fortune, and one of the grittiest horror stories ever put to film. Considering some of the scenes of both, I wouldn't at all be surprised if Lynch has seen this version of Star.As a significant piece of Hollywood history, this 1937 version should be seen by all film lovers and the starry-eyed. Highly recommended.Then, come down to earth with The Day of The Locust and deliver a coup de grace with Mulholland Drive, both of which I've reviewed for this site. Enjoy.