Myron Clemons
A film of deceptively outspoken contemporary relevance, this is cinema at its most alert, alarming and alive.
Sienna-Rose Mclaughlin
The movie really just wants to entertain people.
Raymond Sierra
The film may be flawed, but its message is not.
fidgee
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.
spiritof67
That's an actual line of dialog from the script. Really.The Belle Starr story, never actually told in the movies (partially because the real story isn't that interesting..) is told here in early Hollywood color and all the vim and vigor with which they revered the South. The plot hook is that one of the aforementioned "darkies" actually tells the fable as the narrator. Without spoiling the movie, Belle and her husband continue fighting after the War Against Treason, using those traditional Civil War Southern values of robbery, assassination, treason and protecting known criminals to keep Missouri safe for, well,the same people it was safe for before the War. Hey, it works in the movie.The point made by vitaleralphlouis in his review is well taken. How dare we criticize Hollywood for showing how a loving mammy would help keep Belle safe, or that another "darkie" (their word, not mine) shows Belle's antagonist how disgusting he was. We all know that negroes formerly held as slaves had nothing but love for their former (or in this case present) slaveowners.This is a classic example of a movie obviously made with care, but looked at today 99% of its viewers would wonder what was in the coffee they served at the story-pitching conference. Because even as a joke, this kind of movie could never be made again, and if there's one good thing you can say about Hollywood, that's it.Oh, and by the way: a moment of silence for black actors like Louise Beavers who could only find work like this in her era.
aromatic-2
Tierney does fine opposite an uninspired Randolph Scott as the fiery Belle Starr. Her scenes with Andrews have far more electricity and pick the film's pacing up midway through. A veteran supporting cast gives their all for the cause, or is that causes? The movie, of course, takes generous liberties with actual history, but that's part of the fun in this one.
Calysta
Scarlett diminished away from Tara. The red earths of the farm was from where she drew her strength.Therefore, the pale, fickle imitation of "Belle Starr" cannot thrive off Margaret Mitchell's legendary story. It takes every crumb it can scavenge off David O. Selznick's story, and possibly every frame that ended up on the cutting room floor. The film stoops to terribly low lengths. Belle loses her brother, Scarlett lost her Mother. The Mammie character. Southern determination. It's civil war setting is enough to make the entire laughable production, conceived in a studio bound setting definitely not one to be watched. Although the "Gone With the Wind" novel, brilliant but appalling racist, manages to steer clear of the controversial offence it may have triggered, "Belle Starr" seems to relish in it. Trimmings, interior sets, costumes, Gene Tierney or no Gene Tierney, seem to save it. The colour cinematography is no doubt pretty, but Randolph Scott and Dana Andrews acting like hams in the background certainly provides no aid to Belle's crusades. Hundreds of Scarlett O'Hara hopefuls did better away from the splendour in different roles, but Gene Tierney's attempt to reprise some of the 1939 glory, falls overwhelmingly and pathetically flat.Stay away from this one...far, far away. Minor, unfriendly, unconvincing FOX Westerns do terrible things to the stomach. Rating: 5/10
