A Star is Born Reviews
The most financially successful version of this particular tale, previously made in 1937 (with Janet Gaynor and Fredric March) and 1954 (with Judy Garland and James Mason) where the protagonist was an actress. It was also remade in India as 'Aashiqui 2' (2013) and inspired Malaysia's 'Bharatham' (1991). 'Up Close & Personal' (1996), with Robert Redford and Michelle Pfeiffer, followed a similar premise centred on television news anchors.
The soundtrack moves me. Great flick. Huge improvement over Judy Garland's version which went on and on and on.
This remake, starring Barbra Streisand, is a fantastic remake that suits the time perfectly. Society was a little out of the Broadway and musical movie era and it moved over to the rock and roll music era which started the introduction of the Grammy awards in 1959 and with Woodstock in 1969. This was a new age of mainstream pop culture with rebellious teens, braless women, and rock and roll seemed to be the only loved type of music.
With all of this, Barbra Streisand was at the top of her game. Some people may have even known her as the next Judy Garland. She was the perfect choice to play Esther.
Kris Kristofferson plays John, a rebellious and lazy alcoholic rock and roll star in a band. He is one the majorly popular music stars during the time in this film. He meets Esther (Barbra) at a nightclub as she is singing lead on the small stage. He is won over by her and they come together by chance after they both escape the club after a bar fight commenced that John was partially responsible for.
Eventually, John gets Esther in at his studio to record an album of hers to try and get her the fame and success that she has always dreamed of.
Esther becomes a raging success and John becomes just a memory.
I greatly enjoyed this film and the many connections and similarities that it shares with the Garland version. I believe the 1954 version is slightly better, mostly because of the endings.
The 1954 version's was simple yet went off with a bang. Garland was very distraught and did not want to sing at her next show. But her friend said that she must even though she is said, because that is how she would keep the memory of Norman alive. She introduced herself as Mrs. Norman Maine and the film ended with the audience's standing ovation.
The 1976 version's was too long in comparison. We saw that Esther was very sad over the death of John but it seemed like she was ok to sing again right away, despite the tragedy. Then she sang for about 7 minutes. I enjoyed it, but I feel like I was forced to enjoy it.
Barbra I love you.
A Star is Born, I give you an 80%.
At approximately 140 minutes, this film isn't exactly George Cukor's "A Star is Born", yet it is lengthy, and probably should be, given the depth of its subject matter, though it's a bit difficult to fully tell when you see the final product and find its length perhaps too palpable, not necessarily because of slow spells, but because of a kind of consistent aimlessness that isn't so intense the film is unable to compensate with entertainment value and compellingness, but lingers over the final product all too often. Needless to say, it's not long before aimlessness slips into repetition, which may never come close to a descent into monotony, yet blands things up much too often, sometimes to the point of all-out disengagement, and leaves the film's conceptually fitting hefty length to come off as overlong, not to where blandness ensues so deeply that it distances investment to the point of rendering the final product underwhelming, but certainly to where engagement value and, by extension, full investment, take some damage. Of course, more damage might very well rest, not within Frank Pierson's sometimes questionably paced execution of his and his relatively large team of fellow screenwriters' scripted story structure, but within the scripted story structure itself, which is certainly meaty, yet stands to have more layers and depth to its exposition, not necessarily because character development is lacking, but because additional flesh-out might be needed to obscure the intensity of melodrama. Not too much in the way of subtlety goes into characterization, because although direction and performances are effective and convincing enough to sell you on the characters' and story's depth and range, things get to be quite histronic, portraying certain character and story areas in a fashion that proves to be a bit difficult to fully buy into, and it doesn't help that certain story and character aspects are, at least on paper, somewhat limited in notes. If nothing else, story and character flesh-out is presented with only so much in the way of total originality, and while that isn't to say that this film is quite as cliched as they say, it is to say that many of this film's key aspects go tainted by conventionalism, so much so that even if you're not familiar with this film's story, you'd be hard pressed to not find this film a bit predictable. This film's subject matter is strong, and is presented here about as rewardingly as it's going to be, yet there's still a fair bit to be desired that goes undercut by this film's aimless pacing, characterization issues and conventionalism, all of which go into spawning blandness that threaten to drive this film into underwhelmingness that hardly ensues as often as they say. The film has its improvable spots, but on the whole, this film rewards, bypassing most of its shortcomings through compellingness and entertainment value, complimented by good looks.
Robert Surtees' cinematography has, of course, dated, and really wasn't too remarkably distinguished from other forms of good-looking photographic tastes of this film's time, yet Surtees sure delivers, nevertheless, absorbing about as much color and definition as he can in order to grace visuals with consistent livliness, broken up by occasions in which Surtees really takes advantage of lighting and, on occasions, shot staging to provide shots that were, at the time, stunning, and remain striking to this day. Visually, the film is impressive, and musically, well, to be frank, it's upstanding, presenting lively and dynamic original songs that weren't exactly inventive at the time, but were strong, with colorful lyrics and decent instrumentality whose shortcomings go easily drowned out by leads' Kris Kristofferson's and Barbra Streisand's, of course, remarkable and distinct vocal skills. This film is certainly emphatic about its musicality and advertizes it as key, considering that it proved to be key in its 1954, which, even then, underused musical numbers, though it's not like this film is driven by its music, having it around as a supplement to livliness, which is just fine with me, as this film's soundtrack is a strong one that really lives up substance, which does indeed to be livened up a bit, though not too much so. As I said, the value of this film's story is hurt in execution, being structured upon a slightly unsubtle and often conventionalist foundation, and presented with an aimless pacing, thus blandness ensues, yet cannot obscure this film's subject matter's being worthy. True, this story is a familiar one, and not just because it's attached to a remake of a remake, and it doesn't help that the story isn't as well-handled as it probably should be in the long run, yet the subject matter boasts potential for compellingness, and more often than not, director Frank Pierson delivers on just that, providing plenty of entertaining color to distance the film from too much blandness and to keep the audience from getting too distanced from the film, and breaking up with genuine resonance that could be more realized and potent, but still punctuates a consistent degree of intrigue and compellingness that drives this film, helping in making the final product as rewarding as it is. What ultimately solidifies this film as rewarding is, of course, the acting, because although leads Barbra Streisand and Kris Kristofferson, like Judy Garland and James Mason before them, lack material until the latter acts, they keep consistent with their own individual yet equally engaging charismas, amplified when they bond in the form of excellent chemistry, and when the aforementioned acting material does finally come into play, it goes delivered on sharply, as Kristofferson and Streisand deliver on engrossing emotional range and depth that defines the genuineness within our often problematically written lead duo of Esther Hoffman and John Norman Howard. The film has its problems, and they loom over the film throughout its course, yet go challenged around every corner by undeniable strengths that hit and hit until they finally break through, carrying the final product to a genuinely rewarding state, even if the rescue from underwhelmingness is admittedly achieved by a little more than a hair.
Bottom line, the film suffers from an aimless pacing that spawns repetition and a degree of emotional distance whose potency goes exacerbated by there not being enough flesh-out to obscure layers limiting, melodrama and, of course, conventionalism within story structuring and characterization, thus making for a film that goes threatened by underwhelmingness, yet ultimately powers on, going supported by handsome cinematography and an upstanding soundtrack that color up a worthy story concept, brought to life by the lively directorial storytelling and compelling performances by Kris Kristofferson and Barbra Streisand that help the most in making Frank Pierson's "A Star is Born" an entertaining and, at times, resonant rewarder.
3/5 - Good