Watch Star! For Free

Thanks for the memories!

It's entirely possible that sending the audience out feeling lousy was intentional

The first must-see film of the year.

The acting is good, and the firecracker script has some excellent ideas.

Robert Wise is a rare filmmaker who didn't make many losers--commercially or artistically but ever dog has it's day as they say.Julie Andrews could easily de described as a national treasure, but this role shows her limits. There is a lot of prat falling in this film and she's not a natural at this. The role calls for LUCILLE BALL type or any number of other musical comedy specialists and Julie's not up to it, nor is her personality the one she tries to play here.This movie has no kid appeal and probably even by the last 1960's the whole era of Gertrude Lawrence and that life style and career were alien and dead to the world. You just don't care about her fate or really e get past the stagey/campy nature of too much of it's long long running time.The first half hour is mostly nearly identical staged, meaning on stage--this is a musical where all the musical numbers are presented as a filmed play--even the opening shot of a film shows a whole stage with curtains and orchestra in the pit playing the overture to the film--while on the screen are Lawrence's biggest hits written out while the colors shift--it's a totally stagey redux of the opening of Wise's WEST SIDE STORY. Also none of the songs are good in that opening section and the framing device of Lawrence watching some kind of newsreel on her whole life and the film stopping for her to comment on it--well you're off to a bad start.The stages and theatres where most of the film takes place all look the same and the gargantuan and Wise-like framing of a few characters surrounded by massive walls and buildings feels stagey too and keeps you a distance from the characters. Though there are probably too many songs most of these staged scenes don't offer much spectacle usually just a small number.Andrews comes off as a jerky self absorbed character. It's hard to tell when her attempts at physical comedy are supposed to be a natural clumsiness and when they are supposed to be her acting funny on purpose. There are moments when characters tell her to stop acting--so some of this is supposed to be part of the point.The best scenes are those with Andres by herself just singing which nobody can do better than she. The final big show stopper number is also good and really the only epic sized musical number in the film, here instead of trying to make her "act" funny she shows great dancing ability and also is allowed to be sexy--something most directors other than her own husband and Hitchcock never allowed her to do, and she does it well.Basically the movie rarely works, it all feels a bit campy--look fast for Roy Scheider as a director in one scene. Robert Reed and Richard Crenna give the best performances. The scene with Reed and Andrews doing a commercial photo shoot while arguing is probably the best non musical scene in the film.Massey as Noel Coward at least plays his part with a single arch approach--though there is so much of him that you almost wonder if this is a story about Lawrence of Coward--as you never really crack the surface of either.There is a book called THE STUDIO which is a year in the life of 20th Century Fox and one of the films being made and covered is STAR. Director Wise is portrayed as being a bit bored and irritated during the production telling the writer, "This is the only kind of film they will let me do now." Though Wise during the rest of his life always talked of being proud of the film and puzzled that it never found an audience, the film he made will leave you feeling bored and irritated too.It doesn't matter now that the film was an expensive bomb at the time, as at a distance films are either good or bad and bit hits can age very badly. But this film remains an overblown misfire, you feel kept at a distance watching bits of various stage musicals most of which aren't very good.

As a cohesive film, I would have rated this film a 4. As a showcase for the phenomenal Julie Andrews, then at the peak of her powers, I would give it a 10. As a compromise, I give it an 8. I can add little to the other discussions of this film and, all these years later, my little comment will do little to alter anyone's opinion of it. I do wish, however, that it would be released on Bluray, with the intermission music restored. The picture, when compared with the recent Bluray release of Hello, Dolly! is rather faded and washed out. Julie's terrific music numbers and the fantastic sets and costumes deserve first-class treatment.

This film shares with most biographical pictures the problematic necessity of covering large portions of its subject's life very quickly, and hence an inherent sense of 'cantering through the highlights' without the luxury of developing in detail any given relationship or scene, whereas a similar story created as pure fiction would be more likely to cover a few days, months or at most years in a single dramatic arc. In the case of a musical biography, you have in addition the problem that sank the Judy Garland version of "A Star is Born" -- with big production numbers added into the running time, you either end up with an unwieldy length of film, or the temptation to cut down on character and plot in preserving the showpiece display. The traditional stage or screen musical can use its sung-through big act finales to advance the action; the performer's biography -- unless life conveniently mirrors repertoire -- doesn't enjoy that option. I saw the uncut version (well over three hours), but I wasn't surprised to learn that the ambitiously-titled "Star!", like "A Star is Born", suffered a drastically shortened re-release. I can't imagine, however, that it can have been an improvement. Even at its uncut length, the film already comes across as a cursory skate over events...The framing device used is that of Miss Lawrence previewing a sepia-toned retrospective of her own career, with increasingly frequent widescreen colour interruptions supposed to represent reality versus publicity gloss. It isn't entirely satisfactory, but then few framing devices are.A succession of choreographed songs in what amounts to a Greatest Hits parade is the principal reason for sitting through -- and doubtless for making -- the film, and Julie Andrews belts out the numbers to good effect. She does, oddly, funk the high note towards the end of "Some Day I'll Find You", an omission all too obvious in such an iconic and familiar number; leaving one to speculate that perhaps it was the pianissimo delivery she couldn't manage {Edit: apparently Gertrude Lawrence couldn't manage the original - presumably this was done in aid of authenticity}. Daniel Massey gets all the best lines as composer and wit Noel Coward, and makes the most of them, rather stealing the show. (He is also aided in this by the way that Coward is depicted as a rather more sympathetic character than the brittle, driven heroine!) In its format, the film reminded me somewhat of 1992's "Chaplin". but its evocation of place and period is nowhere near as convincing. The big production numbers are suitably impressive, but the sketchy acting opportunities and episodic plot -- not to mention the sheer length! -- make the experience more reminiscent of watching back-to-back editions of "That's Entertainment"; on balance I'd recommend the film, but I'd recommend it largely on that basis. It does have its moments, mainly towards the middle where it's more chronologically coherent, but it's mainly worth watching as spectacle.

I can't help it. I confess that I love Star. Gertrude Lawrence was not much of a singer but Julie is, so do not expect any accuracy. Julie came in for a lot of flack in this picture and she hardly deserved it.The critics here exclaimed "Julie misses the point" But this was a time where musicals were not that popular with trendy critics who seemed to love attacking musicals. I argue that they all wanted another Sound Of music. It is a pity that it did not get a better deal although it has been revived a few times in a cinema here and audiences are warming to it. Its not the first time a film has been misjudged or under rated. Julie is delightful and she is indeed a true star but Daniel Massey is a marvelous NoelCoward. Richard Crenna is beautiful and as he always was very easy on the eye. I think it was made at the time when musicals were starting to lose favor which is very sad. I miss the musical and while I love Chicago and Dreamgirls I must admit that I miss the big musical and admittedly old fashioned musicals like Star. Getrude Lawrence was a fascinating woman but I don't think Star should be seen a biopic. The stage was where she really belonged, Julie makes the film a very pleasant diversion.