Star!
|
List Price: Our Price: $4.51 You Save: $5.47 (55%) Availability: Usually ships in 1-2 business days Buy Used: from $2.15 (click here) Category: DVD See more DVD releases |
|---|
Buy this DVD movie at online store in your country
Canada
Canada
Movie Reviews of Star!
Movie Review: Like a model airplane lost in a full-sized airplane hanger
Summary: 3 Stars
After directing "West Side Story", Robert Wise made one small (and pretty good, "Two for the Seesaw") movie, and then a string of pictures where the story was rattling around in a huge production like a model airplane inside full-sized airplane hanger. "The Haunting", "The Sound of Music", "The Sand Pebbles", "Star", "The Andromeda Strain", and eventually the tiniest story of them all, "Star Trek: The Motion Picture". "Star" wasn't so much a disaster (except for the studio) as it was a clunker. Here Julie Andrews is trying as she did in "The Americanization of Emily" to play against her Mary Poppins image. She's good; too bad the picture wasn't better. As far as playing against her image, a cruel joke occurred when Twentieth Century-Fox re-cut the picture, and released it unsuccessfully as "Those Were the Happy Times" with an ad campaign someone called "Son of Sound of Music", pointing out that the studio "didn't have the courage of its confections". Gosh, I wish I'd said that!Movie Review: Now I understand...
Summary: 3 Stars
I'm a HUGE fan of Julie Andrews. Here's film with Julie in almost every frame; Robert Wise directing; top-notch production values...costumes, sets, photography, choreography by Michael Kidd, Noel Coward songs...So why does the film fall so flat? Could it be that Julie is a soprano and Gertie Lawrence was a mezzo? Is Julie trying too hard to make Gertie likeable? Could it be the abysmal screenplay of William Fairchild? I'd only seen parts of this film in the past, and now I own the DVD. It's a good transfer, with a wonderful 2.35:1 LBX to show off period detail. There's the wonderful Daniel Massey playing Noel Coward, and his performance saves much of the film. Still, if you want to see the 20's & 30's period detail, I would recommend the original "42nd Street" with Ginger Rogers: More exciting, more interesting and far more entertaining. I do admit, Julie's rendition of "Someone to Watch Over Me" is lovely; she's in soprano mode.Movie Review: FAST FORWARD IN HAND...
Summary: 3 Stars
On the tails of Streisand's "Funny Girl" came Julie Andrews' STAR, the so-calld "biopic" musical of English songstress and stage star Gertrude Lawrence. A dismal box-office failure, the story line is just plain boring, but the musical numbers with Andrews at her multi-octave finest holds up well some 35 or so years later. The costumes are glorious, the sets dazzle and the entire film is worth sitting through if only for Andrew's rendition of Lawrence's rousing "Saga of Jenny". Zip through the dialogue and go right to the production numbers. You'll be glad you did.Movie Review: Lovely to Look At, Delightful to Hear--Dreadful to Watch
Summary: 2 Stars
By 1968 Julie Andrews was one of the most-loved performers of stage and screen, the original Eliza Doolittle of Broadway's MY FAIR LADY, a Best Actress Oscar winner for MARY POPPINS, and the star of film version of THE SOUND OF MUSIC--a movie that was so profitable Hollywood wags dubbed it "The Sound of Money." 20th Century Fox wasted little time in developing a new property for their new star, and (possibly under the influence of FUNNY GIRL, the great stage success that was set to film at about the same time) reached back in time to tell the story of a theatrical legend: Gertrude Lawrence.
It seemed like a winner. Gertrude Lawrence (1902-1952) was known as "The Toast of Two Continents" in an era when the term had an almost literal meaning, and the highs and lows of her extremely public private life were almost as dramatic as her career. Operating with an incredibly large budget and under the direction of Robert Wise, the bio-pic STAR! seemed to have everything: lavish sets, incredible costumes, a truly great collection of songs, an epic running time, and--of course--Julie Andrews. What more could you want?
Well, an interesting movie would be nice.
STAR! opened with tremendous fanfare in 1968 and proved an instant fiasco. All the earnings of THE SOUND OF MUSIC were wiped out seemingly overnight, and with bankruptcy staring it in the face 20th Century Fox cut the film from three to two hours and rushed the film into general release as THOSE WERE THE HAPPY DAYS. As a result, the film holds the dubious distinction of being the only major Hollywood film to completely tank twice in major theatrical release.
At the time, much of the film's failure was laid at the feet of Julie Andrews. Gertrude Lawrence, her remarkable career, and her high-flying lifestyle were still well-recalled in 1968, and Julie Andrews simply did not look, walk, talk, sing, or in any way, shape or form bear any resemblance to her. Seen today, however, this seems an unfair accusation; it is very evident that the project was never intended as a recreation of Lawrence, and Julie Andrews is actually quite good within the very tight limitations imposed upon her. The real problem is the script, which goes nowhere at a slow crawl. Indeed, the single most dramatic event in the entire story is Lawrence's financial bankruptcy!
Yes, you can enjoy the sights and sounds of STAR! But the story is beyond boring: it makes you feel that you're sinking slowly to the bottom of a sea of Jello. The DVD has been criticized for leaving out the few minutes of intermission material that accompanied the original release; frankly, I can't see this as anything more than a mercy, for the less time spent here the better. As for the bonuses, they are okay--which is to say that they are actually more interesting than the film itself. I'll be generous and give it two stars for production values and musical numbers. But unless you are a diehard Julie Andrews fan, do yourself a favor and give STAR! a miss.
GFT, Amazon Reviewer
Movie Review: A very lack lustre star.
Summary: 2 Stars
This film should have it all, it's the story of a great show woman, close friends with the greatest of show men, Noel Coward.
It had a large budget, a potentially great leading Lady, great costumes and a whole plethero of original Lawrence stage numbers, "Poor Jenny" is particularly striking. But somehow none of that is enough to either utilise Andrews to her full potential nor to tell the story of Gertrude Lawrence with the right amount of truth and razzmatazz.
Andrews was largely blamed for it's failure at the time but this seems so wrong, essentially it is problem of script, Gertie's struggle with alcohol is only hinted at. Coward's homosexuality is completely glossed over and Gertie's illness and subsequent death at 50, from cancer, is not even eluded to!
Here lies the problem I feel, how on earth can you set the screen alight with the story of a sensational life if you only tell the bits of the story you think the audience will tolerate? You need to let the audience be the judge of what they can take and they clearly hated this! A shame and a wasted opportunity.