MovieChat Forums > A Star Is Born (1937) Discussion > I haven't seen any remakes. Are they go...

I haven't seen any remakes. Are they good?

posted 15 years ago by krajackex
8 replies | jump to latest

I love this movie, but I've heard many people say they think the Judy Garland one is better. Are the 1954 or any other later versions any good at all, or do they simply not compare?

[–] vanityfair_713 15 years ago

I really like both this one and the '54 version. Personally, I prefer the remake, and you should definitely watch it. But watch it with an open mind.

The '76 version...could stand to be avoided. It's not horrible, but not very good either. It has it's moments.

Personally, I think I have too much bloom. Maybe that's the trouble with me.

[–] SinemaGirl 15 years ago

I agree with vanityfair. I like the 1954 remake just a little better, but the original is a classic in its own right. The 1976 version could have been fascinating if Elvis Presley had been able to star opposite Streisand as was originally hoped.

[–] expatinasia 10 years ago

The original is, by far, the best. James Mason is not the romantic type, and it's positively creepy to have him kiss onscreen. The 70's remake is absolute garbage.

[–] joystar5879 7 years ago

The 1954 version was OK, and Judy was OK....but this movie is not worthy of Canonization at the Vatican! (Mea Culpa, but that's the way the Garland POSSE treats it.) A performer isn't ROBBED, when the whole film was custom designed to showcase every tear and tremolo.

If Judy was "Robbed", it was 10 years EARLIER...for her performance in THE CLOCK.

That's one of the reasons that I rarely watch Remakes. 

Avoid the Streisand version like the plague.

I do hope he won't upset Henry...

[–] Cosmonican 10 years ago

A redo with Emma Watson and Mel Gibson would be nice.

She is talented and sweet. He is a certified maniac. Let him direct it too.

[–] TheChamCham 9 years ago

I pray that you have absolutely nothing to do with casting, etc. in Hollywood.

Both characters are supposed to be likeable, you are supposed to care about them. I would not waste a minute of my life on a film starring Watson or Gibson together or separately.

"I say,open this door at once! We're British !"

[–] Cosmonican 9 years ago

I agree with you wholeheartedly, that is why I made such an absurd suggestion, Hollywood is absurd.

Watson is a wide-eyed ingenue, just as Janet Gaynor had a patent on.

Gibson is Norman Main, but he hasn't drowned himself, yet.

If they could get Jodie Foster for the Lionel Stander role it would all be complete.

I would join you to throw old tomatoes at the screen, but as far as the characters being likable, I don't think so.

[–] dWillVanGreemen 8 years ago

Right
whoever heard of a decent remake

Not even Poor Judy
could save this mess
but she really was robbed

B Streisand really ruins
everything after that
Who could stand
that annoying "voice"
and anything else about that nuisance

This one is good for F March
and maybe J Gaynor at times
but F March proves himself
the ultimate performer

Right up there with
H Fonda
W Pidgeon
L Olivier
R Milland
T Power

That goes to show
how great
F March can get

Too bad the film is a mess
but F March is
the one to watch here
and J Garland out there

[harp] 🎻 [saint] [candle] [piano]

âª  Not even Mad Scientists
get it right every time