MovieChat Forums > A Star Is Born (1954) Discussion > Is it worth three hours of my time?

Is it worth three hours of my time?


Three hours seems really long for a movie this old. Is it worth my time? Is it ever boring as a result?


The first responders seem to think I'm one of those jerks that doesn't like old or long movies just on principle. This is not the case. I have this movie among many others out from the library, and they are coming due (I admit I didn't think things through when I checked out so many at once). This is by far the longest of them, and I need to set priorities if I don't want to rack up overdue fines. That is all.

reply


Since when does a three-hour movie have anything to do with its age?
If you're concerned about something like this, I'd skip it. You don't
come across as someone who'd want to invest the "time."

BTW, "Gone With The Wind" is three hours AND 45 minutes, and it was released
in 1939.

reply

'Three hours seems really long for a movie this old. Is it worth my time? Is it ever boring as a result?'
---------------------------------
I love it
You know, to not risk losing any of your valuable time, you better pass on it. We they edit it down to 90 mins and add some FX, you would likely feel more tolerant and prevent any dissapointment.

Other option:
Find a older film from that era clocked in at 65 mins(they exist) and you can't lose.

reply

If you have a short attention span then you will be bored. This film unfolds slowly compared to today's films. I love this film.

reply


Yes AND no. By today's standards, the film would feel long, as everything
in modern movies is explosions, followed by the "characters" saying
"cool" and "awesome."

By the standards of intelligent audiences,this three-hour film is paced
marvelously. A true tribute to director George Cukor.

reply

I would avoid it unless you are a fan of Cukor or Judy Garland. It's one of my favourite movies, but I have a feeling from your tone that you'd be bored by it.

"What do you want me to do, draw a picture? Spell it out!"

reply

I remember when I first saw Once Upon a Time in America it felt like only an hour past but I have seen short films that have felt like 3 hours so hopefully you were in a frame of mind that you could invest 3 hours I'm about to do that tonight

reply

I gues you would rather watch "Keeping up with the Kardashians" "America Funniest Home Videos" or "American Idol" those show are garbage and not worth my time but maybe you'll love them an watch them BUT those shows are not worth my time

reply

You might want to skip this version in favor of the 1937 film which is shorter (and not a musical). It has nothing to do with your attention span as some suggest. Personally, I'd go for the Janet Gaynor/Frederick March version.

reply

You aren't worthy of watching it. Try one of the police academy movies or something like that.

reply

I understand the OP's feelings. I kinda understand the attitude replies, but guys you should be more tolerant! I can't believe how many nasty replies there are here. Did you all always love old movies? This person is interested in this movie and has doubts. Instead of driving him away you should explain why it's worth watching and try to explain how old movies are different and can be more magical than newer ones, instead you tell him he's an idiot and should watch whatever junky blockbuster.
Because old movies have to rely on story and performance etc while newer movies have different attractions, one would be effects. They can lack other things though, as old movies have a really special look to them because of the way they were filmed, be it the technicolor, the way of filming, if it was an early Cinemascope movie, if it was in BW.

You have clearly baptised yourselves as ASIB fans and will shoot whoever questions its cult status.
I can identify myself in his attitude, and not that long ago. I still do think sometimes, man do I wanna watch this movie, it's so long, it probably has lots of long scenes that might not be able to hold everyone's attention. And let's face it, this movie is not 100% fab fab fab. He might love the movie but not like some musical numbers. I personally rate The Man I Love as the song I like to watch/listen to the least.

The problem I see with this particular movie is that there is a big chance the audio-only scenes will be boring. They sure bore me the first time around, even though I was already a Judy fan and loved this movie's cult status. The appreciation of other aspects of it came with time.
Unless he's a fan of Garland, then he might want to skip those scenes, maybe there is a special feature like that.
As for the movie itself, there are parts that might feel a bit less entertaining than others, but in the end you will be rewarded. I think I've watched it 3-5 times so far, every time on a new medium (tv, vhs, dvd, bluray), and I like more and more. The last time I was actually shocked at home dramatic it was and what they allowed to shoot. The last beach scene (so not to spoil it) is quite daring as it's clear what he's doing.
It gets to me every time.
So, OP, yes give it a chance, in case watch the edited version first, you won't miss much if you have these doubts now. You can always watch the long version later.

reply