Review of "A Star Is Born" (no spoilers).

[Vladimir Putin]

Compared to the 1976 Barbra Streisand/Kris Kristofferson version, I didn't think the Lady Gaga/Bradley Cooper film was all that great.

If you know the stories from the first three movies, then you know that this story is no different. It's about a rock star named Jackson Maine (Cooper) who's being tortured with booze and drugs and is about to see the end of his career and possibly his life. One time after a gig, he instructs his chauffer to drop him off at a local bar near downtown L.A. He walks in to discover it's a drag bar, but he doesn't seem to mind. In there, he discovers a local singer (who is a GG) named Ally (Gaga) and after her performance he is just smitten with her. After a show, he invites her out on a date. During that date, they have a nasty run-in with Ally's ex-boyfriend. After Jackson gets Ally away from him, they sit down in front of a supermarket where she tells him that despite her talents, she has difficulty finding her big break. Jackson then listens to Ally belt out a song and then he tells her without a doubt if she finds the right person to help her, she will have a successful career. Then throughout the movie with all the ups and downs by fate, Ally finds herself becoming a new A-list star.

"A Star Is Born' is basically the same old story in which a local singer with no ties to the industry has the fortune (or misfortune) to have a chemically dependent addict bump into her to make her dreams come true, they fall in love, get married, but his alcoholism and drug addiction threatens their marriage. Once Ally is on a roll, Jackson starts to develop jealousies over her success in which he begins to feel threatened by her wondering if this means the end of his career. Ally also has to decide if she wants to continue staying with him as it is becoming apparent that Jackson could be a seriously liability to Ally's success, leading her manager to make a very hard decision on what to do with Jackson.

Unlike the previous version, this version has an editing style that I thought left a lot to be desired. Except when Jackson and Ally are singing, there is no background music throughout the film which could have been helpful to guide the audience. Plus, this film does not have any fades from scene to scene, the film just has very crude jumps from one scene to another. Finally, while Lady Gaga is a wonderful singer and the music in the film was quite good, the same cannot be said of her acting abilities. With the exception of the music, I don't see this film getting any Oscar nominations on acting or technical merits. Instead of getting emotional at the film's conclusion, I was impatiently waiting for this film to end.

Sorry, but I feel Bradley Cooper slipped up in directing this film and Lady Gaga doesn't know how to act either. On a scale of 1-to-10, I give this film a very generous 5.

[Stavros]

Another version? When will they make A Star is Dead?

Also tainted by the 'grandfather clause' that means sex pest Jon Peters gets a credit which most people wish they could get rid of.

https://www.apnews.com/4907a2600a2d47b79f5c80517089017c

https://tendaily.com.au/entertainment/movies/a180916pmb/bradley-cooper-denies-knowledge-of-a-star-is-born-producers-past-20180916

[BJ4TS]

Most remakes are never as good as the originals. They just try to make it relevant to the younger generations.

[josehip]

Most remakes are never as good as the originals. They just try to make it relevant to the younger generations.

i don't think thats true.

both scarface's version are great movies.
Star is born with gaynor and march is a masterpiece, and the judy garland/cukor are even better. The barbra streisand and kris kristofferson is a messy masterpiece.
Michael Curtiz's The Breaking Point is the same level (or even better) of To Have and Have Not by Hawks.
The Man Who Knew Too Much” (1956) is better than its previous entry by Alfred Hitchcock
Sorcerer vs The Wages of Fear
An Affair to Remember (1957) by Leo McCarey is better than Love Affair
both versions of All Quiet on the Western Front are A+
Ali: Fear Eats the Soul (Fassbinder) and All That Heaven Allows by Douglas Sirk are both masterpieces as well
how about His Girl Friday (Hawks) and the previous version by Lewis Milestone?
John Carpenter's The Thing is waay better then Howard Hawks' The Things
Heat by Michael Mann vs L.A. Takedown by Michael Mann
Imitation of Life (Sirk) vs the original with Claudette Colbert?
Seven Samurai and The Magnificent Seven (1960) are both masterpieces
Mutiny on the Bounty (1962 Lewis Milestone) and Mutiny on the Bounty (1935 Frank Lloyd) are great!
I love Willyam Wyler's Wuthering Heights but Andrea Arnold's version (2011) is so much better.
Ninotchka is great as well Silk Stockings
Mary Shelley's Frankenstein (Branagh) is better (IMO) than Frankenstein (1931)
both versions of Waterloo Bridge are great.
and last but not least, Jane Eyre by Cary Fukunaga (with Fassbender and Mia Wasikowska) is better than the version Robert Stevenson directed back in 1940 starring Orson Welles.

Anyway, those are some exemples I got out of my ass without looking at imdb or whatever.
OH BY THE WAY, no shade on the post by BJ4TS, but when people say shit like 'most remake are bad' they are talking about six or seven movies from the 80's to today.

[Stavros]

Josehip some of your views are quite mad from where I am sitting. Scarface, Wuthering Heights, Frankenstein and Jane Eyre are not worth watching whoever made them. There are films that have been tried more than once that failed -King Kong, Cleopatra, Ben-Hur, anything related to or derived from The Bible, just about every film of Shakespeare's plays, a lot of westerns, and you cannot be serious in rating The Magnificent Seven after seeing Kurosawa's Seven Samurai, where the rain by itself becomes a character completely absent in the American version. The Departed by Scorsese is a simply miserable and worthless remake of the Hong Kong classic Infernal Affairs, ditto the Korean film Oldboy rendered into dross in American, and the brilliant Argentinian film The Secret in their Eyes, turned into garbage with Julia Roberts, who makes a mess of every film she is in because she is so wooden and shallow as an 'actor; if that is what they call it.

But, there are some notable improvements.
It is not often known that the 1941 version of The Maltese Falcon with Bogart is a remake of the 1931 version directed by Roy del Ruth.

A Fistful of Dollars by Sergio Leone is a superior remake of Kurosawa's Yojimbo, in effect a reverse experience of Seven Samurai/The Magnificent Seven.

For technical reasons films like War of the Worlds will always look better the next time around, The Fly with Jeff Goldblum was much more effective than the lame version that preceded it which could not solve the puzzle of transforming a man into a fly, and for that matter is actually also better than the original story.

[filghy2]

just about every film of Shakespeare's plays

What about Henry V? Both the Olivier (1944) and Branagh (1989) versions are highly rated. Kurosawa also made two great films based on Shakespeare plays - Ran (King Lear) and Throne of Blood (Macbeth).

Great Expectations is another example of a later version being better - David Lean's 1946 masterpiece was the third version filmed. Perhaps literary adaptations are a bit of an exception.

One rule that almost always holds is that American remakes of foreign language films are inferior. Is it so hard to read sub-titles? That said, I think the Magnificent Seven is pretty good in its own right even if it's not as good as the original.

While there are some examples of past remakes that were superior, I think the current focus on remakes or spin-offs of already successful films is a manifestation of risk aversion and lack of imagination. Better technology doesn't necessary make for better films if it's used as a substitute for creativity.

[bluebottle]

Another remake?....
Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzz........

[Stavros]

What about Henry V? Both the Olivier (1944) and Branagh (1989) versions are highly rated. Kurosawa also made two great films based on Shakespeare plays - Ran (King Lear) and Throne of Blood (Macbeth).
Great Expectations is another example of a later version being better - David Lean's 1946 masterpiece was the third version filmed. Perhaps literary adaptations are a bit of an exception.
One rule that almost always holds is that American remakes of foreign language films are inferior. Is it so hard to read sub-titles? That said, I think the Magnificent Seven is pretty good in its own right even if it's not as good as the original.
While there are some examples of past remakes that were superior, I think the current focus on remakes or spin-offs of already successful films is a manifestation of risk aversion and lack of imagination. Better technology doesn't necessary make for better films if it's used as a substitute for creativity.

I agree most of what you say and I am an admirer of Throne of Blood but it is more an adaptation of Macbeth than a film of the play as the language is so different. I take this position on Shakespeare largely because so much of his work is chopped to pieces -characters dropped, whole scenes ignored, other scenes moved from one act to another- to fit into two hours or to fit the ego of the star which is the case with Orson Welles, and Olivier, who to me was a mannered actor as his ridiculous 'Queen' Richard III shows. Branagh opens his mouth and the sound that comes out is lacking in depth or interest, I don't know how he managed to create such a successful career with so little talent. I do admire Peter Brook's King Lear but again so much of the original play has been cut it is an interpretation rather than a performance of the play. I don't imagine Americans would be pleased if scenes and characters from plays by Arthur Miller or even the dismal Eugene O'Neill disappeared because the producer thought it improved the play. As suggested in your post, I prefer films based on original scripts rather than adaptations of famous plays and books, and some of the best films derived from books are often mrore famous than the orginal.

[Torris]

Does Gaga show her TaTa’s

[christianxxx]

I think that is an incredibly cynical review of A Star is Born. I saw it on Wednesday for a special sneak preview premiere and honestly I was blown away. I think this movie will alternate between making you laugh and cry multiple times with some very powerful acting. Bradley Cooper sings his own songs in this movie and he looks so weathered and broke down, he really did a fantastic job. And although Lady Gaga has such a strong personality that its hard to separate her from her character, I think her rise from drag show performer to superstar is pretty damn cool and you can't help but smile at her ascent. Andrew Dice Clay also does a superb job as her supportive father and Sam Elliott of course is his usual mustachioed self.

I really enjoyed this film and I think the large majority of people who watch will as well. Gaga has fantastic on screen charm and charisma and her smile will melt you away. I gave this movie 5 out of 5 jalapenos and I am definitely going to go see it again.

[Vladimir Putin]

Does Gaga show her TaTa’s

Yes, for a few seconds you see her left boob during a bath scene with Bradley.

[Vladimir Putin]

I will concede that I'm in the minority with regards to "A Star Is Born." On Rotten Tomatoes, the movie has a 91% rating from film critics, an 85% from the audience and an 8.5 rating on a scale of 1-10 from IMDb.com. I am very likely also in the minority with regards to the 1976 remake with Barbra Streisand and Kris Kristofferson. I believe most people panned that version, but for some reason I actually liked that version. Then again, I was in sixth grade when the 1976 film came out, so it could be a combination of my feelings for nostalga and my disdain for romance films.