Sadly Over-hyped

Plot so thin, it passes unnoticed.

just watch it!

if their story seems completely bonkers, almost like a feverish work of fiction, you ain't heard nothing yet.

I had to search high and low till I found some definitive info about the Bradley Cooper / Lady Gaga remake, and that plot is basically closest to this film, but with country music instead of rock and pop. So I decided to give this film another look, and I was glad I did.Initially, I had hated this movie, and that had to be because I was too familiar with both stars' music and personas, and I, like a lot of others, distanced myself from the characters and the story, and could not give the film a chance.But something strange happened when I watched it again, with a distance of many years, and with the two stars having passed into legend status and not so ubiquitous or familiar now...I actually bought into the story ( for the most part - sorry, but no way a crowd waiting to see a beloved hard rock band is going to sit still for any lounge act shtick, much less cheer for it ), I believed the two admired each other's talents, I believed they worked together on music, I believed they loved each other ( yes, some of the love scenes are cringe-worthy, but now only because watching any couple being extra lovey-dovey is basically cringe-worthy ), I enjoyed looking at the hair and clothing ( although most of it was outdated even for that time period ), and I actually teared up at the end (!?, yep, I did ).So, due to the fact that this film is now just as dated as the other three, it is now just as enjoyable, and I advise giving it another chance.

It has been observed on many occasions that ordinary people and amateur viewers have the habit of comparing films. This might not be the ideal method to explore some good qualities of a film. Each film is unique as it presents a story using best possible actors as well as technicians. It is by using this yardstick that one can take the decision of not comparing the two previous versions of 'A Star Is Born' with this 1978 film which has some of its own moments of sublime grandeur. Actor, Singer Kris Kristofferson plays an important role as an eccentric rock star whose excesses also seem to cause him extreme discomfort. His romantic chemistry with Barbara Streisand is a great joy to watch. One can easily sense the disappearance of selfish attitude in their performances. Both actors perform nicely as they enable different artists to appreciate each other. It is interesting to watch how an artist is able to appreciate other people's feelings. Barbara Streisand is absolutely amazing as a shy musician who is unable to understand the world of her rock star husband.

It's always been many people's dreams to become famous. Who could resist having tons of fans, lots of money and being able to do anything you want? It's a big change for anyone who makes this transition and most of the time, they end up cracking under pressure. Once this happens, frequently, the newly discovered celebrity will turn to drugs and other means to escape reality to find peace among themselves. But how often does someone discover the right person that'll keep him or her from going down the wrong path while in this state of glory? Now a days, it happens often enough that nobody thinks about it. Back then though, probably was a different story.Audiences will be introduced to artist John Norman Howard (Kris Kristofferson), an entertainer who's stardom is beginning to die among his fans. He takes drugs, drinks constantly, and sings the same hits every time he's on tour. Until one night, he goes out on the town, decides to sit at a local bar and discover someone who can sing just as good if not better than him. That singer is Esther Hoffman (Barbra Streisand), a girl just trying to make a living, seeking love and hoping to make it big in show biz. It's John who's going to help her get there. Thus allowing Esther to as John puts it - "Getting small piece of the American Dream". Ergo the title of the movie.The movie is directed by Frank Pierson who also wrote for Cool Hand Luke (1967) and Dog Day Afternoon (1975). Pierson also wrote the screenplay with two other writers who formed a fairly solid story. The only weak point is the unclear characterization Kristofferson's character. There are some motivations of John Norman Howard that aren't exactly explained. He'll do actions that should require explanations to but doesn't give one. It's understood that he's a wild and free man but every action has a motive behind it. They don't just go unexplained. Other than that, Kristofferson's performance is well acted. It's even more coincidental that a lot of the scenes displayed throughout the running time depict rather closely to what Kristofferson himself was going through at the time of his life.Barbra Streisand also puts in a good performance as the unknowing upcoming celebrity that is forced into the life of popularity and paparazzi. Of course, when Streisand and Kristofferson are together, their chemistry feels natural. This is also displayed when these actual artists perform together as well. Audiences should appreciate that Streisand had the singing scenes filmed without voice-over work. It makes the performances and singing that much more believable and emotional. There's also a few other actors who pop in from time to time. Tony Orlando and Kristofferson's future spouse Rita Coolidge have a scene together. A very young and what appears to be sane Gary Busey plays John Norman Howard's head collaborator. Even Robert Englund from A Nightmare on Elm Street (1984) has a brief scene.Although the films running time is about as long as your normal Michael Bay summer blockbuster (which may bore some viewers), these last few pieces help make the film as entertaining as it can be. Assisting to condense the movie as much as it could and make scenes flow was editor Peter Zinner who also edited for The Godfather (1972). Then there's Roger Kellaway's score to the film, which does try to keep the emotions high. However, it's not always present because half of the emotion is shown in the singing done by the main leads, which should satisfy most score aficionados. Lastly is Robert Surtees' cinematography where he captures very large concert audience shoots and some very beautiful rural landscape. It's an entertaining human drama with some flaws.It lacks a little characterization and might be long for some, but the actors portray raw emotion and real performances to boot. The story is also a good representation of how quickly popularity can fall or soar.

Having seen the Janet Gaynor/Fredric March dramatic 1937 classic many times and the Judy Garland/James Mason musical 1954 masterpiece also quite a few, I went into my viewing of this (my second time, and first in many years) a bit cynical. I proved my cynicism to be part wrong but mostly right. But what I realized why this version has no real impact is that the title implies something that really doesn't work. The two stars have fantastic chemistry, Streisand allows herself to go low down (even into the mud), and the movie does take you into the wild world of rock. The problem is that I never believed Kris Kristofferson to be a rock star even though it was obvious that he was emulating a few performers of the time. This is sort of the "Mahogany" of the rock world, like "The Eyes of Laura Mars" was of the photography world. Then, there is the problem with Streisand. She is way too big to be believable as a nobody when Kristofferson first meets her in some Los Angeles dive and takes her under his wing. Even though Garland's talent was big, she was able to transcend the fact that her version of Esther Blodgett had not yet been lucky. Lacking Garland's vulnerability, Streisand's Esther Hoffman seems like someone who by her mid 30's should have been doing live concerts in Central Park like "Mahogany's" Miss Ross.So the beginning of the film does really stretch the line of credibility, but once Streisand's rise begins, she begins to become a bit more believable. What I see here in Streisand as compared to her earlier performances and more recent film work is a desire to command focus. This was also apparent in the previous year's "Funny Lady" where a lot of the heart was missing from her Oscar Winning performance in "Funny Girl". The intensity of Streisand's drive really works in the dramatic scenes, and there are some adorable romantic moments between Kristofferson and Streisand that inject comedy into the romance. I just can't believe either character lighting dozens of candles to place around the huge bathtub in their desert home before their love scene, nor did I feel any emotion at the end where Kristofferson takes drastic steps to ensure his wife's future.A better title for the film could simply have been "Evergreen", the title of the Oscar Winning song that describes the romance between the two. This version becomes more like "A Star is Delayed". In a sense, too, I have to also call this version a mistake, not only because of much of the mediocrity and the multiple feelings the film makes an attempt to express, but there is something cutthroat about the world of rock music where this obvious build-up to soap opera just doesn't make you really want to care about the characters. That world would be much better explored a few years later when Bette Midler got ahold of it and played a performer much like Janis Joplin in "The Rose". Its total lack of sentiment actually made you care more about her; In this "A Star is Born", it feels too forced, and left me cold.