Wonderfully offbeat film!

People are voting emotionally.

Good , But It Is Overrated By Some

The thing I enjoyed most about the film is the fact that it doesn't shy away from being a super-sized-cliche;

The first time I saw this film, being a "horse crazy" kid, it made me idolize Belle Starr--but only because I thought the movie was supposed to be about some famous horsewoman! (Like I said, I was a really horse-crazy kid!!) A few years ago, I was researching my family history and found out I was actually related to Belle Starr so this movie took on much more significance and I searched for a long time to find a copy. Then, when I watched it again, I was very disappointed by the almost complete lack of historical accuracy! To say the film is "based upon" historic figures is TECHNICALLY correct, but it is definitely NOT an accurate depiction of the "real" Myra "Belle" Shirley-Starr! In fact, ONLY the names are the same. Belle was a much stronger, darker, cruder, more troubled woman and her ties to the most notorious outlaws (like the James-Younger gang) along with her own devious, scandalous behavior make her much more fascinating than she was in this movie. In her case, the true story is MUCH more interesting! It's a good movie, BUT, if you want to know the true story of Belle Starr, you won't find it in this one.

That's an actual line of dialog from the script. Really.The Belle Starr story, never actually told in the movies (partially because the real story isn't that interesting..) is told here in early Hollywood color and all the vim and vigor with which they revered the South. The plot hook is that one of the aforementioned "darkies" actually tells the fable as the narrator. Without spoiling the movie, Belle and her husband continue fighting after the War Against Treason, using those traditional Civil War Southern values of robbery, assassination, treason and protecting known criminals to keep Missouri safe for, well,the same people it was safe for before the War. Hey, it works in the movie.The point made by vitaleralphlouis in his review is well taken. How dare we criticize Hollywood for showing how a loving mammy would help keep Belle safe, or that another "darkie" (their word, not mine) shows Belle's antagonist how disgusting he was. We all know that negroes formerly held as slaves had nothing but love for their former (or in this case present) slaveowners.This is a classic example of a movie obviously made with care, but looked at today 99% of its viewers would wonder what was in the coffee they served at the story-pitching conference. Because even as a joke, this kind of movie could never be made again, and if there's one good thing you can say about Hollywood, that's it.Oh, and by the way: a moment of silence for black actors like Louise Beavers who could only find work like this in her era.

This is my favorite Randolph Scott movie because it is his most romantic. He was never given the chance to get the girl. Usually in most of his movies he lost the girl or you didn't care if he won the girl. The chemistry between Randolph Scott and Gene Tierney is like a fire in a barbeque. It helps that Dana Andrews tries to confuse the situation. Also, this movie is based on real people. In "Belle Starr", these people are exciting and beautiful. Hollywood makes historical movies that you hope are accurate but are probably not.

Tierney does fine opposite an uninspired Randolph Scott as the fiery Belle Starr. Her scenes with Andrews have far more electricity and pick the film's pacing up midway through. A veteran supporting cast gives their all for the cause, or is that causes? The movie, of course, takes generous liberties with actual history, but that's part of the fun in this one.