To me, this movie is perfection.

From my favorite movies..

Wow! What a bizarre film! Unfortunately the few funny moments there were were quite overshadowed by it's completely weird and random vibe throughout.

This is an astonishing documentary that will wring your heart while it bends your mind

If you read about the real life Belle Starr, you'll soon notice that her life has almost nothing to do with the film "Belle Starr"....nothing! Heck, when the film began, they couldn't even get the state where she lived correct! And, she hardly was the sort that should have been portrayed by the beautiful Gene Tierney! So, when you watch the movie you need to remember that it is complete fiction from start to finish.Another thing about the film that is pure fiction is the film's depiction of the Reconstruction era. Instead of showing what life was really like in the post-war South, it shows images that seem straight out of the film "Birth of a Nation"--with horrible stereotypes of blacks running amok, dancing in the streets and being 'uppity'. The only horrible stereotype missing is the watermelon! Again, this film is definitely NOT a history lesson but promotes a racist view of this time. And, sadly, at the time the film was made, it was the popular view of this period. I really wish that when Turner Classic Movies showed the film that it would have been introduced by Robert Osbourne with a disclaimer about all this! The real life Belle Starr was NOT a woman crusading against the evil Yankee and political injustice. No, she was a crook and had a long history of marrying crooks who ended up getting themselves shot. And, not surprisingly, eventually she was shot at age 41. She wasn't pretty and she was just plain vicious.Now if I completely turn off the parts of my brain that balk at these historical inaccuracies (which is tough, as I am retired history teacher), what are the film's merits? Well, the story is occasionally interesting and the production values are very good--with nice color film stock and music. But the film also is full of ridiculous acting by Tierney--who seems more shrill and silly than anything else. As for her co-stars, Dana Andrews and Randolph Scott, they are both fine actors who are given little to do other than to stand back and watch Belle over-act badly. The only one who came off well was Belle's brother (Shepperd Strudwick)--he had some good lines and was able to put across his character well. Overall, a silly and inconsequential film. You can easily do better.

OK, this film wants us to sympathize with southerners who took to banditry after the Civil War. So what evil and disgusting Yankee devilry do they show us? A check-suited carpetbagger telling black people they can--gasp!--walk on the sidewalk and sit on the front porch, and a lot of happy black folks celebrating their new freedom.Oh, well, you can understand, then. Blacks on the sidewalks?! God help us! Keep your powder dry, boys! I normally deprecate the simple-minded practice of holding the art of other eras responsible to our standards of political correctness, but I don't care--that's just plain foul.Of course, it's not completely racist; there are decent black folks in evidence, too: they are the ones who sympathize with their oppressors and help them fight those lousy carpetbaggers who want to let them sit right on the front porch where anybody can see them! It's been a few years since I saw *Gone With the Wind*: was it this hamhandedly bigoted in its treatment of blacks? It's s shame, because one you get past the overt racism, this is actually a pretty good movie, with one of Randolph Scott's better performances.

Scarlett diminished away from Tara. The red earths of the farm was from where she drew her strength.Therefore, the pale, fickle imitation of "Belle Starr" cannot thrive off Margaret Mitchell's legendary story. It takes every crumb it can scavenge off David O. Selznick's story, and possibly every frame that ended up on the cutting room floor. The film stoops to terribly low lengths. Belle loses her brother, Scarlett lost her Mother. The Mammie character. Southern determination. It's civil war setting is enough to make the entire laughable production, conceived in a studio bound setting definitely not one to be watched. Although the "Gone With the Wind" novel, brilliant but appalling racist, manages to steer clear of the controversial offence it may have triggered, "Belle Starr" seems to relish in it. Trimmings, interior sets, costumes, Gene Tierney or no Gene Tierney, seem to save it. The colour cinematography is no doubt pretty, but Randolph Scott and Dana Andrews acting like hams in the background certainly provides no aid to Belle's crusades. Hundreds of Scarlett O'Hara hopefuls did better away from the splendour in different roles, but Gene Tierney's attempt to reprise some of the 1939 glory, falls overwhelmingly and pathetically flat.Stay away from this one...far, far away. Minor, unfriendly, unconvincing FOX Westerns do terrible things to the stomach. Rating: 5/10

This shoddy little production is a cheap and pale imitation of "Gone With the Wind", with a horribly mis-cast Gene Tierney struggling with accent and script. Randolph Scott and Dana Andrews don't help by being planks of wood.Still Gene looks great, and the costumes are nice, - but the whole thing is so unbelievable. And so obviously designed to capitalise on the success of GWTW, even down to the Mammie character played here well by Louise Beavers. And the film is very racist - almost like "Birth of A Nation" - with the newly liberated blacks portrayed as getting above their station and, in one scene, getting chased out of town by Gene and Randolph.