brilliant actors, brilliant editing

The best films of this genre always show a path and provide a takeaway for being a better person.

A film of deceptively outspoken contemporary relevance, this is cinema at its most alert, alarming and alive.

It's a good bad... and worth a popcorn matinée. While it's easy to lament what could have been...

Not exactly little Miss Sunshine here, curly top Shirley Temple has the temperament of grumpy cat and the Christmas spirit of Scrooge. She's rather a dark character, a little closer to the characters that Margaret O'Brien would later play than the little miss fix-its that she had played for the past six years. She's disrespectful to her parents, rather heartless to the birds in the forest, and even cruel to a little crippled girl who offers her a beautiful doll in exchange for the bird she caught. Is it any wonder that she's chosen by the powers above for a journey into redemption with her more innocent brother, as well as her pet cat and dig, turned into human form, brought along for some lessons of their own.It's easy to see why in perspective that this flopped. Word of mouth must have spread, insisting that this was not Oz, and Temple's Mytyl was certainly no Dorothy. Johnny Russell is easier to take than Temple for much of the film, and Eddie Collins and the always deliciously slinky Gale Sondergaard absolutely superb as the human versions of the loyal dog and calculating cat. Collins seems to be emulating Bert Lahr as the cowardly lion, while Sondergaard takes on the part of the witch like cat, an irony considering that she had signed up to play the witch in "The Wizard of Oz" but dropped out after make-up tests. The switch from color to black and white after the credits does not contain a dramatic effect, and neither does the sudden transfer to color 12 minutes in. It's the individual segments of fantasy that stand out, whether it be trips to see their dearly departed or even to heaven where they meet the spirits of children yet to come, all somehow involved on their search for the blue bird of happiness. In Temple's case, finding happiness is metaphoric, because she's miserable inside, and happiness only comes when the person searching for it really wants it and is deserving of it.There are moments of great joy, serious suspense, and some where the tears may be flowing. It's only semi- musical, so there's little to distract. Some great cameos by some of the great character actors appear to wonderful effect, and perhaps the film tried too hard to express its message of hope, even being possibly ahead of its time. The intervening years have been kind to this beautiful film which has been re- made (a huge 1976 flop that seems to be pretentious rather than imaginative) but not surpassed. Anybody viewing the colorized versions of Shirley's films need only look at this to see why colorized films look artificial and ugly when compared to those few actually made in color at that time. While I stand by my high rating of the film simply because of the emotions it brought out in me, I did find the ending cringeworthy, and certainly no rival to Judy Garland's final line in "The Wizard of Oz".

I first saw this movie when I was a child. It stuck with me so I don't think it was all that bad. Spoiler: I loved the part where the Grandparents come to life when they kids think of them.So it is on TCM today and I turned it and looked up the trivia and came across some of the reviews. My favorite has to be from this person named drystyx. I am fairly sure that this person is writing reviews for their own amusement. If they are not in on the joke themselves then I consider it a total abomination of a review. How you could watch this movie and get outraged by the dog/cat prejudice? The review has nothing at all to do with anything about that movie that is in anyway real or interesting. What Nazi propaganda are you talking about you crazy person? Its a simple story and even though the audiences of its time did not embrace it, its decent and has a good moral. Its really a tale that applies to every era.

You wonder if the folks who came up with the idea of making "The Blue Bird" were either psychotic or they were deliberately trying to make the public hate Shirley Temple. After all, through most of the 1930s, she was adored--mostly because she played the sweetest child imaginable. However, here in "The Blue Bird" she plays a nasty and selfish, whiny little jerk! Why, oh, why?! And, on top of that, the film is an obvious copy of "The Wizard of Oz"--but with none of its charm.The film begins in a black & white world where a brother and sister (the oddly named Tyltyl and Mytyl) are walking about town with a bird that they obtained illegally. When they return home, Mytyl (Temple) complains and basically tells her parents that they and her life sucks. I would have slapped her ('don't tell me I don't love you, you little brat') but I guess America was not ready to see their sweetheart get slapped. Instead, they put up with it--as if she is some obnoxious child star having a tantrum and the cast is too afraid of her power to say no. Later, the children go to bed and have a weird dream--and the film becomes Technicolor. A fairy soon arrives and sends them on an adventure to find the Blue Bird of Happiness. This adventure is a bit like doing acid, as it gets REALLY weird. First, their dog and cat come to life to accompany them. Then, they visit a variety of places--such as a visit to spend a bit of time with dead grandma and dead grandpa (this part is VERY maudlin to say the least and the old folks mostly talk about how horrible it is to be forgotten!!), then to stay with some hedonists (Mr. and Mrs. Luxury) who are very selfish as well, the land of unborn babies (what?!?!) as several other adventures that, simply put, are not interesting. And, in the end, the children learn a lesson that 99.9% of the audience KNEW she'd learn by the end of the film.There really is not much to like about this slickly produced but otherwise dreadful film. My wife commented, rightfully, that watching this film was just painful! I would add it lacked fun--the biggest problem in any sort of children's film. The story is bizarre (and not in a good way) to say the least. None of the characters are likable--and Shirley least of all. I do like Tylette (which sounds like 'toilet')--the evil cat played by Gale Sondergaard. She is a bit humorous and is not meant to be likable. Oh, and although the film was expensive and colorful, the fire sequence looked amazingly cheap. Overall, a HUGE mess--and a film you won't soon forget. Best for its camp value as opposed to entertainment value. I have seen the Soviet-American version of the 1970s. It's not good but as least has more likable kids--a major plus. Actually, I think that the silent version from 1918 is also bad--but probably the best of the three I've seen. Not exactly a glowing endorsement, I know.

After having watched this movie, for the life of me I can't figure out why this picture flopped at the box office when it was released in 1940. Shirley Temple plays Mytyl, a young girl who is not happy because her family is poor. She believes that if she were rich and had the luxuries that she has been denied in her life she will be happy. Her parents love her and try to teach her to realize how blessed she is with her loving family, but Mytly doesn't believe it's enough. Without giving the movie completely away she "dreams" that she goes to a magical land in search for the bluebird of happiness. If she can find the bluebird, then she will finally be happy. There is a true dream like quality to the film, and the set decorations are lavish and beautiful. Shirley is supported by a wonderful supporting cast such as Spring Byington, who plays her mother, Gale Sondergaard, who plays an evil cat come to life, and Nigel Bruce (usually remembered as Dr. Watson in the Sherlock Holmes movies opposite Basil Rathbone) as Mr. Luxury. I love the fact that the movie tries to teach that true happiness is not found through riches and things, but found right at home, with the people we love. I have read that people felt that this was a "rip-off" of the Wizard of Oz which was released the year before, but even though there are some similarities in the story lines (young girl goes on a magical journey only to find her happiness is truly in her own backyard) but other than that, the similarities end. Both movies are beautiful and teach their lessons in their own magical way. If you have never seen this movie, and especially if you are a Shirley Temple fan, then you must see this movie. I was impressed...I think you will be.