Star! (1968) User Reviews

Not very Wise

[marcosaguado · 6/10 · 6 February 2005]

If somebody wins a fortune at a Casino, will you finance the winner to have another go? Absurd, right? That's what I'm afraid happened here. Robert Wise and Julie Andrews were coming out of the most sensational success with "The Sound of Music". The kind of success that tends to be unrepeatable. What were they thinking then? The experts, I mean. The green light guys. Gertrude Lawrence was not Maria Von Trapp. But Julie Andrews was, is and always will be Julie Andrews. For an actor that must be a blessing even if most actors treat it like a curse. We can accept Julie in everything as long as you don't expect us to forget that she's Julie. She can poke fun at herself and show her boobs in "S.O.B" or pretend to be a man pretending to be a woman in "Victor Victoria" She can also play a quadriplegic in bed with Liam Neeson in "Duet for One" because the writing and the treatment of the character is, one way or another, tailor made. She managed to be Julie Andrews without betraying what the public, her public expects of her. A blessing or a curse? It doesn't matter, the actress herself can decide whether is one thing or the other. Julie Andrews has remained a name to be reckon with. Right up to Shrek. Star! gives her some fantastic moments, musical moments. Surrounded by great production values and wonderful costumes plus a delightful Daniel Massey as Noel Coward. But the shape of the film is a mess. We can't truly connect with her and we get lost in the masses and masses of information. From biopic to comedy, to drama to musical the film never finds the right tone. Disjointed, confused and confusing. I'm sure the film will find a new breath of life after we stop breathing. There is something in it that it's valuable and great but, at the moment, remains buried under the puzzling heaviness of its intentions.

Fascinatingly flawed musical extravaganza

[vogueman · 5/10 · 20 January 1999]

After working with Julie Andrews in "The Sound of Music", Robert Wise and Saul Chaplin were eager to find a vehicle to showcase her prodigious talents. In choosing the story of Gertrude Lawrence, it seemed they had found an ideal subject. But some serious mistakes were made along the way, which I think are the main reasons audiences rejected this extravagant production. Most important was the casting. There is very little chemistry between Andrews and her leading men, which makes it hard to empathize with the character's romantic entanglements and problems. Another problem was in one of the plot threads: Lawrence was depicted as being somewhat irresponsible with her personal life, especially her finances. If there's one quality Julie Andrews has always projected on screen, it is a down-to-earth, feet-on-the-ground sensibleness which is at odds with this aspect of the character as written. The musical numbers are the biggest reason for seeing this film, but they are staged to give little sense of the context in which they originally were presented (a common problem with show-biz biographies), so they come off looking more like production numbers from a late 60s TV special. Another quibble is that despite the fact that there were songs from shows by Cole Porter, George Gershwin and Kurt Weill, the script implies that all the music was by Noel Coward, even to the extent of having Coward at the piano at the opening night party for Gershwin's "Oh, Kay". Despite these problems, I find the film fascinating because of the lavishness of the production, which (unlike many show-biz bios) depicts a very believable historical setting, and because Wise and company were obviously trying to recreate an all but extinct musical genre: the star vehicle specifically tailored to the talents af a particular performer. For maximum appreciation of "Star!", I recommend the laser disc edition with commentary by Robert Wise, Saul Chaplin, and many members of the cast.

Uneven, but worth a look

[Wizard-8 · 7/10 · 25 January 2015]

"Star!" was one of the most notorious financial bombs of the 1960s, the main reason probably being that when it was released the public was getting tired of musicals. Certainly, the movie itself has some faults that may not have attracted some audiences. The movie is both too long and not long enough, for one thing. It's kind of tough to sit through a movie that's almost three hours long. And curiously, despite this long running time, the portrait of Gertrude Lawrence seems unfinished. We don't really get to see what is driving this woman. And her personal life is only lightly looked at, such as the fact that while she had a daughter, this daughter character has hardly any time devoted to her.

But the movie also has its share of strengths. The performances are very good, the strongest being that of (no surprise) Julie Andrews. She puts so much enthusiasm into her role that it does help make up for her somewhat shallowly written character. And the musical numbers sprinkled throughout are indeed excellent, with some great choreography mixed in as well. Fans of movie musicals will probably embrace this movie the best, but the movie does have some genuine appeal to other people as well, if they are patient enough to sit through almost 180 minutes of film that isn't perfect.

Julie Andrews is the Star! of this movie

[roy_wood · 3 May 2001]

Star! is publicized as the flop that ended Julie Andrews' career. None of the blame should be laid at Julie's feet however. Her performance, especially in the musical numbers, is unparalleled. Julie WAS the greatest musical star of her day: if you don't believe me, imagine Barbra (whom I adore also) being tossed around by chorus boys in the "Jenny" finale. Also, kudos must go to Daniel Massey as Noel Coward: he could have really "camped" up the role but, thankfully, he played it with restraint. The problem with the movie is that it is constructed with the great musical numbers connected by a very flawed & minimal plot. Furthermore, the musical numbers don't advance the plot at all (only in a few spots do they even parallel Gertrude Lawrence's life-situations of the moment). So, what we're left with is a revue...a pastiche of musical numbers..a Ziegfield Follies of 1968!! So, the character of Gertrude Lawrence isn't fleshed out enough for audience sympathy to develop. Finally, the choice of imitating b&w newsreel footage just doesn't work and further distances the audience from the movie. Check it out though---the musical numbers are super-spectacular and Julie Andrews gives a Star!-performance

It's Entertainment

[Igenlode Wordsmith · 6/10 · 8 July 2007]

This film shares with most biographical pictures the problematic necessity of covering large portions of its subject's life very quickly, and hence an inherent sense of 'cantering through the highlights' without the luxury of developing in detail any given relationship or scene, whereas a similar story created as pure fiction would be more likely to cover a few days, months or at most years in a single dramatic arc. In the case of a musical biography, you have in addition the problem that sank the Judy Garland version of "A Star is Born" -- with big production numbers added into the running time, you either end up with an unwieldy length of film, or the temptation to cut down on character and plot in preserving the showpiece display. The traditional stage or screen musical can use its sung-through big act finales to advance the action; the performer's biography -- unless life conveniently mirrors repertoire -- doesn't enjoy that option. I saw the uncut version (well over three hours), but I wasn't surprised to learn that the ambitiously-titled "Star!", like "A Star is Born", suffered a drastically shortened re-release. I can't imagine, however, that it can have been an improvement. Even at its uncut length, the film already comes across as a cursory skate over events...

The framing device used is that of Miss Lawrence previewing a sepia-toned retrospective of her own career, with increasingly frequent widescreen colour interruptions supposed to represent reality versus publicity gloss. It isn't entirely satisfactory, but then few framing devices are.

A succession of choreographed songs in what amounts to a Greatest Hits parade is the principal reason for sitting through -- and doubtless for making -- the film, and Julie Andrews belts out the numbers to good effect. She does, oddly, funk the high note towards the end of "Some Day I'll Find You", an omission all too obvious in such an iconic and familiar number; leaving one to speculate that perhaps it was the pianissimo delivery she couldn't manage {Edit: apparently Gertrude Lawrence couldn't manage the original - presumably this was done in aid of authenticity}. Daniel Massey gets all the best lines as composer and wit Noel Coward, and makes the most of them, rather stealing the show. (He is also aided in this by the way that Coward is depicted as a rather more sympathetic character than the brittle, driven heroine!)

In its format, the film reminded me somewhat of 1992's "Chaplin". but its evocation of place and period is nowhere near as convincing. The big production numbers are suitably impressive, but the sketchy acting opportunities and episodic plot -- not to mention the sheer length! -- make the experience more reminiscent of watching back-to-back editions of "That's Entertainment"; on balance I'd recommend the film, but I'd recommend it largely on that basis. It does have its moments, mainly towards the middle where it's more chronologically coherent, but it's mainly worth watching as spectacle.

Julie Andrews does a magnificent job as Gertrude Lawrence...

[Doylenf · 7/10 · 15 February 2011]

Given that STAR! was cruelly dismissed by critics and public in 1968, I was surprised to find that despite its length, it does entertain with a fine performance by JULIE ANDREWS as the famous stage performer (who did occasional films) and by RICHARD CRENNA and DANIEL MASSEY in good supporting roles.

Andrews makes the most of every musical number--and there are plenty of them--demonstrating her enormous talent along with a flair for a more sophisticated style of acting miles apart from her "Mary Poppins" or "Sound of Music" image. And the staging of these musical portions makes excellent use of the WideScreen photography, emphasizing the lavish budget expended on costumes and sets.

The central reason for the film's lukewarm reception at the box office is surely the fact that no attempt is made to make Miss Lawrence a truly likable person. She is shown, flaws and all, throughout--quarreling with those around her as she puts herself, first and foremost, above all other considerations. It seems that only Richard Crenna (as the man she eventually marries) is able to stand up to her stubborn nature with a will of his own.

Coming on the heels of Julie's outstanding success in previous musicals, it's easy to see why audiences found it difficult to accept her as Gertude Lawrence--when actually, she gives a very strong performance. The script has to share some of the blame. It's a lumbering thing as it attempts to frame the story with newsreel accounts of Lawrence's life before ending the tidbits of information by delving into the main structure of the story.

For fans of Julie who enjoy hearing her belt out song after song in various stages of Miss Lawrence's career, the film does homage to Julie Andrews herself more than to the famous stage thespian.

A Star Vehicle

[bkoganbing · 6/10 · 25 February 2007]

The team that created The Sound of Music, Julie Andrews, director Robert Wise and producer Saul Chaplin were golden people in Hollywood after 1966. With the incredible success of The Sound of Music, 20th Century Fox just opened the checkbook up and gave them another mammoth budget for a mammoth musical. The result was Star.

Through no fault of its own, Star flopped badly and Julie would only do one more musical film after this, Darling Lili, which also had a similar fate. Public tastes had changed, musicals were passé and they were darned expensive to make.

Still the lengthy biography in song of one of the best stage stars in the English speaking world Gertrude Lawrence is an entertaining film. You'll get a good first hand knowledge about Lawrence to whom the world of play and make believe on stage came first and foremost. The film itself takes a lot of liberties.

For one her lengthy involvement with Douglas Fairbanks, Jr. is left out. In one of her few film appearances, she co-starred with Fairbanks in Mimi which is also one of the few films of her's available on VHS.

For that matter her film career, spotty though it was is completely left out. Probably her best work is in Rembrandt opposite Charles Laughton which is also available. Not available sad to say is her final film, The Glass Menagerie where she played Amanda Wingfield.

Best part of the film is the recreation of the musical numbers that Lawrence made famous by Andrews. Gertrude Lawrence had some of the best songwriters composing for her, George and Ira Gershwin, Cole Porter, Kurt Weill and of course her lifelong friend, Noel Coward, played here beautifully by Daniel Massey. My favorite though is that old English Music Hall number, Burlington Bertie from Bow. That should be shown as an MTV video for seniors.

Since the film only takes us to 1940 we miss the final triumph of her career as Anna Leonowens in The King and I and its sterling team of songwriters, Richard Rodgers and Oscar Hammerstein, II. Star ends with her a smash hit in Lady in the Dark and newly married to banker/theater producer Richard Aldrich played here by Richard Crenna.

When Gertrude Lawrence died in 1952 the lights of Broadway and Drury Lane in London dimmed in tribute to one of the best performers to grace both sides of the Atlantic.

Star is certainly a star vehicle for Julie Andrews. She gives it her best shot, she certainly can't be blamed for changing times and taste.

Not a star; just a gas giant.

[F Gwynplaine MacIntyre · 4/10 · 16 June 2007]

'The Sound of Music', starring Julie Andrews and directed by Robert Wise, became (for its time) the biggest box-office smash in movie history. 'Star!', a big-budget musical tailor-made for Andrews and directed by Wise for the same studio (20th Century-Fox), was expected to be a second bite of the cherry ... but it sank like a stone. This film flopped so thuddingly, one critic joked that Andrews's next movie would be a musical biography of Al Capone, titled 'Scar!'.

'Star!' is the alleged life story of Gertrude Lawrence. In 1968, few movie-goers knew her name: Lawrence was primarily a stage performer, and her few films are seldom revived. In 'Star!', the only reference to Lawrence's screen career is a brief shot of Andrews wearing a copy of Lawrence's costume from 'Rembrandt'. Next offence: During the overture, there is a long long boring static shot of an orchestra against a backdrop emblazoned with some seemingly arbitrary phrases: 'Susan and God', 'Tonight at 8.30', 'Nymph Errant' and so forth. (I'm omitting one phrase from this description; I'll return to it later.) Movie-goers in 1968 were unlikely to recognise these phrases. In fact, these are the titles of Lawrence's stage vehicles (some from Broadway, some from the West End) ... and, after the overture, most of them are never mentioned anywhere in this film!

We get that hardy cliché of movie bios: the subject is first seen in middle age, then the rest of the film is in flashback from the subject's youth or childhood. Most biopics do this as a technical necessity: James Cagney was in his forties when he played George M Cohan in 'Yankee Doodle Dandy', so we first see Cagney (in appropriate make-up) as the older Cohan; then, after the audience have accepted that Cagney is Cohan, we see the middle-aged Cagney portraying Cohan in his younger years. But this device wasn't necessary in 'Star!': Julie Andrews was young enough and fit enough to give a convincing portrayal of the young Lawrence. Yet the opening sequence gives us Andrews in dowager make-up (lamb dressed as mutton?), playing Lawrence at the oldest we'll ever see her in this movie, cueing the flashback to her youth. Also cueing an excellent title song: the only original song in this movie.

Gertrude Lawrence was a notorious scene-stealer, reluctant to share the limelight. 'Star!' appears to have scripted as if seeking Lawrence's personal approval. In real life, Lawrence became a Broadway star in 'Charlot's Revue', co-starring with Jack Buchanan and Beatrice Lillie. In 'Star!', Buchanan is a mere dancing footnote, while Lillie (whom Gertrude Lawrence despised in her later years, after their early friendship) isn't even mentioned. When Andrews as Lawrence stars in 'Lady in the Dark', there's no mention of Danny Kaye ... who became a star in that production, and who famously had to defend himself against Lawrence's scene-stealing techniques. (Andrews gives a splendid and sexy rendition here -- surely much sexier than Lawrence's original -- of 'The Saga of Jenny', Lawrence's show-stopper from 'Lady in the Dark'.)

I was delighted by Julie Andrews's performance (in male drag) of 'Burlington Bertie from Bow' ... but this song is not to my knowledge a Gertrude Lawrence speciality. The song was written for Vesta Tilley, referencing an earlier song performed by Ella Shields. Bunging it into a movie about Gertrude Lawrence would be like casting James Cagney as George M Cohan but then having him sing 'Mammy' and 'If You Knew Suzie'.

Any biopic of Gertrude Lawrence must include Noël Coward. He's brilliantly played here by his godson, Daniel Massey. Massey's duet with Andrews on 'Has Anybody Seen Our Ship?' is delightful. On the one and only occasion when I met Noël Coward, his eyes lighted up with pleasure when I asked him about Gertrude Lawrence. It was clear that he deeply and sincerely loved her ... other factors in his personal life notwithstanding.

This too-long movie falters when the music stops and Andrews as Gertie Lawrence descends into soap-opera argle-bargle. We get Gertie in a scene with the teenage daughter whom she has largely ignored in her pursuit of the limelight. The daughter is touchingly played by the young Jenny Agutter, unfortunately in an outfit that displays the birthmark on her sternum. After we've seen Lawrence shove aside everyone who got between her and the spotlight, we now hear her lamenting that all she ever really wanted was (pause, wistful smile, half-formed sob) to be truly LOVED!

I mentioned that the overture curtain contained one phrase that modern audiences would recognise. That's 'The King and I', Gertrude Lawrence's last Broadway vehicle (now perceived as a vehicle for Yul Brynner). That phrase on the curtain is the ONLY time that 'The King and I' is mentioned in 'Star!'. We never see Lawrence performing in a scene from that musical. Were Fox unwilling to have Julie Andrews share the screen with Yul Brynner? Or unwilling to have another actor impersonate Brynner? Lawrence's stint in 'The King and I' is especially poignant, as she was dying of cancer during the Broadway run ... but you'd never know it from watching 'Star!'. The biopic ends arbitrarily, with Gertrude yammering during a motor trip: 'Lady in the Dark' behind her and 'The King and I!' still unmentioned.

In the original production of 'The King and I', Gertrude Lawrence was billed over Yul Brynner. On her deathbed, Lawrence's dying request was that Brynner be given top billing. All the people who knew the selfish Lawrence were awed by this act of generosity. To which I say: Rubbish! It wasn't generosity at all, since giving top billing to Brynner would have meant taking it away from Lawrence's replacement (Constance Carpenter), not from Lawrence herself. The real Gertrude Lawrence was phony and superficial ... and so is this movie. I'll rate it 4 in 10, for the superb production values ... and for Julie Andrews's passion for this period in showbiz history.

Who cares about a plot or good acting? This is great fun!!

[johannes2000-1 · 8/10 · 9 August 2006]

So many learned visitors of this site have given their almost professional opinion on this movie, which is way over my head (I didn't know anything about the historical person of Gertrude Lawrence for instance), so I just want to give my heart's feelings.

Well, I liked the movie a lot! Maybe it's a bit long, and maybe there is little to no plot, but as a Julie Andrews vehicle and as a sumptuous musical pastiche it's absolutely great, full of famous and well-loved songs as well as (to me) pleasant musical surprises. Miss Andrews is at her (musical) best, her voice is lovely and crystal clear and her diction may be a bit exaggerated but at least you can understand every syllable that she sings, even in the high-paced numbers and the ones where she has to run back and forth or gets thrown around (as in the Jenny-number) and you can actually hear her pant and puff. I don't agree with people that criticized her dancing, for in my humble opinion she does it fairly well.

Miss Andrews is in this movie at her best when she can play the highbrowed, ad-libbing queen of society, sparring at high pace with Noel Coward; in other words: in those scenes where she can go over the top and act a woman who's constantly acting. Unfortunately she is less convincing when she is supposed to let her guard down and show us something of the real person underneath. For some reason (as I thought so too in many of her other movies) Julie Andrews lacks the charisma and personality to move me when the camera closes in on her, it all looks a bit awkward and uncomfortable, as if she doesn't know how to handle (the acting of) a real life person in stead of a make-believe or larger-than-life one.

However, I have to say to her behalf that she wasn't helped here by the script, for there was hardly any possibility for insights and character-development. And it's hard to sympathize with someone whose major hardships contain of spending too much money, estranging her little daughter and not knowing how to choose from a bundle of lovers. The comparison with that other contemporary musical movie Funny Girl of course is obvious, and as an actress Barbra Streisand wins on every account. That doesn't mean that Julie Andrews is less of a stage personality, she's (in my opinion) just better at place in the glamorous settings of a Broadway stage than when she's stripped of costumes, wigs and glamour and has to pull it of all by herself in an intimate camera close-up. Then again I have to say that the short scene of her and Daniel Massey from Private Lives was very well-acted and fascinating and proved that she maybe could have outdone herself when given the chance. But then again: here also she had to act that she was acting.

All in all, I enjoyed the movie very much. Although it's long, it never got tedious, the supporting actors all did fine jobs (for as much as they got any scenes, since it's mostly Julie Andrews who dominates the screen time), with a special mention of Daniel Massey as Noel Coward. What a pity by the way that his character stayed on the surface even more than that of Gertrude Lawrence, I really would have liked to see him work with a script that would have plunged into the heart and soul of Mr. Coward! I rank this movie 8 out of 10.

One of Julie Andrews's Best Performances

[loza-1 · 7/10 · 10 September 2005]

Finding a good vehicle for Julie Andrews is a problem. She has a terribly affected accent - especially when singing, and has to live down a cinematic image which began with Mary Poppins and was dragged to the bottom of the pit by having to make the best of a truly appalling role as Maria in the Sound of Music. In this film, however, she shows herself as being a performer of some ability. I have seen Gertrude Lawrence in films. In my opinion, Ms Andrews is a better performer - in films, at any rate - than Gertrude Lawrence ever was. Ms Andrews shows a pretty good range of acting muses: her portrayal when drunk at the party was particularly good.

Having said that, the script and the storyline are not particularly good. Some of the facts of Gertrude Lawrence's life are not correct. For instance we have Bruce Forsyth playing Ms Lawrence's cockney father. As I recall, Gertrude Lawrence's father was a Dane named Clausen or Klaasen or something. Bruce Forsyth er ikke saa dansk, although he is, of course, an effective performer.

Her husband Richard Stoddard Aldridge - as the dialogue calls attention to - talks like a contract. And this is annoying. Gertrude Lawrence herself in this film is pretty two-dimensional, although that is the fault of the scriptwriter rather than the actress, who does her best with what she has been given.

Of the musical numbers, I liked the Jenny number the best.

In summary, this film, for all its faults, is worth watching if only to see Julie Andrews make an almighty effort to shrug off the little miss goody goody two shoes image she got saddled with in The Sound of Music.

Outdated misfire at the time - just about OK in retrospect

[Pedro_H · 5/10 · 24 April 2004]

Stodgy bio-pic of a forgotten - but notable - British post war theatrical talent

Julie Andrews is perhaps the biggest puzzle in Hollywood history: A star whose faults and virtues are so equal that they cancel each other out. Nice singing voice (without a great deal of range, it must be said) and perfect in the Sound of Music and Mary Poppins, but otherwise hard to cast. A lady that would have been better living in the past. At the risk of getting personal she has an air of straight-laced prudery that her acting just can't shake off.

(Not even with a topless scene in SOB!)

Most people in showbiz barely know who Gertrude Lawrence was, so pity the poor general public who said a giant "who?" on release. And left the cinema saying "this is so dated and old hat." Not that "old hat" stopped Sound of Music from striking gold.

Feminist brownie points for a lady that led her own life, spoke her own mind and wasn't dominated by men (although idiotic with money), but I hated the cod newsreel approach. A cheap and obvious device that shouts "second rate story telling" and worse fails to match newsreel material with cod newsreel material without being obvious.

Linguistically Andrews performance is all over the place from crass pseudo Cockney to cut glass - in one scene she uses both! Hard to knock a piece for ambition and vigour, but it doesn't pull it off as steady entertainment and it doesn't pull it off as insight. I also have to knock off another whole point for spending too long with the vapid, backslapping, theatrical types who are just wallpaper.

The best parts are the singing and musical numbers - which are varied and quite inventive - going from musical hall to classic ballads. Shame Noel Coward (the ever present best friend) wasn't as good a piano player in real life!

This has to be filed under "not all that great", but I guess it is better to watch this than The Sound of Music for the twentieth time!

phenomenal!

[emisue02 · 9/10 · 28 March 2003]

I tell all my friends I own one of the biggest flops in movie history but it is also one of my favorite movies of all time, and they look at me like I'm nuts. Well, the people of the late 60s who didn't see this movie and therefore made it flop are the ones who are nuts. Star! is an absolutely wonderful movie. It's so big and bright and loud and irreverant and stimulating that I can't help but watch it over and over again. I don't care if I'm not getting an accurate picture of Gertrude Lawrence-I'm getting my favorite actress doing what she does like no one else can (singing, dancing, and giving a wondeful performance). The costumes are awesome, the musical numbers are supurb (especially "Saga of Jenny"-where else do you see Julie doing gymnastics?), and Julie is never more in her element. The frivolity of this movie will stick with you for days, long after the songs finally get out of your head. Congrats to Julie for doing so well in this, and I'm sorry it's taken over thirty years for people to recognize a cinematic gem when they see one.

Too much,too late.

[ianlouisiana · 6/10 · 20 August 2006]

"Star" should have been made fifteen years earlier,during the golden age of musicals,a time when Miss Lawrence's name might still have meant something to a wide audience,and not merely to lovers of revue and the ever-so-slightly camp theatre scene beloved of the British. She was the Judy Garland of her time ,and,coincidentally,much admired by the Friends of Dorothy whose loyalty she repaid by having a conspicuously close relationship with GBF Mr Noel Coward. Her capers in the papers make Paris Hilton seem like Mother Theresa,her life one long melodramatic crisis after another.Not,perhaps,an obvious role for Miss Julie Andrews then.However,she does her not inconsiderable best,and while in no way resembling Miss Lawrence either in appearance or performance,she gives something of a tour de force in "Star". There is no escaping the longeurs .All the time Miss Andrews is neither singing nor dancing nor "acting" as in the excerpt from "Private Lives" the movie grinds to a halt,hung up by the fact that Miss Lawrence ,when she was not "on" was not a very interesting person,nor a particularly sympathetic one. The movie ends up as a fine showcase for Miss Andrews'talents but ,in the end,I felt that she never made a serious attempt to get into the skin of Gertrude Lawrence who remained as enigmatic a character as T.E.Lawrence.

Boom!

[wes-connors · 5/10 · 23 March 2015]

The curtain opens and an orchestra plays "Star!" music. Behind the curtain is a collage of stage plays, which we see in different colored tints. Next, an old-fashioned newsreel introduces the setting as London in the early 1900s. The legendary Gertrude Lawrence is born to a theatrical family. She meets young Noel Coward. We flash-forward to 1940 and meet diva-like Julie Andrews (as Gertrude "Gertie" Lawrence), as directed by Robert Wise. This is their story. There are many well-staged musical numbers, but sketchy ebb and flow to Ms. Lawrence's career; it looks like most plays were lavishly-produced hits. A variety of men appear, with producer Richard Crenna most notable. We assume, from the introduction, Daniel Massey's "Noel Coward" will be the main romantic interest; later, we realize he's not...

The original, long version of "Star!" was tucked away for many years, after it was a notorious flop and re-released in heavily edited form. Absence makes the heart grow fonder and people have warmed up to the old stager. In almost every case, overly long bad movies benefit from a period of time when they are considered "lost" classics...

"Star!" is still the same movie, with the same problems. The structure of the film (flashbacks, newsreels and costume changes) isn't bad, but the newsreels become tiresome clutter, after the first few. The story has no heart or soul. Andrews' characterization is aloof and unrealized. Eventually, this becomes Julie Andrews in a series of well-produced skits. If we had more of an investment in the story or its increasingly unlikable lead character, we would more likely sit for three hours of songs and scenes from her life. They should have flash-backed from 1951, not 1940. Andrews collapsing after a tune from "The King and I" would have given audiences much more interest and investment in the character. Highlights include "Burlington Bertie", "Jenny" (both assisted by Michael Kidd) and the memorable title song.

***** Star! (7/18/68) Robert Wise ~ Julie Andrews, Daniel Massey, Richard Crenna, Robert Reed

Julie Andrews: STAR

[drednm · 26 October 2013]

Forty-five years have passed since this film debuted! A notorious flop in its day, the film looks better all the time. An old-fashioned, full-throttle musical starring diva Julie Andrews as diva Gertrude Lawrence in a series of musical numbers with dramatic scenes interspersed. As biography, it's bosh, but as entertainment it's aces.

Andrews is superb as Lawrence, capturing the blazing talent and her inability to deal with reality and men. The film nicely captures the razzle dazzle of Broadway in the 20s and 30s when there were such things as stars on stage. The musical numbers of terrific. The costumes are eye popping. Only the story lags.

I suspect that those who say Andrews is "stiff" in this film haven't seen it. Andrews is a whirlwind of singing, dancing, and acting as she covers Lawrence's life from early adulthood til her marriage to Richard Aldrich in 1940 and her triumph in LADY IN THE DARK.

Co-stars include the marvelous Daniel Massey as Noel Coward, Richard Crenna as Aldrich, Michael Craig, Robert Reed, Anthony Eisley, Jenny Agutter, Beryl Reid, Bruce Forsythe, and Alan Oppenheimer as Charlot.

Look quick for Conrad Bain, Tony Lo Bianco, J. Pat O'Malley, Anna Lee, Ballard Berkeley, Bernard Fox, and Don Crichton (CAROL BURNETT SHOW dancer)in the "Limehouse Blues" number.

STAR! ranks as one of Julie Andrews' very best performances. And that's saying a lot.

Julie vs. Barbra

[marcslope · 6/10 · 10 May 2006]

It's instructive to compare this big-big-big musical vs. "Funny Girl," which was released a few months before it and completely trumped it at the box office. Both are bios of 1920s musical stars who can't have meant much to 1960s movie audiences. Both strive to re-create period musical numbers but allow contemporary scoring, costumes, and production design to creep in. Both are told in flashback. Both are LONG. Both even have similar sequences, such as the one where the young Gertie Lawrence/Fanny Brice, in vaudeville, messes up a production number and apologizes to her fellow chorines without really meaning it. But "Funny Girl" at least had the thrill of letting movie audiences "discover" Barbra Streisand; Julie Andrews was a known quantity. She tries hard here, not hiding Gertie's hard edge and letting the character's unsympathetic qualities hang out -- quite a lot, in fact. But she's very unlike Gertrude Lawrence (who could barely carry a tune, but did so with great aplomb), and she spends so much time suffering unsatisfying romantic entanglements with an uninteresting series of leading men that one's attention starts to wander. It's also unconvincing, as presented, that the very assertive Gertrude Lawrence would willingly turn into a submissive wifey for the sake of a Richard Crenna. (It rather parallels the plot line of "Lady in the Dark," which Lawrence was appearing in at the time, and you don't believe it there, either.) Daniel Massey is a wonderful Noel Coward, and the pair's reenactment of "Private Lives" is so good that you wish the movie would stop being "Star!" and just keep on being "Private Lives." There are eye-popping sets and costumes to distract you from the basic lack of drama, and it's not a painful movie to sit through. Not, that is, unless you start to dwell on how this one, and "Paint Your Wagon" and "Darling Lili" and "Doctor Dolittle" and "Half a Sixpence" and all their expensive cousins combined to kill the movie musical for a long, long while. Memo to movie executives, and it still holds in the day of "Rent" and "The Producers": We go to musicals to watch talented people sing and dance. Not for the sets.

like a 40-course dinner of exquisite French pastries.

[roedyg · 7/10 · 13 September 2016]

Star must have been a very expensive movie to make. There are thousands of opulent costumes and sets. Almost every scene is bursting with extras in posh period dress.

It is mostly a long string of stage performances. Julie Andrews is her usually amazing self with the surprise her skills include acrobatic dancer with snake-like grace.

Gertrude Lawrence is a flip character, so the glue between the stage numbers about her private life is somewhat superficial. She tends to have several men on the go at once. This shocked audiences at the time the film was made, so they skirted the issue of sex rather prudishly.

It is kind of like a 40-course dinner of exquisite French pastries. The movie is too long. It would have worked much better if pared down to standard length.

Daniel Massey plays a young Noel Coward. He is great fun and quite believable.

Those Really Were the Happy Times!

[ramsoriflamme · 7/10 · 5 May 2019]

The problem with most of the people who complain about this film is: THEIR UNWILLINGNESS TO JUDGE IT ON ITS OWN MERIT.

They, either, hate it because she's not playing another Poppins/Maria von Trapp (which, for anyone daring to call themselves a Julie fan: is the ultimate blind disrespect for the extra dimension of ability her acting CLEARLY matures with in "Star!") or...they hate it precisely because they thought Poppins/Sound of Music was the sort of frothy fare she -in, mainly, the critics' minds- should've been confined to doing(!).

I believe "Star!" is the last historical document of true Old Hollywood-style imagination, escapism, and glamour; made by people from an era with the most dedicated level of craftsmanship (something which, unfortunately, the modern world does not seem to have the humanity to value anymore). The BEST person in the cinematic universe of the mid-'60s that was left to exemplify those qualities was Julie Andrews.

The biggest problem, though, the story has (besides; taking into account the number of decades they had to squeeze together all at once) is, that: (for whatever reason) Wise -or writer Fairchild?- exaggerates Gertie's nastiness to the extreme of making the main character almost the villain of her own story(!). Why(?)...they, surely(?), would've had input from Noel Coward and Richard Aldrich (Lawrence's second husband) themselves to provide enough of a "living portrait" into what Gertie was like(?). So, that element got me interested in wanting to learn about the ACTUAL personalities depicted in it and, finding out how much the same-or-different fact was from fiction. The character insight Wise couldn't hit upon here, I've concluded, was: recognizing Gertie's flakey and mercurial traits just seemed -in *real life* terms- to be more a result of...someone caught up in the petulant and rakish generation of (young) Britons then-living fast in the wake of all the hardships and death of WWI; rather than it being some kind of conspiratorial "meaness" which was constantly motivating her. The only times the dramatic segments of the story show any relatable spark are, ironically, when supporting characters challenge the materialistic contrivance of Gertie's portrayal (ex: the running thread of Massey's excellent pastiche of Coward providing a disciplined counter-balance; her trying to reconnect with her daughter; and the arrival of Richard Crenna in the last Act to finally stop her from self-destruction...THESE are the moments, unfortunately ever so few, anyone with any objectivity becomes mesmerized by the way Julie Andrews' acting chops grew a lot deeper fast).

"STAR!" is like having a "music video" of a Julie Andrews Broadway performance from the prime of her career. She even is allowed to show a sassy, sex appeal to alluring effect (which, here, still resonates a naturally-captivating power...unlike the later films her forever miserable-seeming Svengali second husband could never gracefully incorporate into his recycled slapstick vanities)!

Where Was the Editor?

[rockymark-30974 · 5/10 · 1 March 2021]

There's just so much good to see in this film that it's a pity the editor let it go on for so long, overstaying its welcome. So many scenes could have been cut without loss of dramatic coherence or art. Surely the song and dance sequences, especially the early vaudevillian performances, are priceless and they belong in the picture. But the entire frame story was useless, with the unnecessary documentarian footage in the style of Woody Allen's Zelig. But in Zelig (or Citizen Kane) it made sense; here it comes across, as does the frame story, as pretentious and tedious. I'm convinced this movie would have been a huge success if properly edited and without the pretentious frame story and the faux newsreels. It seems pointless to me to pretend to make a bio and a musical at the same time. It's either one or the other. If I want to read a bio of Lawrence, I'll go to the library or view a straight documentary. Art should be selective. Also, it's incomprehensible with all the useless material that Lawrence's work on The King and I was excluded. One theory I have is that the R&H franchise was too costly (the songs would have cost too much). Also R&H, like Disney, tend to be possessive of their material, as the estate currently is. After all, along with the Disney franchise, the R&H franchise is one of the greatest of the 20th century. This is all speculation. It's also puzzling, since the studio went for the bio angle that Lawrence's final days and death were omitted. What the film obviously lacks is narrative drive. It had everything else.

As for the portrayal of Noel Coward, I was not impressed at all. To me at least the actor didn't capture the spirit of Coward at all and his witticisms fell flat; some were almost embarrassing such as the line about Andrews making a good exit after she walks out the door and drops in a faint. A line like that may have sounded witty decades ago, or maybe with the proper delivery, but to me it sounded forced.

Also missing, to me, is the performance of the fine title song by Van Heusen and Cahn. Of course it was sung, as a manner of speaking, but not in the film narrative. Here again trying to be too accurate biographically weakened the film. It would have made a fine episode to hear Andrews belt out the song, at least as one blue-eyed singer did in his own recording of it.

It's ironic that this film was so poorly edited since Robert Wise began his career as an editor (as did David Lean and a few other directors). Of course editing is more than a mechanical act. Almost as with hip hop, the editor has to maintain a flow that seems inevitable. Thus simply snipping scenes did not work when the film was re-released.

Edgar Allan Poe wrote a rather controversial essay, I believe as part of the Philosophy of Composition, where he claims that a long poem is a contradiction since one cannot maintain poetic form at great length. Whether that's true of literature or not is another issue; but I've always preferred the neat 90 minute movie to longer movies, giving us, as it were, too much of a good thing. As the saying goes, leave the audience wanting more.

Big, Splashy and Wonderful!

[johnm_001 · 10/10 · 9 October 2000]

Too bad this film was overlooked by so many, when it was originally released in 1968. Hollywood was fawning all over Katharine Hepburn's Bryn Mawr Eleanor of Aquitaine and Barbra Streisand's dreary and unfunny Fanny Brice. Best performance by fingernails! The best performance of the year was Julie Andrews' Gertrude Lawrence. If Gertrude Lawrence's life story, as depicted in "Star!" leaves something to be desired, the film still has enough wonderful moments to please anyone. I'm one of those people who believes that Julie Andrews reading the phone book, would be a evening's entertainment. That she is singing, dancing, acting and looking radiant, for almost three hours, is a bonus. "Star!", has always been THE Julie Andrews movie. She is almost never off the screen, and she uses her glorious voice in number after number. What numbers, too! Written by some of the greatest songwriters, "Star!" is a perfect showcase for the most beautiful voice that ever was. See a widescreen home-video version, which does partial justice to Michael Kidd's wonderful musical sequences, in this Todd-AO production, made for the big screens of yesterday. Try and catch the widescreen video tape or laser disc editions. (Unfortunately, the current DVD is the wrong color!!!). "Star!" is an underrated, beautifully crafted film, starring the screen's greatest musical talent. See it!

You'd think this was a stinker, but it does take the mud to make the roses grow...

[mark.waltz · 7/10 · 26 October 2013]

Over the years, this big budgeted elephantine musical biography of British stage legend Gertrude Lawrence has gotten a rather smeared reputation thanks to its lack of box-office success. Even a much edited down version of the film ("These Were the Good Old Days") failed to attract viewers, and I can't recommend that version at all, having seen it originally on T.V. in that form. It is the three hour long circus that actually stands out, and if not excellent, certainly has some great moments.

People mainly remember Lawrence as the original Mrs. Anna in "The King and I" on Broadway long before Yul Brynnur was considered "the star" of the show. Lawrence had a long association with such show-biz icons as the Gershwins (introducing "Someone to Watch Over Me" in "Oh, Kay!") and Noel Coward (originating the role of Amanda in the much revived play "Private Lives"). She also, according to this, was one heck of a personality, not one to mess with, and searching for love, yet driving each of the men she met and often married crazy. The one person who understood her and allowed her to just be herself was the playwright and actor Noel Coward, played here with both humor and humanity by Daniel Massey who deservedly was nominated for an Oscar.

The musical sequences are smashing, from the early days of her life in music halls (singing "Pickadilly" while smashing a heckler in the face with his own tomato) and giving other chorus girls a taste of their own medicine in some very funny musical numbers, one starring Jack Buchannan, then London's biggest musical comedy star. Lawrence takes off, doing both musical revues, dramas and comedy's, takes over Broadway in the mid 20's through early 40's (the film stops with her smash hit in "Lady in the Dark"). Missing is the last decade of Lawrence's life. Sadly, during the run of "The King and I", Lawrence became ill and suddenly passed away. The original cast album of that show proves she was no Julie Andrews when it came to singing (being sometimes quite off pitch) but still magnetic and able to give the King of Siam a run for his elephants.

The big highlight of the show is "Jenny", the big circus production number from "Lady in the Dark". Andrews is radiant, sliding down a rope onto the stage and dancing up a storm. I don't think that she had previously done such a high-energy number, only topped years later in her Oscar Nominated role in "Victor Victoria". Robert Wise, who directed her in "The Sound of Music", failed to strike lightning twice, but the film's reputation has improved over the years, even if some people consider it quite long and even obnoxious in places. But give the film a chance and you may actually find it charming and informative as to a slice of what life in the theater during its golden age was like.

Not really a musical

[Maciste_Brother · 5/10 · 6 December 2006]

How to described STAR! in a few words? An ill-conceived non-musical musical.

The biggest problem with STAR! and the reason it never caught on is because it's not a musical, a la THE SOUND OF MUSIC (SOM) or even THOROUGHLY MODERN MILLIE, but a long-winded drama about a not very appealing musical star of the early century. Remove all the musical numbers in STAR! and it wouldn't make any difference to the disjointed story-line.

The project was basically an ill-conceived star-vehicle for Julie Andrews, who, with her SOM director, Robert Wise, wanted to recreate the success and magic they achieved with that classic musical. It's ill-conceived because the musical bits are not integral to the storyline. The songs themselves have nothing to do with Gertrude Lawrence herself. People don't start bursting into musical numbers, like most popular musicals. The only time Andrews sang was when she was on stage or at a party, which makes for a very static and dull non-musical musical. No mountains to sing on.

Another reason why STAR! was badly thought-out was the idea of doing a musical about Gertrude Lawrence, who wasn't a very nice person. I'm sure they tried to make her as appealing as possible and yet she still came across as someone who was extremely selfish, fickle, a little stupid (regarding her finances). Gertrude is a far cry from the lovable Maria and I'm sure people who enjoyed Andrews in SOM were understandably turned off by the unpleasant character she played in STAR! There wasn't enough beautiful window-dressing or scenery (the worse example of gratuitous scenery just for the sake of scenery is the whole moment on the French Riviera), or there weren't enough elaborate musical numbers to hide this plain fact.

Also, combine this ill-conceived project with the multiple narration techniques the director used here, such as small b&w flashbacks of Gertrude Lawrence's life; Gertrude looking at and reviewing those b&w flashback reels; and the main narration itself (as episodic and disjointed as it already was) and you have one over-directed and very long film, padded out with an endless number of musical numbers which have nothing to do with its central character, who's a moderately unpleasant musical star .

As ill-conceived as it was, there are still a lot of good things about STAR!. The cinematography is amazing (they don't shoot films like this anymore). Some of the musical numbers are fun, even if they mostly add nothing to the main story. And Andrews and Daniel Massey are excellent in their difficult roles. I really love the moment when the two act in a stage play. It's the best scene in the whole film.

But in hindsight, it's not surprising the movie was such a big flop.

STAR! Twinkle, twinkle, shining brightly ...

[philip-ct · 8/10 · 15 December 2001]

Premiere Magazine rated the VHS remastered copy a 'must', Toronto Sun headed their review 'A Star! Reborn'; this is a far cry from the unwarranted savaging the movie was subjected to in 1969 - followed by Darling Lili, these films temporarily set back Ms Andrews' career. Star! is a brilliant musical extravaganza, with great staging of varied musical numbers (from Vaudeville, to music hall, to the early musical). Julie Andrews and Daniel Massey perform well together; there is a brilliant extract from Private Lives which shows the extent of the British Chamberlain's censorship powers, superbly acted. Julie Andrews is in top form - from the rousing 'Picadilly', to the choreographed (and very moving) 'Limehouse Blues', to the over-the-top but effective 'Jenny' from Lady in the Dark. Star! was seen as Fox's Edsel, yet this film cannot be single-handedly blamed from draining the studio financially - equally dismal movies which lost money for Fox include Dr Dolittle and Hello Dolly! Yet Star! was subject to incredible and disproportionate reviling from many critics. The movie deserved a far fairer fate - okay, Julie Andrews is paired with Michael Craig and Richard Crenna (who cannot match her luminous appeal nor provide a 'spark'). The script stinks - it is absolutely apalling - torturous in the extreme. But, Michael Kidd's choreography is exquisite and Julie Andrews gives amazing performances - from the lyrical, understated 'Someone to watch over me', where a full orchestra supplements her crystal-clear vocals to the tongue-in-cheek 'The Physician' from Nymph Errant. Costumes are great, and the attention to the historical period and milieu are there. As in Victor/Victoria and Duet for One, Julie Andrews shows her superiority to the scripting - she transcends bad scripting to show her acting ability. Purists argued that she was NOT Gertrude Lawrence - but neither was she Julie Andrews playing Julie Andrews. There is something radiant and complex about her portrayal of a star; while Daniel Massey was honoured with an Oscar nomination for the portrayal of his godfather (Noel Coward) and portrayed him well, it seems that too many critics were busy dissing Ms Andrews to see her performance as the carefully sculpted and meticulously built one it was. Her performance has depth, as she moves from the early Gertie to the more mature Gertrude Lawrence. The script sags, but this film is worth viewing - it is a must for any musical lover. See it.

Gert, Gert, They're Doing You Dirt

[writers_reign · 6/10 · 9 April 2006]

It's difficult to see that this looked good even on paper. In 1968 Gertrude Lawrence had been dead for seventeen years and most people, myself included, knew her only as an adjunct to Noel Coward and whilst there were arguably those who HAD seen her live on stage I doubt there were sufficient numbers to justify such a lavish production. In my case I did, when barely in my teens, see the first film version of Tennessee Williams' The Glass Menagerie in which she played Amanda, a 'straight' non-singing role though I can't say I honestly recall anything about it. I was, of course, aware of the songs with which she was associated - some of the finest of the twentieth century penned by some of the greatest talents in the field from Cole Porter downwards through Kurt Weill, Gershwin and Coward himself - and equally aware that she couldn't carry a tune in a Louis Vuitton purse (musicians in the 'pit' bands of the shows she starred in used to take bets on which note she would start each song on, never, of course, the correct one) so I relished the irony of having her played by Julie Andrews with perfect pitch. The best you can say about it is that it's a prime example of a curate's egg with some pretty fair set pieces like the balcony scene from Private Lives, Porter's The Physician, etc, but overall it's something of a disappointment.

Lovely To Look At, Delightful Hear--Horrid To Watch

[gftbiloxi · 3/10 · 29 March 2005]

By 1968 Julie Andrews was one of the most-loved performers of stage and screen, the original Eliza Doolittle of Broadway's MY FAIR LADY, a Best Actress Oscar winner for MARY POPPINS, and the star of film version of THE SOUND OF MUSIC--a movie that was so profitable Hollywood wags dubbed it "The Sound of Money." 20th Century Fox wasted little time in developing a new property for their new star, and (possibly under the influence of FUNNY GIRL, the great stage success that was set to film at about the same time) reached back in time to tell the story of a theatrical legend: Gertrude Lawrence.

It seemed like a winner. Gertrude Lawrence (1902-1952) was known as "The Toast of Two Continents" in an era when the term had an almost literal meaning, and the highs and lows of her extremely public private life were almost as dramatic as her career. Operating with an incredibly large budget and under the direction of Robert Wise, the bio-pic STAR! seemed to have everything: lavish sets, incredible costumes, a truly great collection of songs, an epic running time, and--of course--Julie Andrews. What more could you want? Well, an interesting movie would be nice.

STAR! opened with tremendous fanfare in 1968 and proved an instant fiasco. All the earnings of THE SOUND OF MUSIC were wiped out seemingly overnight, and with bankruptcy staring it in the face 20th Century Fox cut the film from three to two hours and rushed the film into general release as THOSE WERE THE HAPPY DAYS. As a result, the film holds the dubious distinction of being the only major Hollywood film to completely tank twice in major theatrical release.

At the time, much of the film's failure was laid at the feet of Julie Andrews. Gertrude Lawrence, her remarkable career, and her high-flying lifestyle were still well-recalled in 1968, and Julie Andrews simply did not look, walk, talk, sing, or in any way, shape or form bear any resemblance to her. Seen today, however, this seems an unfair accusation; it is very evident that the project was never intended as a recreation of Lawrence, and Julie Andrews is actually quite good within the very tight limitations imposed upon her. The real problem is the script, which goes nowhere at a slow crawl. Indeed, the single most dramatic event in the entire story is Lawrence's financial bankruptcy! Yes, you can enjoy the sights and sounds of STAR! But the story is beyond boring: it makes you feel that you're sinking slowly to the bottom of a sea of Jello. The film is presently available to the homemarket on DVD. The DVD has been criticized for leaving out the few minutes of intermission material that accompanied the original release; frankly, I can't see this as anything more than a mercy, for the less time spent here the better. Bonuses are okay--which is to say that they are actually more interesting than the film itself. I'll be generous and give it two stars for production values and musical numbers. But unless you are a die-hard Julie Andrews fan, do yourself a favor and give STAR! a miss.

Gary F. Taylor, aka GFT, Amazon Reviewer