A Star is Born (1976)

And this week's Friday night movie has been... A Star is Born (1976)!

Original image located here. Accessed 20th March 2026

AKA: The one with Barbra Streisand in it.

Let us, for a moment, go back to that question I posed last week: Given that Hollywood has produced four versions of this movie, what is it about A Star is Born that keeps bringing people back to it?
One likely reason is that it can easily be adapted to fit the times it was made: If the 1937 original was a snapshot of the Golden Era of Hollywood, and 1954 version came out at a time when musicals were popular, then this one brings something it's own to the table: It ditches the movie approach for one about music. In particular rock music and the industry attached. 

It may be a new approach but let's be honest here: This is all Streisand's show. She stars, is the executive producer, used her own clothes for her wardrobe (as the credits seem eager to point out) and has her then-hairdresser-turned-boyfriend Jon Peters as producer (well before his obsession with mechanical spiders). It would be easy to say this is her bid for some credibility/An Oscar, taking some tried-and-tested material and bringing her own stamp on it - but the question is, does it work? 

When I was a young lad in the nineties, I had a view of the seventies as being one borne of derision: There were hippies everywhere, the hair was bad, the fashion was worse and a lot of the music was over-produced and over-bearing. Granted such a perception was a product of a narrow one but I bring this up because this movie does nothing to challenge said perception. 
Sure the source material does translate well into a music environment, sure Kris Kristofferson plays the role of 'washed up and self destructive' rock star well, sure Streisand does indeed get chances to flex her vocal prowess (the final eight minutes being of particular note). But does this work as a whole? 
Honestly I'm torn here: For every strength this movie has, a weakness emerges: The Oreos. Streisand not quite cutting it is a rocker type. It's meandering nature. The aforementioned aesthetic. 

Still, there's always next week.....

A Star is Born (1954)

 And this week's Friday night movie has been... A Star is Born (1954)!

Original image located here. Accessed 13th March 2026

AKA: The one with Judy Garland in it.

Given that Hollywood has done four versions of this movie the big question is: Why do people keep coming back to it? One likely reasons is that the plot summary has an eternal appeal: The contrasting storyline of a young and upcoming actress making their mark whilst the veteran, experienced actor tries a comeback and fails. With the universal theme of chances - both first and second - it certainly helps to have some parallels in real life.
With this in mind, lets consider this iteration:
 - This was one of Garland's final films after years of personal struggles and some misfires. 
 - Director George Cukor was offered a shot at doing the 1937 original but he turned it down as he felt it too similar to another film he directed What Price Hollywood?. 

So compared to it's older brother, does this one have something of it's own to say? Well it's longer and, as was the trend of the time, it was a musical. Now I personally found the length to be problem as it certainly was a slog to get through - matters weren't helped in that this was a restored version with some missing scenes added with stills and dialogue that came across as pointless and justifiably cut. 
But whatever problems I may have had with this film, they are easily forgiven with the knowledge that this is, without question, Garland's show. She pretty much carries this movie and is a presence to behold. She is funny, dramatic and can pull off some effective musical numbers (see The Man That Got Away and Born in a Trunk).

Personally I found the first A Star is Born a tough act to follow but that doesn't mean this isn't a worthy contender. 

A Star is Born

 And this week's Friday night movie has been... A Star is Born!

Original image located here. Accessed 6th March 2026

I'm going to try an experiment: Given that Hollywood has made four versions of A Star is Born, I will for the month of March, watch and assess all four of them. Indeed, it would be interesting to see how each
of them compare with one another. And which hold up given the passage of time.
And what better place to start than with the the very first, from 1937.

So this movie tells the story of a young actress who is determined to make it as a star in Hollywood. She eventually catches the attention of a veteran actor who then actively supports her career and is the only person who believes in her. And so while her career flourishes, his career flounders...
Perhaps the most striking thing about this movie is that it is clearly a product of it's time. It shows how Hollywood operated in the 1920s/30s (the supposed Golden Age of Hollywood) and the progression of our protagonist. And that in sense, it is odd, even with the passage of nearly nine decades, how this movie is a documentary, a cautionary tale and a propaganda piece at the same time.
And yet it's that honesty that makes this movie so compelling. 

So yes, this movie may be a product of it's time but it has held up well against the march of time. 
And it would be interesting to see how it's offspring measure up...