gkeith_1 Spoilers. Observations. Opinions.Great. Insightful. Explaining Gertrude Lawrence. Also Noel Coward. I didn't know much about either of them. I knew Lawrence was in The King and I. I was wishing that that show could have appeared in this film. I do enjoy the singing and dancing numbers. They are all superb. Examples are Burlington Bertie, and Parisian Pierrot. Julie does well in all of the costumes and gowns. Her daytime attire and hats are also very nice, and appear to be period-specific. Gertrude has some boyfriends, admirers, husbands. She does quite well in the men department. She goes from rags to riches, to almost rags. War and economic depression affect her career. She still survives. I am a degreed historian, actress, singer, dancer, fashion designer, film critic and movie reviewer. I am thoroughly fascinated by theatrical history.

wes-connors 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

Wizard-8 "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.

TheLittleSongbird As a fan of Julie Andrews I watched Star! even after hearing some not-so-nice things about it. My overall thoughts were although it is watchable, it is very flawed. The film is very lavish, the costumes, settings and scenery are all sumptuous, and the production numbers are spectacular and full of razzmatazz. Berlington Bertie was a real delight especially. In terms of performances, Julie has certainly been better, but she does a decent job as Gertrude Lawrence and looks beautiful, a real scene stealer in the production numbers and there are some very poignant scenes with her daughter as well. Daniel Massey however fares much better as Noel Coward, and Richard Crenna and Michael Craig offer strong work too. On the other hand, Star! has a number of failings, the pacing can be quite sluggish at times and the story is predictable and elephantine. I don't think it helps that the film is perhaps too long. Then we have a script that does have some soap-opera elements to it, direction that is somewhat uneven fine in the production numbers but plodding sometimes in the more moving parts and some of the romantic elements don't quite convince. Overall, worth watching, it looks great, with some nice performances and terrific music & choreography but the story and script could have done with more work. 5/10 Bethany Cox