Review of Belle Starr

Belle Starr (1941)
5/10
Scarlett O'Hara in a terrain away from beloved Tara
25 January 2000
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
6 out of 26 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Recently Viewed