Belle Starr (1941) watch online HD

Twentieth Century Fox Film Corporation undoubtedly produced their chick flick western "Belle Starr" to cash in on their success with their earlier outlaw biography "Jesse James" with Tyrone Power. Moreover, this biographical oater appropriates the post-Civil War South as its setting and uses both the 'Lost Cause' sentiments of old die-hard rebels and the evils of Reconstruction in the Missouri to shape its protagonist. Indeed, Fox appears to have cast the beautiful Gene Tierney as the eponymous heroine in her fourth role based on her striking resemblance to "Gone with the Wind" beauty Vivian Leigh. "Cisco Kid" director Irving Cummings and "Drums Along the Mohawk" scenarist Lamar Trotti play fast and loose with the truth about the title character. They use African-Americans as storytellers to frame their story. In fact, the film unfolds largely in flashback when a young black girl discovers a doll in the ruins of the Shirley Plantation. Her father declares that it must have belonged to Belle Shirley and the story picks up after the Civil War. Later, "Belle Starr" concludes with Belle's death and three African-Americans describe Belle as if she were a mythic supernatural entity that can shape-shift in to a red fox. Not surprisingly, "Belle Starr" concerns the legend rather than the life of this notorious dame outlaw. For example, she lived longer in real life than her cinematic counterpart, but she died in real life the way that she does in the movie version, getting shot from ambush by an assassin. Typically, Hollywood movies in conformity with the Production Code Administration had to punish film characters that strayed from the law by killing them at the end of the movie. In "Belle Starr," the heroine is riding hell-bent for leather to town to give herself up after she realizes the error of her way. Naturally, her death is pre-ordained.

Okay, so it's not exactly a subtle attempt at cloning "Gone With The Wind" - it's all too transparent at times. Yes, it's dated, from a liberated perspective,(but remember the era that it's set in, as well as the time in which it was produced)with some excruciating dialogue. But it has its redeeming virtues, entertainment value and deserving of a DVD release after years of obscurity on channels that us civilians can't afford to add to basic peasant vision.

A dramatized, sanitized account of the most notorious female outlaw, who rode alongside such notables as Jesse James, it boasts gorgeous cinematography in Techincolor, a good musical score, and wonderful costumes. Whenever Randolph Scott is associated with a project, you know it will be a decent western.

However, the best relationship in the film is the one that exists between Belle Starr and Major Thomas Grail, the Yankee commander and childhood chum who must bring her to justice in spite of his deep love for her. It is the sparks between the beautiful Gene Tierney and the handsome Dana Andrews that really makes this movie, preceding the film noir classic "Laura" and two later collaborations.

The gorgeous, fiery Belle Shirley (Gene Tierney) sympathizes with the Southern rebels, so much so that she even helps Captain Sam Starr (Randolph Scott) hide from the Yankee forces in Missouri by letting him stay in her home after he is wounded.When the Yankees discover this, they set her house aflame and burn it to the ground. Defying them, she joins Starr and his followers at their secret hide-out and begins assisting them in robberies and raids, chasing Carpetbaggers and running afoul of the Yankees. The bandit queen and her outlaw lover marry and continue with their Confederate cause. But only when things get far too dangerous does Belle realize that death may be too high of a price to pay for what she so immensely believes in. Sam Starr insists that there be one more dangerous escapade, after agreeing to give up his personal vendetta. This leads to tragic consequences when Belle unwittingly puts herself in the line of fire, placing her own life in jeopardy.

The low-life drunkard, Jasper Tench, who expects the much emphasized reward money for killing Belle Starr only gets disdain and hatred from the townsfolk having deprived them of their heroine, and Starr turns himself in, and both he and his enemy, Grail, grieve over the woman they both loved.

I found the age difference between Scott and Tierney distracting (going by what I remember, as I haven't seen the film in years), and also obvious is the battle that Tierney has with the accent that she assumes throughout the film. I know people having been complaining about the racist elements throughout the movie (as with GWTW),but I like to think of it as a lesson on how things have changed. Chill Wills is in fine form as one of the rebels, Shepperd Strudwick (billed as John Shepperd)is quite good as Belle's rather ill-fated brother Ed, while Louise Beavers (best remembered from her role in John Stahl's 1934 version of "Imitation Of Life")does a good turn as Mammy Lou, although her performance doesn't hold a candle to Hattie McDaniel's portrayal in GWTW.

It's a good movie, and it's nice to watch and a good substitution if you're not in the mood to indulge in a three-and-a-half hour epic.

Note to FOX: as you are releasing many of your older films on DVD, do likewise with "Belle Starr". Don't leave this and many other gems to rot away in the studio vault!

If anyone is expecting any true notes out of this film concerning Belle Starr they are in for a sad disappointment. One of the very few things that this film got right was that Belle Starr as befit a lady to the manor born rode side saddle. You wouldn't catch Calamity Jane doing that.

If you saw this film you would think that Belle's career ended a few years after the Civil War was over. In fact Belle's time on earth was 1848 to 1889 and in that period Belle Shirley married several times, the last being a Cherokee Indian named Sam Starr. No hint of that background in Randolph Scott, he plays the part as the real Randolph Scott was, a courtly southern gentleman from Virginia.

I don't know if Gene Tierney was in the Scarlett O'Hara sweepstakes, but in playing Belle Starr she does it in the fiddle-dee-dee tradition that Vivien Leigh did in Gone With The Wind. She's got all the men in the area ready to do and die for her and that includes Dana Andrews the Yankee major who is from Missouri also and has a real case of the hots for her. But Dana does his duty no matter how distasteful it is and Tierney's heart is only for Randolph Scott.

The real Belle was quite a bit more earthy a character and had a few children as well. One of them, a daughter became the madame of a brothel later in life. This film is entertaining with Tierney acting like Scarlett O'Hara and the plot lifted from that other Twentieth Century Fox classic about a Missouri outlaw, Jesse James.

Belle Starr will never make the top ten list of any of the cast members.

How many westerns have there been about the life of Belle Starr? For that matter who knows that much about her real life? I remember seeing this film as a youngster and fell in love with it. I have always liked civil war films and 20th Cent. Fox put together a very good cast in the 1941 version. Gene Tierney plays the bandit queen very well, despite forcing herself to use a phony southern accent throughout the film. Randolp Scott is resplendent as captain Sam Starr, a renegade who rounds up bunch of confederate soldiers near the end of the civil war to stir up trouble in post war Missouri. Scott hates carpetbaggers and yankee soldiers in equal amounts and has no problem raiding banks and railroads for booty. Along the way he meets up with Belle Starr, who finds Scott very brave. Belle Starr is a fiery southern belle and when the yankees burn down her home because she is caught harboring Captain Starr, she joins forces with the rebels in her hatred against the transplanted Yankee forces sent to Missouri to clean out the "rebel rabble". An odd love twist forms when her childhood friend, Dana Andrews, a yankee captain, fights to conceal his true feelings for her and his hatred against Sam Starr and his rebel friends. Along the way Scott and Tierney become married and continue raiding and chasing out carpetbaggers out of Missouri. The twosome become a Missouri legend, much to the anger of the yankee forces trying to capture them. Jasper Tench, a town misfit and drunk, shoots and kills Belle Starr near the end of the film, sending Scott into surrendering to the yankee forces. Good scene at end when Scott surrenders to Andrews and both men nearly lose their composure in sadness over Belle's death. Belle's "mammy", played by Louise Beavers in a good supporting role adds a touch of warmth and comfort to Belle throughout the film.

Good performances by Chill Wills as a redneck southern soldier, and John Shepard who plays Belle's brother, Ed. You might get teary eyed at the end of this film. Excellent western.

Tierney does fine opposite an uninspired Randolph Scott as the fiery Belle Starr. Her scenes with Andrews have far more electricity and pick the film's pacing up midway through. A veteran supporting cast gives their all for the cause, or is that causes? The movie, of course, takes generous liberties with actual history, but that's part of the fun in this one.

The first time I saw this film, being a "horse crazy" kid, it made me idolize Belle Starr--but only because I thought the movie was supposed to be about some famous horsewoman! (Like I said, I was a really horse-crazy kid!!) A few years ago, I was researching my family history and found out I was actually related to Belle Starr so this movie took on much more significance and I searched for a long time to find a copy. Then, when I watched it again, I was very disappointed by the almost complete lack of historical accuracy! To say the film is "based upon" historic figures is TECHNICALLY correct, but it is definitely NOT an accurate depiction of the "real" Myra "Belle" Shirley-Starr! In fact, ONLY the names are the same. Belle was a much stronger, darker, cruder, more troubled woman and her ties to the most notorious outlaws (like the James-Younger gang) along with her own devious, scandalous behavior make her much more fascinating than she was in this movie. In her case, the true story is MUCH more interesting!

It's a good movie, BUT, if you want to know the true story of Belle Starr, you won't find it in this one.

This is my favorite Randolph Scott movie because it is his most romantic. He was never given the chance to get the girl. Usually in most of his movies he lost the girl or you didn't care if he won the girl. The chemistry between Randolph Scott and Gene Tierney is like a fire in a barbeque. It helps that Dana Andrews tries to confuse the situation.

Also, this movie is based on real people. In "Belle Starr", these people are exciting and beautiful. Hollywood makes historical movies that you hope are accurate but are probably not.

Copyright 12 September 1941 by 20th Century-Fox Film Corp. New York opening at the Roxy: 31 October 1941. U.S. release: 12 September 1941. Australian release: 4 March 1943 (sic). 7,834 feet. 87 minutes.

SYNOPSIS: A heavily romanticized account of a Missouri-Oklahoman horse thief and companion of outlaws. Belle Starr never lived in any sort of mansion, grand or otherwise, and was too busy stealing and low- living to have any truck with the South. She didn't even meet Sam Starr until long after the Civil War had ended. Starr himself was a bandit. When he was shot to death, she married Blue Duck.

NOTES: One of the most popular films Fox ever released in Australia. Although it came in at 6th spot for Australia's top ticket-sellers of 1943, Fox kept the film in constant re-issue throughout the 40s and 50s. It even played four or five times at Greater Union's revival flag-ship, the Lyric.

COMMENT: Beautifully photographed Civil War Saga, handsomely mounted, sympathetically scripted, directed with insight and acted with flair. Although Randolph Scott receives top billing, his role is comparatively small. It is Gene Tierney who captures most of the audience's attention with her spirited portrayal of the title role. Also, she is superbly costumed and she figures prominently in all the plot's most memorable incidents. The pace is fast and the Civil War atmosphere comes across strongly.

OTHER VIEWS: It's easy to distinguish the work of the two photographers. Rennahan did all the beautiful and meticulously-lit studio work with its lustrous close-ups and luminous shadows, while Palmer did the less interesting exteriors (one marvelous shot with the riders coming against the lightening sky) . Cummings' direction is more stylish than usual (RR's influence?). Though the film presents some laughable racial stereotypes and a plot that allows nothing to chance so far as the viewers' intelligence is concerned. Every explanatory point is underlined thrice (and thus the movie is inclined to be over-talky), but it's lavishly costumed and staged.

Parallels with GWTW are obvious. Though a spin-off from that film, it was itself to spawn a whole host of imitators in which Belle was not quite the goody-two-shoed victim of history as depicted here.

Tierney's performance lacks the conviction that her looks inspire and Scott makes too charming a villain, but Shepperd Strudwick is surprisingly convincing, while Dana Andrews has a made-to-order role. Support cast headed by Olin Howland (of all people) also scores strongly.

The film has an ironic denouement which is rather unique (doubtless it influenced Steinbeck's Viva Zapata). — John Howard Reid writing as George Addison.

Unusual action story filmed in Technicolor tells extraordinary exploits of woman bandit of American post Civil War period — the female Jesse James of her day. This film gives star rating to up- and-coming personality Gene Tierney. Randolph Scott, John Shepperd, Dana Andrews, Louis Beaver (sic), Elizabeth Patterson head the cast, and Irving Cummings directs. — Fox publicity.

Although the true story of Belle Starr is fictionalized, the history of Yankee abuse in post-Civel War history is right on target. Missouri was NOT a Confederate state but they were still cursed with uppity and self serving Yankee officers, carpetbaggers, and other scum whose actions would assure the unofficial Civil War would continue to flow blood well into 1882 and beyond.

Belle Starr begins by making the point of how Yankee actions impoverished the black population, as the legend of Miss Belle is told by an aged black man, trying to eek a living out of the ruins of Belle's burnt plantation, told to his granddaughter.

When Belle is found to have helped a wounded Southerner, Union hothead (Dana Andrews is stuck with this role) takes out her sexual rejection of him by burning her home to the ground. Belle soon vows to spill Yankee blood for the remainder of her life, and with he aid of Sam Starr (Randolph Scott) she does just that.

Gene Tierney was said by Daryll F Zanuck to be the most beautiful woman to ever appear in the movies, and who would disagree. Filmed in the glorious and now long-gone 3 strip Technicolor, Miss Tierney as well as the countryside are just gorgeous.

Incidentally, Technicolor cameras of this era weighted hundreds of pounds and were half the size of an automobile; thus we're spared the hyper and jump-around camera work that are the curse of 2000 to 2010's awful movies.

Hollywood today is completely confused as to what to do about showing black people in movies about the 19th century. By PC standards, slaves, if any, must be like those in Spielberg's false Amasted. Filmmakers in the early 1940's had no idea they were supposed to comply with the empty-headed prejudices of 2010. Courage is not Hollywood's strong point, so Belle Starr is supposedly confined to the Fox vault -- but you can find it if you try hard enough.

This film is technically very up to date even though it is from 1941. It is an expensive color production, trying to stay on the wake of Gone With The Wind. Where the film aged considerably is on the script which is either patronizing in relation to Afro Americans or downright racist like when it shows Randolph Scott scaring carpetbaggers out of Missouri. Gene Tierney with a heavy southern accent is very good as Belle and so is Randolph Scott as Sam Starr. It is very rare to see Scott in a romantic part and he comes out great. It is curious that they show the three Younger brothers with a different surname, Cole. That is quite a direct reference to Cole Younger, yet they changed the names. Dana Andrews is the Union Major Grail who is in love with Belle but places duty above everything. "Belle Starr" has aged but it is still an interesting film to see.

OK, this film wants us to sympathize with southerners who took to banditry after the Civil War. So what evil and disgusting Yankee devilry do they show us? A check-suited carpetbagger telling black people they can--gasp!--walk on the sidewalk and sit on the front porch, and a lot of happy black folks celebrating their new freedom.

Oh, well, you can understand, then. Blacks on the sidewalks?! God help us! Keep your powder dry, boys! I normally deprecate the simple-minded practice of holding the art of other eras responsible to our standards of political correctness, but I don't care--that's just plain foul.

Of course, it's not completely racist; there are decent black folks in evidence, too: they are the ones who sympathize with their oppressors and help them fight those lousy carpetbaggers who want to let them sit right on the front porch where anybody can see them!

It's been a few years since I saw *Gone With the Wind*: was it this hamhandedly bigoted in its treatment of blacks?

It's s shame, because one you get past the overt racism, this is actually a pretty good movie, with one of Randolph Scott's better performances.

This movie really left me cold. Usually I can enjoy nearly anything that Randolph Scott is in, but in this case I just can't. Maybe the reason his performance in this film is so uninspired is that he realizes how far from reality this story has strayed. The real Belle Starr was hardly an 'outlaw queen' - she was as ugly as a pig's rear end and about as charming. According to something in the plot, some guy - a military guy or a marshal, I forget which - was so smitten with her that he followed after her. He must have been blind. The problem as I see it is that the woman had a pretty name and a questionable history, so they made her into an 'outlaw queen'. However, if her name had been a reflection on this 'queen's' beauty, she would have been named 'Selma Klagshultz' or maybe 'Ethel Gumpox'. Would they have made this same movie with an 'outlaw queen' who didn't sound like one? They made a movie out of a pretty name, and modified the ugly wearer to suit.

I don't know why they insist on making these stories so romanticized but this was so far from reality it was a joke. If the real story isn't good enough then write something else altogether. The real Belle Starr's story was maybe, just MAYBE good enough to make into a movie, in my opinion, but this movie is just a waste of time and film. If the makers wanted a movie like this, they should have invented a whole character, name and all, and created a story, rather than taking a historical character and turning her into something she was not. Blech.

BELLE STAR should have a disclaimer at the start. Any resemblance between the people portrayed here and the real life characters is strictly coincidental. Furthermore, someone should have told LOUISE BEAVERS that she is no substitute for HATTIE McDANIEL.

The film reeks with what it portrays as Southern charm, including the heavily accented Miss Tierney who struggles with what was supposed to be a star-making role. Fortunately, she's surrounded by a couple of pros: RANDOLPH SCOTT as her husband Sam Starr and DANA ANDREWS as a Yankee who finds himself enamored of her while chasing the outlaw woman in a series of melodramatic skirmishes that seem like throwaways from GONE WITH THE WIND.

Gene Tierney never did receive good reviews for her early films and BELLE STAR is no exception. Furthermore, the Technicolor needs restoration if this ever goes to DVD.

Summing up: A slow paced account of Belle Star's criminal career with a miscast and sophisticated Gene Tierney playing the outlaw in a below par performance that never strikes the necessary spark.

The movie opens with a young black girl finding a muddy doll in a cultivated path that her grandfather just furrowed in a family garden. When the grandfather relates that it might have belonged once to a legend named Belle Starr, he's asked to explain what a legend is. He states that it's 'the prettiest part of the truth'.

Unfortunately, the movie never even gets to any part of the truth regarding the life of Belle Starr, pretty or otherwise. The title of the film is apparently taken from a Richard K. Fox novel of the same name, a writer and publisher of the National Police Gazette, so right there one's sources are questionable. At least the principal players had credibility in other pictures, in this one they're doing the best they can under the circumstances. Gene Tierney in particular, portraying the title character, comes across as unusually sarcastic and whiny. That may not have been her own fault as the director obviously had some input into the role, but it had a negative effect on this viewer.

Utilizing piecemeal aspects of American Civil War history, the film introduced elements from the real life of Belle Starr, but that's about it. In reality Sam Starr was a Cherokee Indian and was actually Belle's second husband; they lived in Indian Territory and were eventually arrested by Bass Reeves for horse theft in 1883. Both served time, and oddly, Belle was a model prisoner for the nine months she served at the Detroit House of Corrections.

The picture did get a few things right; Belle Starr did ride sidesaddle and did marry Sam Starr (Randolph Scott). Two characters introduced in the story as the Cole Brothers (Joe Sawyer and Joe Downing) were obviously based on two members of the James-Younger Gang, brothers John and Jim Younger. That was established when it was mentioned they once rode with Quantrill's Raiders during the Civil War. The death of Belle Starr is also dealt with accurately, she was killed in an ambush in 1889, though her murder remains unsolved with various theories offered.

There are a handful of TV and movie Western treatments of Belle Starr, but the only other one I've seen is an episode from 1954's "Stories of the Century", it was actually the premier episode. That one presented Belle as a horse thief and all around bad girl, while Sam was a shiftless drinker and gambler, a lot closer to the truth than this movie suggests. In that story, Belle Starr is portrayed by Marie Windsor in a better considered casting decision.

If you read about the real life Belle Starr, you'll soon notice that her life has almost nothing to do with the film "Belle Starr"....nothing! Heck, when the film began, they couldn't even get the state where she lived correct! And, she hardly was the sort that should have been portrayed by the beautiful Gene Tierney! So, when you watch the movie you need to remember that it is complete fiction from start to finish.

Another thing about the film that is pure fiction is the film's depiction of the Reconstruction era. Instead of showing what life was really like in the post-war South, it shows images that seem straight out of the film "Birth of a Nation"--with horrible stereotypes of blacks running amok, dancing in the streets and being 'uppity'. The only horrible stereotype missing is the watermelon! Again, this film is definitely NOT a history lesson but promotes a racist view of this time. And, sadly, at the time the film was made, it was the popular view of this period. I really wish that when Turner Classic Movies showed the film that it would have been introduced by Robert Osbourne with a disclaimer about all this! The real life Belle Starr was NOT a woman crusading against the evil Yankee and political injustice. No, she was a crook and had a long history of marrying crooks who ended up getting themselves shot. And, not surprisingly, eventually she was shot at age 41. She wasn't pretty and she was just plain vicious.

Now if I completely turn off the parts of my brain that balk at these historical inaccuracies (which is tough, as I am retired history teacher), what are the film's merits? Well, the story is occasionally interesting and the production values are very good--with nice color film stock and music. But the film also is full of ridiculous acting by Tierney--who seems more shrill and silly than anything else. As for her co-stars, Dana Andrews and Randolph Scott, they are both fine actors who are given little to do other than to stand back and watch Belle over-act badly. The only one who came off well was Belle's brother (Shepperd Strudwick)--he had some good lines and was able to put across his character well. Overall, a silly and inconsequential film. You can easily do better.

The cinema has always had a cavalier disregard for historical fact, and nowhere has this been more true than in its biopics of the famous men and women of the Old West, whether heroes or villains. This film, however, is perhaps the most egregious example I have seen of Hollywood's penchant for fictionalising and romanticising Western history. There was a late 19th-century outlaw named Belle Starr, a fairly obscure figure during her lifetime but turned into a "female Jesse James" by sensationalist writers after her death. This film, however, has almost nothing to do with her story. By contrast even the notoriously inaccurate "They Died with Their Boots On" about General Custer, also from 1941, and the almost equally inaccurate 1939 "Jesse James" with Tyrone Power seem like sober historical documentaries.

The action takes place in the years immediately following the end of the American Civil War. The film was obviously influenced by "Gone with the Wind", made two years earlier. In this version the young Belle Shirley is a Scarlett O'Hara figure, a fiery brunette Southern belle born into a wealthy plantation-owning family and a passionate supporter of the Southern cause. After her family home is burnt down by the villainous Yankees, Belle marries Sam Captain Starr, a dashing guerrilla leader trying to liberate the South from Yankee tyranny. There would be little point in trying to list all the goofs and historical inaccuracies in "Belle Starr"; it would be much easier to list the few things that it gets right. Indeed, even when the scriptwriters try to be accurate they inadvertently make matters worse by making the story even less plausible than it might otherwise have been.

The historical Belle Starr carried out most of her criminal activities in Texas and Oklahoma, but was originally a native of Missouri, and for some reason the film-makers decided to set their story in that state. Now a storyline like the one set out above might make some sort of sense if it had been set in, say, Alabama or South Carolina; it makes no sense at all when set in Missouri, a state which had comparatively few slaves and no real plantation economy. Indeed, it had only become a slave state in the first place because of a grubby compromise between pro- and anti- slavery factions in 1820, and it remained loyal to the Union throughout the Civil War. It therefore seems highly unlikely that Missourians would have flocked to the banner of Captain Starr as they are shown doing here.

There was long an unwritten convention in Hollywood, a convention dictated by the need to sell cinema tickets on both sides of the Mason/Dixon Line, that film-makers dealing with the Civil War era should not give offence to Southern feelings by pointing out such unpleasant truths as the evils of slavery or the fact that, because it sought to perpetuate those evils, the Confederate cause was a dishonourable one. This convention is observed in "Gone with the Wind", among other films, but "Belle Starr" goes a step further. Not only does it seek to avoid offending Southerners, it seeks to give quite gratuitous offence to Northerners.

The only representative of the Northern cause we see is Major Thomas Crail, a handsome, cultivated young officer who is quite happy both to accept Belle's hospitality in her elegant stately home and then, a week later, to burn that home to the ground while courteously explaining that this act of arson is merely carried out to further the interests of the US Government. His personal feelings, of course, have nothing to do with the matter. It is worth pointing out that the film was made in 1941, at a time when much of Europe had fallen under Nazi control. All over the continent handsome, cultivated young officers were either dining with the owners of elegant stately homes in occupied lands or burning those homes to the ground, dependent upon which course of action would better further the interests of the Third Reich. Their personal feelings, of course, had nothing to do with the matter.

Quite apart from this implied equation of the Yankees with the Nazis, the film is offensive in other ways. By the forties it was no longer acceptable to portray black Americans in the way in which they had been portrayed a quarter of a century earlier in "Birth of a Nation", but things had not really improved. The black characters in this film are no longer the violent, bestial savages of Griffith's film but are treated with patronising condescension as simple-minded, childlike folk who treat their white masters with exaggerated respect. They regard Belle after her death as a "legend", virtually as a saint, even though in her lifetime she was an ardent advocate of keeping them in servitude.

Seen purely as an adventure drama, in fact, the film is not a bad one; the acting and direction are of a reasonable standard, it is visually attractive and it has the great advantage of starring the incomparably beautiful Gene Tierney, the loveliest actress of the forties, as Belle. In the 21st century, however, films like this one cannot be judged on artistic merits alone. "Belle Starr" is a deeply dishonest film- not in the sense that it is less than faithful to historical fact, which in Hollywood is, at most, a venial sin, but in the sense that it contributes to a dishonest narrative of American history which seeks to excuse, even to justify, the cruelty and racism of the past. 4/10

That's an actual line of dialog from the script. Really.

The Belle Starr story, never actually told in the movies (partially because the real story isn't that interesting..) is told here in early Hollywood color and all the vim and vigor with which they revered the South. The plot hook is that one of the aforementioned "darkies" actually tells the fable as the narrator. Without spoiling the movie, Belle and her husband continue fighting after the War Against Treason, using those traditional Civil War Southern values of robbery, assassination, treason and protecting known criminals to keep Missouri safe for, well,the same people it was safe for before the War. Hey, it works in the movie.

The point made by vitaleralphlouis in his review is well taken. How dare we criticize Hollywood for showing how a loving mammy would help keep Belle safe, or that another "darkie" (their word, not mine) shows Belle's antagonist how disgusting he was. We all know that negroes formerly held as slaves had nothing but love for their former (or in this case present) slaveowners.

This is a classic example of a movie obviously made with care, but looked at today 99% of its viewers would wonder what was in the coffee they served at the story-pitching conference. Because even as a joke, this kind of movie could never be made again, and if there's one good thing you can say about Hollywood, that's it.

Oh, and by the way: a moment of silence for black actors like Louise Beavers who could only find work like this in her era.

This shoddy little production is a cheap and pale imitation of "Gone With the Wind", with a horribly mis-cast Gene Tierney struggling with accent and script. Randolph Scott and Dana Andrews don't help by being planks of wood.

Still Gene looks great, and the costumes are nice, - but the whole thing is so unbelievable. And so obviously designed to capitalise on the success of GWTW, even down to the Mammie character played here well by Louise Beavers. And the film is very racist - almost like "Birth of A Nation" - with the newly liberated blacks portrayed as getting above their station and, in one scene, getting chased out of town by Gene and Randolph.

My interest is movie music, featured and incidental, especially Westerns and John Ford Westerns in particular.

I noticed that Belle Starr used the same music theme as in Ford's "The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance". Apparently, this was also used in "Young Mr Lincoln". As the cues are not identified in films generally, does anyone have any information on the "love theme" used in hes three films? I believe it may have been Alfred Newman, but does anyone know what it was called and whether an orchestrated recoded version is available? Secondly, Ford used the old 19c song "Lorena" in "The Searchers" and "The Horse Soldiers", is this available in recorded instrumental, orchestrated form?

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