MartinHafer 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.

fidgee 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.

spiritof67 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.

Noirdame79 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!