An OK rendition of a tired story...

Rating: 5/10 (18 November 2018)

... it is so tired it dates back to 1932. The first rendition was "What Price Hollywood" starring Constance Bennett as a woman who is looking for fame in the movies and Lowell Sherman as a director with a drinking and punctuality problem who discovers her while he still has some clout. In this version the starlet's husband is a sound citizen. The second version is from 1937 and stars Janet Gaynor in one of her last roles before her retirement as the country gal who comes to Hollywood seeking stardom. In this version it is the starlet's future husband (Fredric March) who discovers her and whose career goes downhill due to alcohol. In 1954 Judy Garland plays the actress on an uphill trajectory with James Mason as the matinee idol husband who is on a downhill slide. What is different here? Due to the actress playing the lead role, the star is made to be a great singer too so full advantage can be taken of Garland's voice. Why make a 1976 version? In this case both the woman on the rise/husband on the decline are singers exclusively. The movies have exited stage left. Also, this is the first post production code era version of the film, so you have sleeping around before marriage, graphic infidelity, drug addiction, and a close up view of the suicide scene.
So now we have FOUR versions of this film. Why make a fifth? Because Hollywood is out of nerve. They want to go for the safe bet and safe buck. The plot for this fifth version is pretty close to the fourth. The differences I could see? The husband does not accidentally hit the wife during the award ceremony - if it's not PC it's not going to be in an American film. And finding the future singing sensation in a drag bar - not even in the post production code era would that have gone over in 1976. That's pretty much it. Oh, and therapists get involved in this one. Got to have therapists in these situations now, they are the priests of 21st century America. Other than that, no difference. Everybody carries themselves believably, nobody makes a fool of themself, but other than that - meh. Oh, one more thing. There is zero chemistry between the two leads - zilch, zip, nada. There was chemistry between each of the leads of all of the ones that came before it except for the 1932 film, and that was because the starlet's husband may have been a sober guy, but he was a bit of a caveman in how he treated his wife.
My final verdict - for what they charge for going to the movies these days I would expect more. You want music in your film? Go see Bohemian Rhapsody. That tells a story worth telling mainly because it is a biography so the script was pretty much already written. Just my two cents.