You wonder if the folks who came up with the idea of making "The Blue Bird" were either psychotic or they were deliberately trying to make the public hate Shirley Temple. After all, through most of the 1930s, she was adored--mostly because she played the sweetest child imaginable. However, here in "The Blue Bird" she plays a nasty and selfish, whiny little jerk! Why, oh, why?! And, on top of that, the film is an obvious copy of "The Wizard of Oz"--but with none of its charm.The film begins in a black & white world where a brother and sister (the oddly named Tyltyl and Mytyl) are walking about town with a bird that they obtained illegally. When they return home, Mytyl (Temple) complains and basically tells her parents that they and her life sucks. I would have slapped her ('don't tell me I don't love you, you little brat') but I guess America was not ready to see their sweetheart get slapped. Instead, they put up with it--as if she is some obnoxious child star having a tantrum and the cast is too afraid of her power to say no. Later, the children go to bed and have a weird dream--and the film becomes Technicolor. A fairy soon arrives and sends them on an adventure to find the Blue Bird of Happiness. This adventure is a bit like doing acid, as it gets REALLY weird. First, their dog and cat come to life to accompany them. Then, they visit a variety of places--such as a visit to spend a bit of time with dead grandma and dead grandpa (this part is VERY maudlin to say the least and the old folks mostly talk about how horrible it is to be forgotten!!), then to stay with some hedonists (Mr. and Mrs. Luxury) who are very selfish as well, the land of unborn babies (what?!?!) as several other adventures that, simply put, are not interesting. And, in the end, the children learn a lesson that 99.9% of the audience KNEW she'd learn by the end of the film.There really is not much to like about this slickly produced but otherwise dreadful film. My wife commented, rightfully, that watching this film was just painful! I would add it lacked fun--the biggest problem in any sort of children's film. The story is bizarre (and not in a good way) to say the least. None of the characters are likable--and Shirley least of all. I do like Tylette (which sounds like 'toilet')--the evil cat played by Gale Sondergaard. She is a bit humorous and is not meant to be likable. Oh, and although the film was expensive and colorful, the fire sequence looked amazingly cheap. Overall, a HUGE mess--and a film you won't soon forget. Best for its camp value as opposed to entertainment value. I have seen the Soviet-American version of the 1970s. It's not good but as least has more likable kids--a major plus. Actually, I think that the silent version from 1918 is also bad--but probably the best of the three I've seen. Not exactly a glowing endorsement, I know.

Amid the competitiveness of classic era cinema, whenever one studio had a big success the others would inevitably roll out their copycats. These were invariably inferior knock-offs, but they often fared reasonably well because they cashed in on the popularity of whatever it was they were imitating. But imagine, if you will, a rip-off movie so appalling that it failed at the box office, even with the attachment of a popular star. Just such a thing is The Blue Bird. It's making was a particularly pertinent bit of point-making by 20th Century Fox, since its star Shirley Temple had lost out to Judy Garland for the lead role in The Wizard of Oz. However, the fantasy movie Fox gave to Temple got wrong everything The Wizard of Oz got right.The failure of The Blue Bird is usually blamed upon the fact that Temple plays a mean-spirited little girl, and it's true this is at least part of the problem. It's not that she isn't good at being the snooty brat – I can well imagine her being like that in real life – it's just that it's wrong for the movie. The story arc is all about Temple's moral development through her adventures, but she's so convincing as the little madam we have no starting point with which to sympathise with her. Ironically though it's the deliciously evil Gale Sondergaard who I find myself routing for, especially since the "good guys" in this movie are so flimsy (or in the case of Fairy Berylune, downright rude).But there are still deeper flaws running through The Blue Bird. Its joyless, po-faced moralism becomes tiresome incredibly quickly. Its fairytale concepts may be a little different but they don't really inspire much delight. Admittedly a little poignancy has been eked from the scene with children waiting to be born, but the concept of unborn babies being love-struck teenagers is a little too weird even for a fantasy movie. And plot-wise it doesn't really have much else to offer. There is a tacked-on "daddy going to war" subplot, very much a Shirley Temple staple, but it falls flat because unlike in The Little Princess an emotional bond between father and daughter is not established.And when one compares The Blue Bird to its predecessor The Wizard of Oz, its woeful banality reaches depressing proportions. Like The Wizard of Oz, it begins in monochrome and turns to colour, but as oppose to the unforgettable transition in Oz it's an almost arbitrary switch between two scenes. Essentially it steals the idea but has learnt none of the grace. And, for want of a better word, it's not movie-fied enough. A frumpy Jessie Ralph in her patchwork cloak is very much as the character might appear in a book of fairy tales, but The Blue Bird could benefit more from the glamour of Billie Burke and her sparkles. And Helen Ericson as "Light" is simply too bland to be a replacement. Also bland is the music, the special effects, the set design… I could go on, but there doesn't seem much point. The Blue Bird shows classic Hollywood at its least enchanting.

Shirley Temple's last lavishly-produced starring vehicle at 20th Century-Fox didn't come close to equaling the success (financial or otherwise) of 1939's "The Wizard Of Oz" from MGM (who had tried, unsuccessfully, to star Temple as Dorothy). This curious enterprise, based on the play, would seem to have a great deal in common with "Oz" (it even begins in black-and-white and turns to color), but the crucial elements of an identifiable plot are missing, and the young girl at the center of this story is consistently petulant. It was a fundamental error to make Shirley Temple unsympathetic; as the scowling, complaining daughter of a poor woodcutter, she wakes one night to an elderly fairy-woman knocking on her door and soon finds herself and her little brother on a search to find the Blue Bird of Happiness. The production is quite grand, but the saturated colors don't gleam and the set-designs are vast without having a sense of wonderment. As for Temple, she's a little bit stiff and self-conscious (odd for her), though her mature sarcasm in the prologue is very funny. Remade (disastrously, yet amusingly) as a musical in 1976. **1/2 from ****

After having watched this movie, for the life of me I can't figure out why this picture flopped at the box office when it was released in 1940. Shirley Temple plays Mytyl, a young girl who is not happy because her family is poor. She believes that if she were rich and had the luxuries that she has been denied in her life she will be happy. Her parents love her and try to teach her to realize how blessed she is with her loving family, but Mytly doesn't believe it's enough. Without giving the movie completely away she "dreams" that she goes to a magical land in search for the bluebird of happiness. If she can find the bluebird, then she will finally be happy. There is a true dream like quality to the film, and the set decorations are lavish and beautiful. Shirley is supported by a wonderful supporting cast such as Spring Byington, who plays her mother, Gale Sondergaard, who plays an evil cat come to life, and Nigel Bruce (usually remembered as Dr. Watson in the Sherlock Holmes movies opposite Basil Rathbone) as Mr. Luxury. I love the fact that the movie tries to teach that true happiness is not found through riches and things, but found right at home, with the people we love. I have read that people felt that this was a "rip-off" of the Wizard of Oz which was released the year before, but even though there are some similarities in the story lines (young girl goes on a magical journey only to find her happiness is truly in her own backyard) but other than that, the similarities end. Both movies are beautiful and teach their lessons in their own magical way. If you have never seen this movie, and especially if you are a Shirley Temple fan, then you must see this movie. I was impressed...I think you will be.