Reviews

Of the four backyard musicals they shared, the other three being Babes in Arms (1939), Strike up the Band (1940), and Babes on Broadway (1941), this one was definitely the best. Why you may ask? Well, for several different reasons.

One: Mickey was more restrained. His acting always involved extreme mugging to the camera that quite frankly got on my nerves, especially in Babes on Broadway. But he's a little more reserved here. His announcer routine was still annoying and far too long, but it's the only glaring example.

Two: Judy Garland. Her voice and acting ability had reached a new level of maturity in this movie. I loved her sharp wit and clever facial expressions. And she was more beautiful than ever. The best I've ever seen her. You could tell her popularity was rising as she had more presence in this movie than in the other three, and more solo performances.

Three: The plot was better. The other three films had very similar plots, but this one actually took some more liberties and went in a different direction. Instead of putting on a show to form careers, they were trying to save a college. However, the plot is still pretty standard.

Four: The music. An almost entire Gershwin soundtrack, what more could you ask for? All of them were great, but "Embraceable You", my god. I've never heard a more perfect performance. It's most definitely my favorite Garland performance ever.

It's not perfect. There are many parts in the movie I feel are either rushed or not developed enough, and some of the comedy routines get tiring, but despite it's predictable plot, it's a pretty clever and enjoyable movie. And for Garland, she's definitely a Girl I go Crazy over whenever I see her perform.

This is one of my favorite of the Judy Garland movies. Being a big fan of her and her music, I've seen at least fifteen of her films, and this made it as my #2.

19 year-old Garland is our film's star, and top-billed for the first time. Besides her, this movie features Gene Kelly, fresh off from Broadway and in his first feature film. Alongside them is the always reliable George Murphy, who last starred with Garland in Little Nellie Kelly (1940). While Garland did play an adult for part of Little Nellie Kelly, this was the first film in which she had a complete adult role. We also have a guest in Marta Eggerth, an experienced opera singer who has a small part in this movie, and had a more significant part in Garland's next film, Presenting Lily Mars (1943).

Garland easily shined above the rest. Being in her fifteenth picture, she was already a polished actress, and it definitely shows in some of the more dramatic moments. Her singing was just wonderful, having reached a new level of maturity. Her dancing was actually very good considering she was never actually a dancer. But she could pick up anything thrown her way. She was perfect.

Kelly was a good co-star. Being as inexperienced as he was, he still acted pretty well, but that inexperience did show at some points. His dancing was brilliant of course, he was one of the best dancers at the time, second only to Fred Astaire. He was never really a singer, but he was okay.

Murphy, sadly, was grossly underplayed, especially in the love triangle, but he did well as a supporting character. I wish he had gotten a little more screen time.

The songs were wonderful. I find myself singing them all around my house. The sets were well put together and the plot was mostly tight. The ending was obviously tacked on, but I was able to ignore it.

But my absolute favorite part of the movie was when Garland and Kelly sang "For Me and My Gal." I was actually surprised that it was played less than twenty minutes in, considering it was the title song, but I loved it all the same. I consider it to be one of the famous magical movie moments. The pacing, the dancing, the accompaniment, it was all so perfect. And of course, it was sung by the person Fred Astaire called, "The greatest entertainer of all time," Judy Garland.

This movie will definitely put you in a good mood, despite its minor flaws. And for Garland fans such as myself, it will be a delight. The bells are ringing For Me and My Gal.

Let me start by saying, this movie is not as good as everyone says. I've seen so many reviews praising this movie and calling it the best of the batman franchise. Personally, i completely disagree, i find Tim Burton's Batman to be a much more entertaining and well-written film with better acting. I saw both that movie and this one within a week of each other, so i could decide for myself which one was better. Well, I have to say, Tim Burton's Batman won hands down. I saw a review on youtube saying Batman Begins is overrated, and I have to agree. Now don't get me wrong, it was still entertaining, but i just felt something was missing. Now The main thing that bugged me was the fact that Batman isn't in the movie enough. I know the title is Batman Begins, but that doesn't mean we have to draw out the story of Batman's origin as long as we possibly can. I checked, it took sixty-two minutes for me to actually see Batman, and that just didn't work for me. It seemed to revolve more around Bruce's anger and fear than Batman himself. The movie would have worked better if it was called "The Times and Trials of Bruce Wayne", but it wasn't. Another minor problem i faced was with Bruce Wayne himself. For the most part he was fine, but there was one scene that really stuck out to me as being just plain stupid. When Alfred told Bruce he needs to act like a playboy billionaire so no one would suspect anything, Bruce just went to a hotel with two women and let them swim in the restaurant's fountains. Then, he pompously told the waiter he was buying the hotel and went in the fountain himself. I know that's minor but still, he was an asshole in that scene. Scarecrow was useless. I thought for a while that he would be the primary villain, which interested me, but when i found out Raz Al Gaul (i think that's how his name's spelled) was really the main villain, i was disappointed. I thought since the movie mainly revolved around fear, Scarecrow would be more fitting, but they just tossed him aside. They might as well not have included Scarecrow at all. Besides, all it takes is a little zap with a tazer for him to be defeated. That's just pathetic. The fights weren't that spectacular. Half the time i couldn't tell who was punching who. The editing was choppy and many of the cuts were unnecessary. In Tim Burton's Batman, there weren't a lot of fights, but at least they were done well. If i had to choose between Christian Bale and Michael Keaton for my favorite batman, i would have to pick Keaton. Keaton in my opinion was the better actor and proved to me that batman doesn't always have to serious. Besides, Bale's growling voice annoyed me after a couple seconds. But for the most part, i found the movie to be pretty decent. Maybe my opinion would have been different if i had seen it when it first came out (even though i was only 9 or 10 then), or if i had seen it before a saw cinemassacre's review of it. But, i didn't. Overall, it was a good movie, but that's not saying much. It's worth re-watching maybe once or twice or just looking at my favorite parts, but if i do anymore than that I'll get sick of it.

Extra note: This is me from two years in the future. Thankfully my grammar and spelling are much improved from my last review. I already explained how I found this movie to be good, but certainly not great, so there's no need to go into much more detail. I just have one more statement to make.

The fact that this movie is rated higher on IMDb than The Wizard of Oz is just ridiculous. End of story.