Girl Crazy (1943)

Beautiful, moving film.

Your blood may run cold, but you now find yourself pinioned to the story.

The film's masterful storytelling did its job. The message was clear. No need to overdo.

A great movie, one of the best of this year. There was a bit of confusion at one point in the plot, but nothing serious.

Dance movies I like. You know that. Here, there is some signature Busby, but not enough. He ties up the ending of the show, in a good way. I understand that his services were only minimally appreciated. Loss of one point.Posters show Mickey and Judy dancing, but there was not as much as I had thought that there would be. They were arguing in the beginning. Just figure Tracy and Hepburn, who would make up before the end.Black and white. Ugh for a musical. How revolting. This is no film noir 1940s detective show. It needs color, and there is none. Watching the black and white tried my patience, but I actually watched the whole thing. Loses another point out of ten.Made during World War Two. Mickey, in real life, was in that war. When Mickey came home, he found that his film services were less wanted than previously. Wondering if he was in the military before or after this film was made.Were the tons of male actors-singers-dancers in this film rejects from World War Two? Had they already served? Were some of them soon to go into combat?Missing Lewis Stone as Mickey's father. Will let that go. The father figure looked like George Raft. I thought, some great tap dancing. But no. The father was portrayed by a different actor, however.Judy the next year would be in Meet Me in St. Louis, yearning for The Boy Next Door. Just four years before, Judy was decked out as an adolescent dancing with scarecrow and co. in The Wizard of Oz.Not enough Nancy Walker. Granted, she was no Rodeo Queen material, but the quals included beauteous and Nancy was just the comic relief. That's too bad. I think that she had bigger parts in other films. Was she in Best Foot Forward, or Good News? Hey Church. How's your steeple? Hahahahahaha.Mickey was very athletic. He was a short little squirt, and I marveled while watching this that he was married in real life a total of nine times. ???? That little guy really got around.Have been waiting to see this for a long time. It is actually quite satisfying, despite all of my critiquing.Eight out of ten.

Mickey Rooney (Danny) is a college playboy – God knows how – and is sent to a rural college by his dad where there are no women students enrolled. What a totally stupid college. Anyway, there is one woman there – Judy Garland (Ginger), daughter of Guy Kibbee (the Dean) and she is responsible for the mail that comes into and out of the town via the railway station in the middle of nowhere. Does Mickey Rooney continue his lucky run with the ladies? Guess who he sets his sights on? This story of this film is irrelevant. Basically, Garland and Rooney meet up, sing songs, dance and put on a show. Apparently, this is viewed as the best of their collaborations so I'm glad I watched it. It saves me from what must be total dross in their other offerings. Both Garland and Rooney are larger than life personalities with one difference – Garland is likable whilst Rooney is detestable. I've even read that he plays down his usual energy-bomb character in this film. Good God! If this is him calmed down, I want no further interactions with this ghastly pipsqueak.All the characters are awful – even Judy Garland is particularly unpleasant on first meeting Rooney and leaving him stranded. However, what we do get is the talent of Judy Garland and the music. She is, of course, a great singer and this makes the film almost passable. The best song is "Bidin' My Time" near the beginning of the film. Nothing else is particularly memorable on the song front but Garland delivers them well. By contrast, Rooney's shtick is unbearable and the scene where he just keeps mimicking radio commentaries is agonizing. Not funny. Ever.A film with screen legends but you can skip it. Like I said – "Bidin' My Time" is the only reason to watch this film. Judy's performance during this is classic stuff.

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.

A Mickey and Rooney and Judy Garland film is something that is hard to understand today. While I adore classic Hollywood films, there is a certain strangeness about their films together that just falls a bit flat. All the singing, cuteness and formula came off very well back during the late 30s and into the 40s but now it just seems dated. I am not putting the films down--just saying that although they were IMMENSELY popular then, today they are not exactly to most viewers' tastes.This movie is distinguished by having music and lyrics by George and Ira Gershwin. George had unexpectedly died a few years earlier, and these songs were from the stage version of "Girl Crazy" from the 1930s. And while I have enjoyed their music, I wasn't thrilled with some of the musical numbers here--especially since Ira's lyrics were occasionally pretty limp. The worst I can think of is the song which features the immortal line 'I'll tie your shoesies'. In addition, even compared to the typical musical of the day, this one simply had too much music. Unless you adore musicals chock full of singing, this might not be your cup of tea. Plus, hearing June Allyson belting out the opening song was a bit tough on the ears.One interesting point in this otherwise formulaic film is seeing Nancy Walker when she was young. As I grew up seeing her in commercials and on Rhoda, I just assumed she always was old! Here, she plays goofy comic relief.The story begins with Rooney playing a spoiled young playboy. He's not exactly a bad guy--just a bit full of himself. Well, his rich father isn't thrilled to see this and decides to pull him out of Yale and move him to a small western college that is NOT co-ed. Not surprisingly, there is a girl there--the Dean's daughter (Garland) and like was so often the case in this sort of film, they hate each other when they meet. Will they manage to work through this? You betcha. The next hurdle, then, is the school's future. The state is thinking about closing it as enrollment is way down. Guess what Mickey and Judy decide to do..yup, put on a show (which, incidentally, they did in 1840249 other films)! So is this one worth seeing? Well, yes...but only if you haven't watched several other Garland/Rooney films or if you like their films so much that you want to see them all. As for me, a classic movie fiend who isn't enamored with their films together, this and "Babes in Arms" and a few others I've seen are enough for me for the time being. Otherwise, they all start to look pretty much alike.