Meet Me in St. Louis (1944)

"Meet Me in St. Louis" is Judy's Garland's film and nobody else. Producer Arthur Freed and Director Vincente Minnelli lavish Garland with plush Technicolor, great tunes and photography that showcases Judy in a way that she had never been seen. She was never more beautiful on screen.The story centers around the affluent Smith family of St. Louis: Father Alonzo (Leon Ames), Mother Anna (Mary Astor in an inspired bit of casting), daughters Esther (Garland), Rose Lucille Bremer), Agnes (Joan Carroll) and cutsie Tootie (Margaret O'Brien). Also there is Lon Jr. Henry H. Daniels Jr., Grandpa (Harry Davenport) and the maid Katie (Marjorie Main). They all live in a palatial mansion, wear all the latest fashions and generally live lives that few of us could imagine.The time is 1903 six months before the opening of the 1904 St. Louis World Fair. Esther and Rose are looking for husbands. Rose has her eye on New York socialite Warren Sheffield (Robert Sully) and Esther on the boy next door John Truett (Tom Drake), who doesn't seem to have any family but lives in an equally palatial mansion. Tootie and Agnes are up to no good on Halloween. As the year ends, Alonzo announces that he is moving the family to New York. everyone becomes despondent. But at the last moment..........................The songs in this film are memorable. Tunes such as "The Boy Next Door", Clang, Clang Clang Goes the Trolley" and "Have Yourself a Merry Little Christmas" have since gone on to become classics. Garland pretty much has center stage all to herself. There is no "A" list leading man for example, to detract from her performance. She sings all of the songs and sings them well.Garland and Minnelli would soon become an item and would eventually marry resulting in daughter Liza Minnelli. None of the supporting players would achieve major stardom except for a bit player who played the Iceman: Chill Wills.

I really don't understand a few people giving this film and Judy Garland such ugly reviews. Some people just hate anything old fashioned, I guess. This film is beautiful, and Judy Garland is gorgeous. Are a few people blind? And Judy's singing is absolutely wonderful. I must say though, that most reviews I've read, I've almost never seen anyone badmouth Judy, just on a couple reviews for this film. Other bad reviews I've read, people are usually picking at other things about Judy's films but are still saying they love Judy and her singing and they still think she's pretty. Anyway, enough about other reviewers. I think Judy is beyond pretty, she's beautiful and heavenly. And her singing is also beautiful and heavenly. I love old fashioned classics such as this film and Judy's other films. The wonderful songs in this film are "the trolley song", " the boy next door", "have yourself a merry little Christmas", and the title song. Judy and the other characters here are great including a very young Margerate O'Brien. This film and Judy are pure, sweet, wonderful, old fashioned, classic good cheer from Hollywood's golden age.

Meet Me in St. Louis is a rather ridiculous "good old days" movie. Told episodically, it focuses on a family's problems, which mainly involve daughters trying to get husbands and decisions on where to live.While silly, the movie has charm to spare, supplied mainly by the always riveting Judy Garland and by Margaret O'Brien, giving her best performance as an anti-Shirley Temple.O'Brien's performance is surprising. While most of the movie is artificial even by the standards of the times, O'Brien offers a surprisingly id-based child obsessed with death and provocation. It is far more real than the simpering children who inhabit most 40s films.While the story is slight, the movie gets buy on tremendous moments, all involving Garland and O'Brien, as when Garland's heartbreaking rendition of Have Yourself a Merry Little Christmas is followed by O'Brien's surprising reaction.While it's no more realistic than Sleeping Beauty (even though Republicans often act as though this white, patriarchal, upper middle- class world is a thing we could actually "return" to), it is utterly charming.

Really? This is what I was waiting for? This film is just a bunch of clichés strung together with some macabre elements. I thought it would be a postcard to St. Louis, but it could have taken place anywhere. The World's Fair was barely relevant. The men were all stereotypes; the lordly-yet-foolish money-focused father who is changed by his family's warmth. The awkwardly formal men, the candied turn-of-the-century nostalgia. Other than Judy Garland's desire to extract a kiss out of her neighbor, the whole film is a silly tribute to normative culture. I guess that's what they hoped the boys fighting in Europe and Asia in 1944 wanted to see.This whole Ivy League worship was nauseating. "I'm talking to a Yale man in New York!" "Princeton is a peach of a school!" ...and the safe "Smith"-like names. The father wanting to move to NY for "money" even though they look pretty damn well off. The oldest sister's beau bursting into their house angrily and demanding that she marry him and he won't take no for an answer or whatever. Then walking out. A masturbatory fantasy for one-dimensional women. The only interesting point was the little sister's mischievousness. It was dark and playful part of an otherwise pointless costume drama.