Strong and Moving!

Sadly Over-hyped

Pretty Good

The plot isn't so bad, but the pace of storytelling is too slow which makes people bored. Certain moments are so obvious and unnecessary for the main plot. I would've fast-forwarded those moments if it was an online streaming. The ending looks like implying a sequel, not sure if this movie will get one

The first remake of the adorable love story The Shop Around the Corner was made into a musical with Judy Garland and Van Johnson. It's a much lighter film than the 1940 version, with S.Z Sakall as the amiable shop owner, replacing Frank Morgan's dark, depressive role in the original. As far as remakes go, I like the modern You've Got Mail better. The 1949 version, while skipping the serious realism in the dramatic elements, also misses most of the story's charm as it turns into a mediocre 1940s musical for Judy Garland.Judy and Van don't get off to a very good start, and while they spend the entire movie bickering with each other at work, after-hours they're unknowingly involved with each other through letters. Will the two paths ever cross? It's a very cute story, but with Judy's pouting and signature "Dorothy Gale" temper and Van's conceit, neither lead is really likable. And while in the original, James Stewart and Felix Bressart have darling interactions about his pen-pal relationship, Van and Clinton Sundberg make their scenes fall flat. Buster Keaton is included in the supporting cast, but I can never get enough of him, so the few scenes he has aren't really enough. Why couldn't he have had Clinton's part?The famous song "I Don't Care" holds a special place in my heart. My older brother-and older brothers aren't normally known for their awareness of Judy Garland movies-actually remembers this song from when I compiled a Judy Garland film montage in high school. To him, Judy's most famous moment in screen history is waving her arounds around in a red dress singing "I Don't Care". So, when you watch that song, think of my brother!

I won't go into plot details, as it's been done by so many other reviewers before me. Instead, I'll just share my observations as a fan of classic musicals, and specifically of Judy Garland.Personally, I think it was during 43-46 period when Judy looked and sounded the best. And incidentally, it was also the period when the classic MGM studio system was at the apex of its efficiency in churning out one great musical after another before its demise later in that decade.In Good Old Summertime, one can't help but realize, with much regret, that the greatest period of the good old musical films and of Judy Garland was beginning to wane. And it is noticeable from quality of music scores and from changes in her appearance also.Of course, it's still a very enjoyable movie, especially if you watched one of the other movies based on the same story. And Judy still looks amiable and sounds great even when she had to sing in such self-deprecating manner as in 'I Don't Care', which feels very different from other instances of similar comic approach of her previous films like 'When I Look at You' in Presenting Lily Mars, or 'Couple of Swells' from Easter Parade, for example.Even though the movie is categorized as a musical, it's certainly not Harvey Girls where you can enjoy such trademark MGM scenes, like that big, complex sequence as 'Atchison Topika and the Santa Fe'.Back then, the Freed Unit with so many talented actors and actresses were so efficient that they didn't need too many camera cuts or even extensive rehearsals to create a such captivating 20 min long sequence.In Good Old Summertime, Judy Garland is almost the only person who sings, and there is no 'sequence' to talk of, as most of the numbers are done by her singing solo, except for the Barbershop Quartet and 'I Don't Care' numbers.In general, songs are less memorable than those from her other movies. There's a Christmas song which Judy sings beautifully as usual, though it just isn't on par with 'Have Yourself a Merry Christmas' from Meet Me in St. Louis.Judy still looks attractive, but not more so than in her earlier movies. Her personal troubles in real life begin to take their toll on her appearances by the time she appeared in this movie. Van Johnson is amiable, but he's certainly not her ideal partner in a musical film, as he can't really sing or dance like Mickey Rooney or Gene Kelly.All in all, it's a still very enjoyable movie, but if you are a Judy Garland fan like me, you might want to try her other films first, preferably one from the 43-46 period, if you haven't seen them all already.And when you have already seen most of them, and when you are sure to understand why people keep praising Judy Garland and her movies from her better days even today, then with a preparation of your mind for experiencing some regrets and pangs which might result from seeing her lesser self in a lesser kind of a musical, you are ready to enjoy this movie as a devote Judy Garland's fan.It's something similar to what it requires to enjoy her late year recordings like the famous Carnegie Hall album. It pains to notice how she lost her range and her once impeccable vibrato became one that sounds artificial and forced.But at least, it's Judy Garland and I believe that would suffice to enjoy it for most her ardent fans. As to what seems deficient, they can supplement it by their memories of what she has been in her prime time.

This film is the color version of Shop Around The Corner black & white which featured Jimmy Stewart. The differences are a mature Judy Garland, a decent performance from Van Johnson, and more. The film is well directed including some direction by stone face Buster Keaton.Actually this is one of Van Johnson's better screen performances. This might be thanks to Keaton who was at that time teaching Lucille Ball comedy too. Johnson is actually pretty good here. So is Judy Garland as she shines in her musical numbers. I only wish more newer numbers were written for this picture as some of the older ones while well done seem worn by the late 1940's.Still, it is so rare and so exciting to see Judy in prime time color. The story does get a little confused though as even though her and Van Johnson are in love by letter, the sparks between them never really seem to hit the screen in a physical way that well.Van Johnson would continue his association with Keaton & Lucy including getting into television as early as 1957 because of Lucy while the other, Van Heflin, turned down being Elliot Ness on the Untouchables. Johnson ran up quite a string of television credits before retiring. Seeing the work of Johnson in this film shows he did take some advice from Keaton as this is his best comedy performance on film. Good thing his wife wasn't on the set.

As has been noted, this formula has been filmed several times, most recently as "You've Got Mail", with Tom Hanks and Meg"Trout Pout" Ryan. Of the several versions, this is my least favorite. The problem i think is that the studio coasted on the Stars charisma, which doesn't quite cut it here.The chemistry betwixt the two leads never comes to a boil in this movie. There are no real sparks. Van Johnson and Judy Garland remind me of day old donuts, pleasant but bland. And when the leads are boring the rest of the movie can only follow. Judy in particular is disappointing. She looks like she has no neck! I don't know if she was having trouble with pain or something but she looks like a turtle trying to pull it's head into it's shell, all hunched up and everything. I couldn't figure out what Van Johnson was getting so hot about. I would have made a bee line for that cute violin player. And Van wasn't great either. I've always thought of him as a rather generic Hollywood leading man and he doesn't do anything to dispel that image here.If you're a fan of the stars or the early 1900's then you might like this movie. But there are a lot more entertaining romantic comedies out there, and they offer you much more than a mouthful of stale confection.