angelcitygal
Joined Aug 2000
Welcome to the new profile
We're still working on updating some profile features. To see the badges, ratings breakdowns, and polls for this profile, please go to the previous version.
Reviews15
angelcitygal's rating
I wonder why the user below felt the need to criticize this film not once, but twice. Strange.
At any rate, I couldn't allow those negative and misleading comments to be the first read by those who haven't seen "Meet Me in St. Louis". This movie is NOT plotless, obnoxious or racist.
"Meet Me in St. Louis" is what is sometimes called a "slice of life" story. Basically, it tells the story of one year (1903-1904) in the lives of the Smith family. What gives the story its charm is that everyday yearnings and incidents become the stuff of major drama, just as they do in real life. Older sister Esther (the wonderful Judy Garland) is determined to get the attention of the object of her affections, the boy next door (Tom Drake). Youngest sister Tootie (Margaret O'Brien) uses Halloween to prove that she can be a mischief-maker on a level with the older kids.
Taken by themselves, neither of these events seems terribly exciting. What is great about "Meet Me in St. Louis", however, is that it gives these events the importance that they hold in the minds of the characters. As Esther sings in "The Trolley Song": "As he started to go, then I started to know how it feels when the universe reels!"
Most of us will never rule a nation or go on a great adventure. But we can all identify with what it's like to be seventeen, NEEDING to win the love of your crush. Or when you're five and MUST prove that you're not a baby anymore. This is why this film is so beloved and timeless.
As to the criticisms levelled at the color-saturation, I saw this as a way of showing how we always see our youth as a bright place. Don't we tend to imagine our youth as brighter, sunnier and more colorful than it actually was?
And as for the songs...well, if you can't appreciate and enjoy songs like "The Trolley Song", "The Boy Next Door" and "Have Yourself a Merry Little Christmas", I feel sorry for you. No one sings "Have Yourself a Merry Little Christmas" with the yearning and pain that Judy gives the song. And "The Trolley Song" makes me smile every time I hear it.
It's true that "Meet Me in St. Louis" isn't for everyone. The overly-cynical and pessimistic probably won't enjoy it at all. But for those of us who like to look back and smile on our youth and escape to a less-complicated world for a couple of hours, there's no place like St. Louis.
At any rate, I couldn't allow those negative and misleading comments to be the first read by those who haven't seen "Meet Me in St. Louis". This movie is NOT plotless, obnoxious or racist.
"Meet Me in St. Louis" is what is sometimes called a "slice of life" story. Basically, it tells the story of one year (1903-1904) in the lives of the Smith family. What gives the story its charm is that everyday yearnings and incidents become the stuff of major drama, just as they do in real life. Older sister Esther (the wonderful Judy Garland) is determined to get the attention of the object of her affections, the boy next door (Tom Drake). Youngest sister Tootie (Margaret O'Brien) uses Halloween to prove that she can be a mischief-maker on a level with the older kids.
Taken by themselves, neither of these events seems terribly exciting. What is great about "Meet Me in St. Louis", however, is that it gives these events the importance that they hold in the minds of the characters. As Esther sings in "The Trolley Song": "As he started to go, then I started to know how it feels when the universe reels!"
Most of us will never rule a nation or go on a great adventure. But we can all identify with what it's like to be seventeen, NEEDING to win the love of your crush. Or when you're five and MUST prove that you're not a baby anymore. This is why this film is so beloved and timeless.
As to the criticisms levelled at the color-saturation, I saw this as a way of showing how we always see our youth as a bright place. Don't we tend to imagine our youth as brighter, sunnier and more colorful than it actually was?
And as for the songs...well, if you can't appreciate and enjoy songs like "The Trolley Song", "The Boy Next Door" and "Have Yourself a Merry Little Christmas", I feel sorry for you. No one sings "Have Yourself a Merry Little Christmas" with the yearning and pain that Judy gives the song. And "The Trolley Song" makes me smile every time I hear it.
It's true that "Meet Me in St. Louis" isn't for everyone. The overly-cynical and pessimistic probably won't enjoy it at all. But for those of us who like to look back and smile on our youth and escape to a less-complicated world for a couple of hours, there's no place like St. Louis.
Everything that I previously wrote about "Passions" is true (the show moves at a pace that gives new meaning to the phrase "slower than molasses" and there is a preponderance of stupid characters)...but I CAN'T STOP WATCHING! I admit it--I'm addicted, mainly because of the Luis/Sheridan romance, but also because of the sheer campiness and fun of the show. Are my standards falling? Has Tabitha put a spell on me? Someone help me!!!
I completely agree with the majority of comments posted here about "Anne 3". As a longtime fan of the first two films (and books), I was so excited for this third installment. When I first saw it, I didn't fall in love with it the way I did the first two films. Upon a subsequent viewing and discussions with my sister, I was able to pinpoint what bothered me about this movie. Most of these issues have been covered by other viewers (drastic change from the books, almost completely joyless, weird quasi-unfaithfulness to Gilbert, etc.), but I thought I would add a couple of thoughts that my sis and I discussed.
The "Anne" books contain the simple stories of one woman's life, from madcap girlhood to mature motherhood. When she becomes an adult and marries, the Anne books cover the themes of life, death (loss of children), joy, despair and hope...in other words, the books are about experiences that women of the time could identify with. Apparently, the creators of this third movie didn't think that a "woman's story" was interesting enough. Aside from changing the time frame, they changed the location of the (majority of) the action from Prince Edward Island to World War I-era Europe, chock-full of blood, gore, "action" and spies. If the period of the story's setting had to be changed to WWI, wouldn't it have been more interesting (and truer to the spirit of the books) to portray Anne as a woman coping with the war on the homefront? But, like I said, the story of a woman dealing with life and war must not have seemed as important to the writers/director/producer as spy capers and battlefield scenes.
Also...I'm surprised that none of the other viewers commented on the movie's tiresome anti-American bias. I lost count of the times that we were insulted. Thousands of American soldiers gave their lives to help end World War I and the pointless jibes at "the Yanks" in this film belittles their contribution in ending the stalemate that the war had turned into. If the filmmakers wanted to promote Canadian nationalism, there are better ways to do that than at the expense of Americans.
For a movie that seemed to want to extoll the virtues of Canada, there was precious little of Canada (and Prince Edward Island) shown on-screen. Like Anne and Gilbert's life together, I guess Canada wasn't considered exciting or dramatic enough for the setting of this movie. What a shame.
The "Anne" books contain the simple stories of one woman's life, from madcap girlhood to mature motherhood. When she becomes an adult and marries, the Anne books cover the themes of life, death (loss of children), joy, despair and hope...in other words, the books are about experiences that women of the time could identify with. Apparently, the creators of this third movie didn't think that a "woman's story" was interesting enough. Aside from changing the time frame, they changed the location of the (majority of) the action from Prince Edward Island to World War I-era Europe, chock-full of blood, gore, "action" and spies. If the period of the story's setting had to be changed to WWI, wouldn't it have been more interesting (and truer to the spirit of the books) to portray Anne as a woman coping with the war on the homefront? But, like I said, the story of a woman dealing with life and war must not have seemed as important to the writers/director/producer as spy capers and battlefield scenes.
Also...I'm surprised that none of the other viewers commented on the movie's tiresome anti-American bias. I lost count of the times that we were insulted. Thousands of American soldiers gave their lives to help end World War I and the pointless jibes at "the Yanks" in this film belittles their contribution in ending the stalemate that the war had turned into. If the filmmakers wanted to promote Canadian nationalism, there are better ways to do that than at the expense of Americans.
For a movie that seemed to want to extoll the virtues of Canada, there was precious little of Canada (and Prince Edward Island) shown on-screen. Like Anne and Gilbert's life together, I guess Canada wasn't considered exciting or dramatic enough for the setting of this movie. What a shame.