Alicia I love this movie so much

Incannerax What a waste of my time!!!

FuzzyTagz If the ambition is to provide two hours of instantly forgettable, popcorn-munching escapism, it succeeds.

Janis One of the most extraordinary films you will see this year. Take that as you want.

Byrdz "The Wizard of Oz" had been filmed by this time but not released. Judy was no longer the little girl in OZ but on occasion we can hear Dorothy in the farm yard talking to the three farm hands. And who is that there as the evil busybody trying to take the "kids" away from their parents? Why, it's Margaret Hamilton herself.All that aside ... it's an OK film. Not GREAT, but OK. One of the more amazing things is that Mickey Rooney was Academy nominated as Best Actor for this one... 'tis a puzzlement, that ! He does some really good impressions including Gable and Lionel Barrymore tho.Busby Berkley seemed confused and not at all his usual dizzy choreographing self.Am used to the "kids" being cast by actors too old to be seen as teens and this film has plenty of those. The outstandingly good singer Douglas McPhail was 25 when he was in Babes. He seemed particularly out of kilter age and talent-wise. His voice is SOOOO trained and good that he seems a bit out of place next to the movie voices of the rest of the cast... reading his IMDb biography was particularly sad.The less said about the notorious minstrel number the better. The child orchestra and arm waving conductor is also better not even brought up...and the diapered kids in the finale ... urk ! All in all... not the best of the Rooney-Garland "Let's put on a show" films but it was a start and there have been worse films made.

Hunt2546 It's an early Freed Unit picture, and among other Freed staples it has the work of Roger Edens, snatches of "Singing in the Rain" and "Good Morning," plus a whisper of "Broadway Rhythm." But it's kind of cuckoo. The director is Busby Berkeley, who wanted everything BIG even when the movie was supposed to be SMALL. Thus BB encourages the Mickster to go into his full Eugene O'Neill mode and he out-shouts everyone in the movie, including the hurricane! That is, when he's not on the verge of tears. If a woman had so over-heated, you'd say it's her time of the month; I can only guess Mick's ego went nuclear and BB wasn't interested enough to rein him in. He may not have even noticed. The most absurd stroke is that Rooney clearly believed he was a great impressionist too, and BB let him do crude impersonations of Gable and Barrymore, among others, that seem pointless and self- congratulatory. Judy is early Judy: shy, more Dorothy Gale than the windstorm of talent she'd become in later Freed masterpieces like "Meet Me in St. Louis" and so forth. Some other oddities, or at least they seem odd now: a big number in which Mick and the "kids" march through the streets of a Long Island coastal town, carrying torches and proclaiming that they are the future has an odd Nazi vibe to it. Creepy. Then there's baritone Doug McPhail who was five years from suicide; he's the next Nelson Eddy except there was no next Nelson Eddy which may be why he poisoned himself. Johhny Sheffield, later to be "Boy" to Johnny Weismuller's Tarzan, is briefly glimpsed and such MGM regs as Guy Kibbee and Margaret Hamilston are around to ground the movie in solid professionalism. It's sure watchable, even today, but now you think: these people thought they were riding the wave and the wave was coming in to crush THEM.

MartinHafer The adults in this film are all Vaudeville stars. However, now that the age of talking pictures is here, they have all fallen on hard times. So, it's up to the spunky teens (most of which appear to be in their mid-20s) to save the day by proving they ARE the stars of the future and making enough money to save their bankrupt folks--who have no confidence in their talented youths.Technically speaking, "Babes in Arms" is a very good movie. After all, Mickey Rooney, Judy Garland and the rest of the relatively young cast are immensely capable singers and dancers. You can't help but marvel at such talent and energy. Although this movie was hugely successful and led to many sequels, it's amazingly hard to sit through the film today--mostly since tastes have changed and this sort of film is clearly passé. I really struggled to stick with the film but couldn't pay attention because there were just so many songs that it lost my interest. Now I am NOT a person who hates 1930s Hollywood films--in fact, these are the sort of films I enjoy most and I have probably reviewed a couple thousand. But these musicals bore me because there isn't that much plot and the singing is incessant. If you like this, then by all means watch it--I just couldn't. This film is not like a fine wine that gets better with age--it's more like a nice loaf of bread.

Boba_Fett1138 Former child-stars Mickey Rooney and Judy Garland both star in this movie about two young talented artist who try to make it in the world of show-business. It wasn't the first movie they appeared in together and it also wouldn't be the last. They appeared in several Andy Hardy movies together for instance, in which Mickey Rooney played the title role.Judy Garland was actually still only 17 when she appeared in the movie, the same year she did "The Wizard of Oz" and also Mickey Rooney looked like he was 15, while he was actually around 19 years old at the time. Both also play young teenagers in this movie and it earned Mickey Rooney actually an Oscar nomination. There of course weren't a lot of musicals around at the time which purely had teenagers in it. In that regard this movie is a refreshing little entry in the musical genre.It's an enjoyable and obviously light movie. But this of course also has as a result that the movie doesn't really ever reaches the a level of true greatness. The movie is enjoyable but just nothing more than that. It's obviously rather formulaic and predictable but this doesn't take away the entertainment value of it all. The movie is dragging in some parts but then again which '30's movie doesn't do so in parts? The movie perhaps also doesn't end in the way as it should have had, when some more sentimental themes start to kick in.In all fairness, the movie features some good songs. I'm normally not particularly too fond of songs featured in most musical movies but this movie does form an exception. Nothing I would be singing along with but it's nice sounding and of course gets performed by some capable artist.I enjoyed watching this movie simply for what it was.7/10http://bobafett1138.blogspot.com/