Glucedee
It's hard to see any effort in the film. There's no comedy to speak of, no real drama and, worst of all.
Livestonth
I am only giving this movie a 1 for the great cast, though I can't imagine what any of them were thinking. This movie was horrible
Humaira Grant
It’s not bad or unwatchable but despite the amplitude of the spectacle, the end result is underwhelming.
illneverforgetu
Excellent remake of Jimmy Stewart's 1940 The Shop Around the Corner - they could have changed he script a little more, a majority of the scenes are nearly work for word of the original.
Not as good as the original - but the acting was phenomenal and the storyline just can't die.
I fully enjoyed this musical (and was grateful they didn't try to put too many songs, but instead keep the story flowing).
Judy Garland is wonderful, charming and hilarious in this role.
jjnxn-1
Quaint would really be the best way to describe this. Mild but colorful reworking of The Shop Around the Corner trades that films exquisite pathos for a sunny tone and loses something in translation but is miles ahead of the travesty that is You've Got Mail. The musical score is full of charming songs from the period socked across by the great Judy although she seems terribly jittery here. Of all her films this is the one where her resemblance to Liza Minnelli is the strongest so it seems fitting that Liza plays her daughter in a bit at the end. As for the rest of the cast, Spring Byington and Cuddles Sakall are cute and well matched in a much more gentle version of the shop keeper and his wife than the original film, but Buster Keaton is almost totally wasted in a small part.
awilderdrake-1
My first thought was how refreshing it is to see Judy Garland playing a feisty girl with witty lines. Usually her characters are more about the look in those huge emotional eyes - but she actually has lines.I was completely struck dumb, though, when one scene was right out of You've Got Mail, Nora Ephron's follow-up to Sleepless in Seattle. Obviously, this came first, so Nora must have lifted a page from this book - much as she based Sleepless on An Affair to Remember.All in all - I prefer this version to YGM. It's much more common for the male lead in old movies to have a laugh at the expense of the female lead and it works much better in the period. But maybe that's not fair to Nora...casting played a big part in why I didn't love YGM. Tom Hanks just doesn't do jerk well.
Mike_Noga
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.
