IMDb user comments for
For Me and My Gal (1942) More at IMDb Pro »

Filter:

Best Chronological Prolific Authors Loved It Hated It Hide Spoilers:

Page 1 of 3:

[1] [2] [3]

Index

24 comments in total

---

10 out of 11 people found the following comment useful :-
What a Tearjerker!, 13 March 1999
Author: Ash-65 from USA

If this movie was simply Gene Kelly and Judy Garland exchanging quips (the "Hello Springtime!" bit is especially good) and singing and dancing in a coffee shop, then it would still be entertaining. But that's really not all it is. This movie is more like a drama/romance than a musical, in the way that there are some songs, very good ones, but there is more story than numbers. Yes, the idea is an old one, but there are a few twists that distinguish it from any other wartime romance. (Don't go expecting The Maltese Falcon though.) The little plot weaknesses are forgotten as the actors (particularly Garland) hold it all together. I cried twice, and I almost never cry at movies. I fully recommend For Me and My Gal, unless you're dead-set on a tear-free day.

---

7 out of 7 people found the following comment useful :-
99% Guaranteed to make you cry, 25 May 1999

Author: anonymous from W Hollywood

20 year old Judy Garland takes her first stab at adult acting in this great musical that naturally makes you cry. Before this 1942 debut, Judy had played those child/juvenile roles. (like Dorothy Gale in The Wizard of Oz) Even a few years later, in 1944, she still played a 17 year old Esther Smith in Meet Me in St. Louis. Also, Gene Kelly, who will always credit Judy to abolish his "camera fright" has his movie debut in this movie. He, of course, was fresh off Broadway.

This movie is about a song and dance team in those "good old days of vaudeville", back in 1917, where Jo Hayden (Judy) teams up with Harry Palmer (Gene) as a song and dance team. However, when Jo senses unfaithfulness in Harry, she moves to performing soldiers out in France during World War I. It only worsens when Harry is drafted............

This was released when men were fighting out in the pacific and European theatres, and it was not pretty. Japanese and Nazi advances were at their extent, and MGM decided to make a movie to spark "patriotic" interest, with the abstract idea that you should enlist or buy war bonds. The first time I saw this, even I wanted to buy war bonds.

I recommend this movie to anyone because it will tug at your heart and make you really proud of the US.

---

5 out of 5 people found the following comment useful :-
A great musical, 20 January 2000

Author: Minty-5 from Sydney, Australia

The classic plot of girl refuses guy only to fall in love with him later is at work again. When the girl happens to be Judy Garland, one of the top box office draws and the MGM triple threat of extraordinarily talented singer, actress and dancer, it kind of changes the whole perspective. In the MGM heavens there are no leading men who can match her on screen stature.

To solve that problem, she gets two leading men. Before World War 1, the vaudeville girl has to choose between two partners. George Murphy and Gene Kelly. Fresh from Broadway success with "Pal Joey", Mr Kelly makes his movie debut in "For Me and My Gal" and it is nothing short of memorable. It was time the world saw that Hollywood dancers wore something other than white tails and top hat, like Mr Astaire.

The screenplay is slight. It hardly matters, because World War 1 is enough of a threat to forward the story anyway. All elements of drama and tear jerking romance are there. For a routine musical at MGM, we expect our happy 40s story, all complete with happy ending, plus the usual congenial mix of complications along the way. And with direction from Busby Berkley, great 1915s songs and two of the greatest musical stars in the mix, we certainly get our happy ending.

Today it stands out because of its musical quality and excellent conception of production. They certainly don't make 'em like this anymore.

Rating: 8/10

---

4 out of 4 people found the following comment useful :-
I wanted to buy war bonds!, 4 January 2002
Author: sweetty0924 (sweetty0924@aol.com)

Though a thinly veiled piece of propaganda for WWII sentiment, it did the trick. I couldn't believe I cried not once but three times at this Kelly/Garland musical. An amusement park of a flick. With rollercoaster rides of joy, mood swings of sadness and insecurities, all rolled into a sappy feel good post-depression fluff. Who needs hormones when you can watch this. Great star vehicle for Kelly,it catapulted him into the rarified air of those who have talent, good looks, and that certain "something". Though at times he seems a bit in awe of his surroundings, it comes off as cockiness and works. Garland's sense of innocent security grounded this film and proved she was already in the stratosphere. The supporting cast held up their ends admirably. Enough to make this film enjoyable even in these jaded times.

---

6 out of 9 people found the following comment useful :-
Gene Kelly's entry into movies, 3 July 2005
Author: theowinthrop from United States

In 1943 Gene Kelly made "For Me And My Gal". It was a film starring that rising star of MGM Judy Garland, set in the years from 1915 - 1919. Garland wanted Kelly to appear in this film as her lover, Harry Palmer. It was an unusual film debut for Kelly, now recalled for his masterful dancing in musicals like "Singing In The Rain" and "An American In Paris". Instead, although it was a musical (using many tunes of the Tin Pan Alley period, it really was a character study. It looked at Kelly's opportunistic anti-hero, who does love Garland, but who is career centered to the point that he injures himself (he thinks it will be a slight injury) to avoid the draft.

It is a passably good film, due to the chemistry of the leads and such supporting film actors as Keenan Wynn (as Kelly's long suffering agent, who gets to tell him off), and George Murphy (as the would-be lover of Garland, who can't get her attention away from the unworthy Kelly).

The interest I have in the film is why Garland chose Kelly for this part. She apparently insisted that he be used for this film. The reason is that his biggest Broadway success was the 1941 show "Pal Joey", where he played the first anti-hero in Broadway history. Joey is a user of women, who wants to own a fancy nightclub in Chicago. He never rises above the sleazy dive he acts as M.C. at. He could be Harry Palmer's distant, slightly cousin. Garland would have seen Kelly play a role of a heel where he sang a golden flow of Rogers and Hart melodies, and do some good hoofing as well. It was the perfect "screen test" for Kelly to use to prove his ability to play Palmer. So he got his first role, and then went on to the major achievements of his career.

---

2 out of 2 people found the following comment useful :-
Underrated movie is wonderful!, 5 November 2006

Author: godsnewworldiscoming-1 from United States

Gene Kelly makes his smashing screen debut in For me and my gal. That alone should make it a must see. This movie was a delight for numerous reasons. First, I like the fact that this movie was a musical/drama. So, we were able to get a full dose of the manifold talents of Gene Kelly and Judy Garland. Second, the chemistry that Judy and Gene had in this movie was exceptional. The scene in which they are singing the title song is riveting. George Murphy was solid in his role as the amiable friend and colleague, who was a good example of selflessness.

This movie is not as renowned as other Garland classics such as the wizard of Oz and Meet me in St. Louis. However, I think this was her most endearing role. She was beautiful, sweet and vivacious in this movie. I can watch this movie repeatedly, and so should everyone else.

---

4 out of 6 people found the following comment useful :-
grown-up Judy catches Gene in uniform, 24 July 2004
Author: didi-5 from United Kingdom

Notable for two things: the first adult role for Judy Garland (then just out of her teens), and debut of Gene Kelly, who had previously made an impact on Broadway as Pal Joey. George Murphy also appears as a kind of second-string lead, and one suspects much of his original part went to Kelly as filming progressed.

Directed by Busby Berkeley, but without his usual musical sequence flourishes, the plot is focused on the war, specifically the need for able-bodied men to serve rather than squander their lives on selfish pursuits. This means, for Kelly and Garland, putting aside their dreams of vaudeville fame as a team in favour of the greater good.

The stars have great chemistry – in their two duets, the title song and ‘If You Wore A Tulip', there is a gaiety and charm which would continue throughout their further collaborations through the forties. Garland shines as you always knew she would from her pictures as a child, and Kelly has the charisma in spades which would put him at the forefront of the golden age of musicals.

---

1 out of 1 people found the following comment useful :-
One to keep coming back to, 14 August 2003
Author: Ed Fitzgerald from New York, NY

I keep coming back to this film for many reasons. The vaudeville-based story is an attractive look at a bygone era in American theatrical history, and, while it's almost certainly been romanticized in the process, the feel of it and many of the details seem right to me. Then there's the way Kelly and Garland work together onstage. I wouldn't say there was an inordinate amount of "chemistry" between them -- you don't see sparks flying or feel any real sexuality in their relationship -- but they blend extremely well, and look and sound good when they're performing together, despite Garland's obvious lesser dancing skills compared to Kelly. Other reviewers here have commented on the propagandistic nature of the film, and it's impossible to deny the truth of that, and yet, despite that ulterior motivation, and the thinness of the plot's conceit, the film inevitably, after many viewings, provokes me to tears at the end.

I wouldn't say that this film is one of my top ten, or a standout piece of cinema, but it certainly is a sentimental favorite, and I would heartily recommend it to anyone who is interested in vaudeville, enjoys seeing a good song-and-dance routine, likes either of the two stars, and who will, occasionally, allow themselves to be moved by a simple, somewhat corny, story. For those people, as it is for me, this film will be a delight.

---

4 out of 7 people found the following comment useful :-
One of Judy's best!, 15 April 2004
Author: jh2109 (jh2109@yahoo.com) from New York City

Judy was only 19-20 years old when she made this film but she was absolutely brilliant in it. Her performance is just wonderful and the songs are among the greatest of her career including AFTER YOU'VE GONE and BALLIN' THE JACK (great legs). Gene Kelly (his film debut) and George Murphy are also very good but it's Judy who's steals the show here. Opera singer Marta Eggerth is also on hand. I could live without her in the film although she fits the part very well (she was more fun in PRESENTING LILY MARS; another Judy film and other only other film Ms. Eggerth ever made).

If you've not seen this film please rent it and get ready for some fine acting, dancing and, most of all, great singing from the one and only Judy seen here in her MGM prime!

---

sentimental fun down memory lane WWI vaudeville life, 21 August 2006

Author: leslie04 from United Kingdom

A lot of sentimental fun along the memory lane of pre-World War I vaudeville life. A smash hit for MGM's producer Arthur Freed and director Busby Berkeley, it set Judy Garland on a pinnacle of stardom and established Gene Kelly as an unusual screen personality with exciting dancing talent. Martha Eggerth, the Polish singer made her Hollywood debut.

The scene where Gene Kelly purposely breaks his hand is painful to watch, not due to bad acting or anything like that, i believe that the direction was done very well for 1942, the censors must have had very strict guidelines on body damage,(what can be shown on camera,Etc) and the director counters this very well by not showing the accident right in front of us. Our imaginations can make it appear worse then they could ever show on camera.

---

---

Page 1 of 3:

[1] [2] [3]

Add another comment

---

Related Links

Plot summary	Amazon.com summary	Ratings
Awards	Newsgroup reviews	External reviews
Plot keywords	Main details	Your user comments
Your vote history