It still holds up as one of the best original film musicals ever.

This film didn't do much at all for me...!

The Halloween stuff is pretty crazy. Excellent movie, 8.5/10 in my book. Margaret O'Brien and Judy Garland are great.

As a whole, not one of my favs but I love the Halloween scenes with Tootie.

https://vimeo.com/189640044

I haven't watched this movie is so many years that I don't remember much about it at this point, other than recalling, in a general sense, enjoying Judy Garland in it.

I love her rendition of "Have Yourself A Merry Little Christmas" in this, which is classic.

Happy Holidays and Merry Soon-To-Be-Christmas, everyone!

Seasons greetings as well. I like the scene where Tootie (Margret O'Brian) smashed the family snow people. ☃️⛄☃️⛄☃️⛄

Thanks, znex. By the way, your avatar currently seems downright Christmassy, with its red and white! I imagine the "Z" in your avatar wearing skis.

You too Gen. I imagine that you have a Christmas movie rolled up in that film reel in your avatar.

Merry Christmas, you two, and to the entire boards! And to the lurkers, too!

Cell, hoping you and everyone on this thread has had a great one!

I guess this movie only gets comments once a year.

It's lovely to look at, and some classic tunes, and this is one of the few movies featuring child actors where they really are good.

But the near total absence of any kind of real story means it barely gets a pass from me. This really is just a collection of set pieces or tableaux. Given the monumental effort set designers and costumers went to, the absence of a story makes the effort seem wasted. I mean, you could literally write this on the back of a napkin. And even given the threadbare nature of the script, things still manage to happen without explanation. Had me wondering if I blacked out at key points and missed stuff.

@Jacinto Cupboard said:

But the near total absence of any kind of real story means it barely gets a pass from me. This really is just a collection of set pieces or tableaux. Given the monumental effort set designers and costumers went to, the absence of a story makes the effort seem wasted. I mean, you could literally write this on the back of a napkin. And even given the threadbare nature of the script, things still manage to happen without explanation. Had me wondering if I blacked out at key points and missed stuff.

I couldn't agree with you more strongly about this entire paragraph. Up above, I stated that the film didn't do much at all for me. Sometimes when you're working on your own project(s), you don't have ample time and energy to break down what didn't work for you about a particular film that you watched and disliked. Suffice to say that your analysis perfectly states why this film left me sitting there confused, like, what?

And what's really strange is that I checked out Meet Me in St. Louis because of the TV "recommendation" of a director who's known to be rather particular about the practice of screenwriting when it comes to his own projects. The irony of it doesn't escape me. Seeing this film made me feel devalued as an aspiring screenwriter.

@CelluloidFan said:

@Jacinto Cupboard said:

But the near total absence of any kind of real story means it barely gets a pass from me. This really is just a collection of set pieces or tableaux. Given the monumental effort set designers and costumers went to, the absence of a story makes the effort seem wasted. I mean, you could literally write this on the back of a napkin. And even given the threadbare nature of the script, things still manage to happen without explanation. Had me wondering if I blacked out at key points and missed stuff.

I couldn't agree with you more strongly about this entire paragraph. Up above, I stated that the film didn't do much at all for me. Sometimes when you're working on your own project(s), you don't have ample time and energy to break down what didn't work for you about a particular film that you watched and disliked. Suffice to say that your analysis perfectly states why this film left me sitting there confused, like, what?

And what's really strange is that I checked out Meet Me in St. Louis because of the "recommendation" of a director who's known to be rather particular about the practice of screenwriting when it comes to his own projects. The irony of it doesn't escape me. Seeing this film made me feel devalued as an aspiring screenwriter.

I have read that some, but not all, of the unexplained things in this movie are the result of cut scenes. Why a movie that runs to nearly 2 hours in its finished form had scenes removed that explain what is happening rather than some of the overlong, tedious and superfluous stuff is incomprehensible to me.

Good luck with the writing. I could rant for ages about contemporary screenwriting and writing more generally. Suffice to say I think that unless one has some kind of inside running by virtue of family connections, the chances of getting something picked up or published seems to be some kind of lottery. I cannot believe that what I read or see on the screen these days is the best of what is submitted. If it is, I can only shudder to think how bad unsuccessful scripts and manuscripts are.

@Jacinto Cupboard said:

@CelluloidFan said:

@Jacinto Cupboard said:

But the near total absence of any kind of real story means it barely gets a pass from me. This really is just a collection of set pieces or tableaux. Given the monumental effort set designers and costumers went to, the absence of a story makes the effort seem wasted. I mean, you could literally write this on the back of a napkin. And even given the threadbare nature of the script, things still manage to happen without explanation. Had me wondering if I blacked out at key points and missed stuff.

I couldn't agree with you more strongly about this entire paragraph. Up above, I stated that the film didn't do much at all for me. Sometimes when you're working on your own project(s), you don't have ample time and energy to break down what didn't work for you about a particular film that you watched and disliked. Suffice to say that your analysis perfectly states why this film left me sitting there confused, like, what?

And what's really strange is that I checked out Meet Me in St. Louis because of the "recommendation" of a director who's known to be rather particular about the practice of screenwriting when it comes to his own projects. The irony of it doesn't escape me. Seeing this film made me feel devalued as an aspiring screenwriter.

I have read that some, but not all, of the unexplained things in this movie are the result of cut scenes. Why a movie that runs to nearly 2 hours in its finished form had scenes removed that explain what is happening rather than some of the overlong, tedious and superfluous stuff is incomprehensible to me.

Good luck with the writing. I could rant for ages about contemporary screenwriting and writing more generally. Suffice to say I think that unless one has some kind of inside running by virtue of family connections, the chances of getting something picked up or published seems to be some kind of lottery. I cannot believe that what I read or see on the screen these days is the best of what is submitted. If it is, I can only shudder to think how bad unsuccessful scripts and manuscripts are.

Thanks, JC, and in the event that you don’t show up here again until after Saturday, happy holidays (that’s if you even celebrate them).

@CelluloidFan said:

Thanks, JC, and in the event that you don’t show up here again until after Saturday, happy holidays (that’s if you even celebrate them).

Thank you too. I do celebrate Christmas and wish you happiness and blessings for the season.