glorioreo I just watched this movie again for the upteenthtime. (I have lost count.) I am always amazed at the talent of both stars, and that talent comes through in this movie beautifully. The musical numbers for both are wonderful to watch, reminding me that Judy could dance, something that isn't always remembered about her. As others have noted, the story is thin but who cares? This is pure entertainment and a chance to see two amazingly talented people work together in one film.By the way, I watched the movie on video tape (yes, my vcr still works) that I bought at the Judy Garland museum in Grand Rapids, Minnesota a few years ago. The museum is in her child hood home, and you can stand right on the landing at the bottom of the stars where she and her sisters performed at home. As a Judy fan, it was quite a thrill. So enjoy this movie for what it is - a showcase of two of Hollywood's greatest talents singing and dancing their way into our hearts.

macheath-ny I'll be surprised if this gets read very often, coming as far down the line as it does. Enough others have praised this film, and given sufficient summaries of its gossamer plot, that I am gratefully relieved of the duty.My only comment is that, if you are interested at all in cinema choreography, you watch at least through the "Portland Fancy" number. You don't have to sit through to "Get Happy"; watch whichever "That's Entertainment" anthology that features it. But if you ever want to understand what drives movie dancing, and why Kelly and Garland are equated by many with Astaire and Rogers, "Portland Fancy" should provide your education. a traditional square/contradance that segues into a jitterbug session and then to a challenge tap between the two stars, it is in this viewer's opinion one of the finest dance moments in any movie. To enjoy dance but ignore this moment does the soul a disservice.

theowinthrop It was her last MGM musical, and one of her best. But she was really troublesome in the making of it, so MGM fired her and her career (which included at least two more great performances) never recovered in the movies. That is how SUMMER STOCK is recalled today - the film that wrote "finish" to Judy Garland's film stardom at MGM.But SUMMER STOCK is also the film that gave her her last chance to appear opposite Gene Kelly and to play a story line that she was familiar with. For here Judy returns to the story line of the musicals she made in the early 1940s with Mickey Rooney, regarding "putting on the show". The difference is that she and Mickey and the others were teenagers (or supposedly teenagers) showing up the dubious grown-ups. Here it is grown-ups putting on a show for an out-of-town preview in a small town.Judy is living in a New England town, where her family has old, old roots (at one point we learn her great great grandfather set up an anti-theater law in 1698!). She and her sister, Gloria DeHaven, own a farm. Judy has been courted, and is engaged, to Eddie Bracken, the son of the town banker Ray Collins. Bracken is his typical weak type, with eyeglasses and hay fever. Collins is typically fatherly, but a bit of a bully to his son (not for any bad reasons). He looks forward to the marriage as a way of uniting the two oldest families of the area. And he even does Garland a favor, giving her a new tractor for her farm at cost.DeHaven has always been the pampered younger daughter. She has been dating Kelly and invites him and the cast of his musical review production to put it on in the barn of her farm. The musical not only has Kelly as director, producer, and star, but also has Phil Silvers and Carleton Carpenter as his assistants (in Silvers' case, supposed assistant as he's a walking disaster area), and also been lucky enough to get a famous leading man named Keith (Hans Conreid, effective in his brief part but all too brief). They descend on the farm and Garland and her cook and helper Marjorie Main are uncertain about what exactly to do. Collins and Bracken are not too helpful. In fact their parochial attitude to theater people is very hostile.As the film progresses Garland slowly gets dragged into the production, especially as DeHaven's interest flags. In the meantime the relationship of Bracken and Garland starts cracking seriously as he gets suspicious of the intentions of Kelly towards his intended.The numbers are pretty good, particularly the songs "Howdy Neighbor", "You Wonderful You", "Heavenly Music", and the last minute show stopper, "Get Happy!" Oddly enough, in the discussions I see on this thread, nobody notes the ridiculous tune that Conreid (it's not his voice) and DeHaven sing "Alone on a Lonely Island". It is done in such a way to spoof the stiff, overly rich voice of Conreid's "Heath". As it does not show up in the final production it probably was only meant for that character.It is too bad that SUMMER STOCK was her last MGM film...but at least Judy left on a high note.

Jem Odewahn There is something about SUMMER STOCK that just doesn't click. It may be the tunes, which are below-par by MGM's lofty standards. It may be Garland, who doesn't look that healthy. It could be the stagy sets and constantly re-worked 'Let's put on a show' plot. However, it's still a fun film and Garland and Kelly are always appealing and worth watching.Garland and Kelly, of course, go through their usual routine of disliking each other, then falling love with each other eventually through a few good deeds and a few good tunes. It's nice to watch. Kelly has a great number, where he dances with no company except a sheet of newspaper, that is sheer joy to watch and perhaps the best representative, apart from his famous title number in SINGIN IN THE RAIN, of his unique talent. Kelly's greatest feat was making a solo routine, seemingly simple and with few props, absolutely wonderful. And Garland, too, gets a great number, "Get Happy", which closes the film.