Lee Eisenberg If you've read my reviews of musicals, then you know that I watch them only so that I can heckle them like Mike and the 'bots do to the crummy movies that Dr. Forrester and TV's Frank send them. I spent all of "That's Entertainment!" doing that, although I liked the clip where Judy Garland mentioned marijuana in one of the lines from "La cucaracha".In "That's Entertainment, Part II", I liked the comedy scenes and the Tracy-Hepburn scenes. I heckled everything else. Musicals are one of my least favorite genres. My favorite movies from Hollywood's golden age are comedies, horror flicks and gangster pics. A good compilation documentary was "Bugs Bunny Superstar". My main conclusion from "That's Entertainment" 1 & 2 is the following: *"South Park" creators Trey Parker and Matt Stone should remake all these musicals. Maybe they could cast the "South Park" characters, or maybe they could cast the "Team America: World Police" characters. It would be neat either way.*There should be a compilation documentary paying tribute to the different kinds of cult movies. If "That's Entertainment" features Gene Kelly, Fred Astaire, etc, then a cult documentary would feature Bruce Campbell, Raquel Welch, etc. Elvira would probably host it. So that's my take on this.One more thing. If the Mississippi is Old Man River, then shouldn't it be the Mister Sippi?

eplromeo8 This was certainly a surprise choice for the folks at Reel 13 Classics. It's not so much a classic as it is a retrospective of classics, which I guess qualifies if you look at it from a certain vantage point. Still, I couldn't help but be a little disappointed when I saw this film on the May schedule. Generally speaking, as a film buff, I enjoy retrospectives. More often than not, they offer unique perspectives on their subjects and insight into film history.THAT'S ENTERTAINMENT PART II is different, however, for three reasons. One is the series was made by MGM/UA and so they primarily feature MGM musicals/scenes. While MGM had a lot of great stuff, narrowing your retrospective to one distributor over a two-decade period is a limitation. Second, THAT'S ENTERTAINMENT PART II is an afterthought of a sequel – they already used their best clips in the first film, so we get the leftovers here. Finally, the intros to clips by Fred Astaire and Gene Kelly are inane and offer absolutely no valuable information or tidbits (Where was Neal Gabler when we needed him?). They are great performers, but Kelly, who also directs, insights on these pseudo-clever song introductions to each sequence of clips, which is a waste of time. As I mentioned, part of the joy of retrospectives such as these is that they give us insider information, production stories or something of that ilk – a kind of structure that tap dancing will not replace.

gftbiloxi Like its predecessor, THAT'S ENTERTAINMENT II offers two hours of film clips from memorable MGM movies featuring the likes of Judy Garland, Bing Crosby, Lena Horne, Louis Armstrong, and Doris Day. Unlike its predecessor, which organized the film clips into thematic sequences introduced by different MGM stars, THAT'S ENTERTAINMENT just throws the clips out willynilly without much rhyme or reason--and saddles narrators Fred Astaire and Gene Kelly with some of the clunkiest, corniest material imaginable. In consequence, it lacks the cohesion and the excitement of the original.But it still has its charms. Many of the individual clips are knock-outs: Ethel Waters performing "Taking a Chance on Love" from CABIN IN THE SKY, Bobby Van doing the famous "hop dance" from SMALL TOWN GIRL, Judy Garland belting out "I Got Rhythm" from GIRL CRAZY. In addition to such musical treats, the film also offers a look at the Marx Brothers with the famous "State Room Scene" from A NIGHT AT THE OPERA, a sequence of famous lines from famous films (such as Garbo's "I want to be alone"), and an extended tribute to Spenser Tracy and Katherine Hepburn. Most viewers will probably feel the film drags due to the uneven way in which the scenes are introduced and edited together, but just about every one will find plenty to enjoy. Recommended with reservations.Gary F. Taylor, aka GFT, Amazon Reviewer

strawberman My wife and I rented this movie tonight and thoroughly enjoyed it. A smile was frozen on my face for its duration. With that said, I couldn't help but feel a certain melancholy over the lack of minorities in it. Yes, there was Lena Horne, Ethel Waters, and Eddie "Rochester" Anderson; but Lena's light color and Ethel Waters's smiling and mammy look were safe enough to get them into a token few frames of the film. We look back at Major League Baseball in those days and reluctantly agree, if we're honest, that every record on the books- and not just Roger Maris's- honestly deserves an asterisk. Some of the greatest players of the day were never allowed onto the field because of their color. And, when I see That's Entertainment II, I can't but help feel that MGM, which billed itself as having the greatest stars in the world, should have had that statement followed with an asterisk, too. Fred Astaire, Gene Kelley, O'Connor, Fosse, etc. were great dancers, yes. But what if some of the great black dancers had that equal opportunity to shine on the silver screen? And, if other Asian, hispanic, native American artists were given a chance for their big break? I'm sure we would have all been much richer for it. You know, we think of the South in those days with its segregation and we justifiably get an angry feeling. How could that happen? But, movie studios outside of the South had a system that was just as segregated, if not more. But, in this case we don't get angry thinking about it; we sigh, and say, yes, that was just how things were in those days. The difference was that MGM, RKO, Warner Bros, Goldwyn, and the other studios didn't need to put WHITE ONLY signs up- it was understood. Anyway, go rent the movie today. It's fun and you'll have a nice time.