Claysaba Excellent, Without a doubt!!

Sexyloutak Absolutely the worst movie.

AnhartLinkin This story has more twists and turns than a second-rate soap opera.

Erica Derrick By the time the dramatic fireworks start popping off, each one feels earned.

JLRMovieReviews Lana Turner goes back to school, but only to win a dance contest (which stipulates a college student wins) to star in a new movie starring Lee Bowman, whose wife is now pregnant and can't make the movie. There are complications galore when Richard Carlson is determined to find a "plant" if there is one at their college. But "Sherlock never suspected Watson", so Lana helps him in his investigation.Costarring Ann Rutherford (at her radiant best at something other than Andy Hardy's Polly), Roscoe Karns (who's great as an Hollywood bigwig's assistant), and Leon Errol (who's very memorable as Lana's father,) this is yet another movie of the kind they just don't make anymore. Not that it's very important or very life-changing, but it shows early Hollywood and its naive look at life, before they made movies with language and excess of everything unnecessary to movie-making.Monty Woolley with his usual eloquent and memorable voice makes a brief appearance as an intimidating teacher. You can also spot Mary Beth Hughes and June Preisser, who was in a couple of the Mickey/Judy films as the rich society girl.If you want to sit back and enjoy the early unpretentious years of Hollywood, then this upbeat movie is for you, which showcases a young Lana Turner at her sweetest. Who could ask for anything more?

MartinHafer A musical is about ready to be filmed for a fictional studio. The only problem is that the lady from the dance team to star in the film is pregnant and they need to find a replacement. Roscoe Karnes has an idea to stage a phony search in colleges across the country for the actress' replacement--though in reality, he has already chosen Lana Turner for the role. So, he enrolls Lana at a college and pretends to have an honest to goodness competition. Unfortunately, complications arise and the film becomes a nice little romantic farce.This is a rather old fashioned but fun old MGM musical that oddly stars Lana Turner. While I was surprised how well she could dance, you just normally don't think of her and dancing. Apparently it was originally to have been an Eleanor Powell film and it sure feels like one. Either could have done a fine job in this film, though seeing Turner in her more natural look of 1939 was very refreshing--with much less make-up and more natural looking hair. She was quite beautiful and more natural looking--making me wish that more co-eds had looked like this when I was in college. Uh, oh,...if my wife reads this, I am toast! By the way, while not a great film, it's a very good film and one even curmudgeons can enjoy.

Neil Doyle Part of the fun in watching DANCING CO-ED is seeing just what a fine line-up of supporting players were available at the time of the studio contract system.For example, here LANA TURNER is given RICHARD CARLSON, ARTIE SHAW, MONTY WOOLLEY, LEON ERROL, ROSCOE KARNS, ANN RUTHERFORD and LEE BOWMAN--all passing the time in a so-so programmer that is livened up by Lana's cheerful presence (and some nice hoofing) while Artie Shaw and His Orchestra provide some musical highlights in 1940s style.The story is formula stuff about the misunderstandings between a showgirl planted at a college so she can win a dance contest taking place there. Despite some amusing situations along the way, nothing can keep an audience from knowing that a happy ending is around the bend.It gives Lana Turner a chance to display her ample charms in some brief and very sexy dancing outfits while at the same time enjoying herself in a refreshing comedy role peppered with some romance. Richard Carlson does nicely as her college boyfriend and Artie Shaw keeps things humming along with some nice big band music.It's strictly by the numbers but Turner's fans will all agree she's quite a knockout here. Turner at the height of her pulchritude was something the camera loved.

aimless-46 A year after they appeared together in "Love Finds Andy Hardy", Lana Turner and Ann Rutherford were paired up in two 1939 films: "These Glamour Girls" and "Dancing Co-Ed". Beyond having a college setting (with Turner playing an outsider) and the same Director (S. Sylvan Simon) there was little similarity between the two films. Although not as ambitious, "Dancing Co-Ed" is a much more entertaining film. It is probably Turner's best performance and is indisputably her most timeless. She gets to show off her dancing and her surprising ability to do comedy. Plus she looks great in a charming girl-next-door way, playing a character that gets to smile a lot (she has a great smile-too bad so few of her roles utilized it). The story revolves around a nationwide hunt to find a new female dance partner for a well-known dancer, a radio program runs a contest to select this partner from aspiring college students. But it is more publicity stunt than actual contest as vaudeville dancer Patty Marlow (Turner) has been pre-selected, she has enrolled in a university just to be technically eligible. Her agent's secretary (Rutherford) enrolls with her to make sure everything runs smoothly. Complications arise when Pug (Richard Carlson), a reporter for the Porcupine (the student newspaper), begins to investigate the legitimacy of the contest. Carlson would became the king of 3D science fiction films in the 1950's. "Dancing Co-Ed" has a lot going for it. Turner and Rutherford have excellent chemistry, their scenes work very well and you really believe that they are friends. It is a slick and funny script. The supporting cast actually has something to add to the production, particularly Monty Woolley as pompous Professor Lang and Leon Errol as Patty's vaudeville father.Artie Shaw and His Orchestra are featured extensively and provide some great swing music. They are even in a parade with a college marching band featuring baton-twirling majorettes (who would have thought they had that kind of stuff way back in 1939).Then again, what do I know? I'm only a child.