I Love Melvin

When I used to show this hilarious musical in the late 70s (and with a new print too!) I often ran it with another funny 1953 musical GIVE A GIRL A BREAK which starred Bob Fosse and Debbie Reynolds. Customers phoning the cinema ALWAYS thought I said "Tonight we have...err...Give a Girl a Break..and .I Love Melbourne" which of course they all thought was my personal comment. The programme was such fun and it did sell a lot of tickets too! Both new prints looked so good on a movie screen! The alternative version of "The lady Loves" as the opening dance number in I LOVE MELVIN can be found in THATS ENTERTAINMENT PART 3. ....and suggest you find it .......I can see why it was changed....can you?.....I LOVE MELVIN is perfect small town (girl) MGM quality ....and must have been one of their last Technicolour filmed musicals....they made everything in ansco or metro color after 1953.

Cute B musical with a so-so plot. Best thing is the dancing by O'conner and Reynolds. His big solo number would be better if it were a dream sequence or fantasy. No one could do a number like that with those numerous costume changes in real time. Ending is quite abrupt. When Donald goes missing for three weeks he's actually living in Central Park??? How could he survive with no food or change of clothes. He should have held up in his home or Apartment. That's the big mistake in this otherwise cute little musical. Kudos for little Noreen Corcoran as Debbies sister.

I love tap dance, and Donald O'Connor is a Tap Master. When I saw him today, I was surfing to my favorite TCM, and wondered what movie this was. I looked at the channel guide, saw the name, and decided to watch. I remembered Debbie Reynolds' name associated with this movie, so I ended up watching. Debbie and Donald were really cute, as was Noreen Corcoran (Moochie's sister, of original Mickey Mouse Club).... Judy's mother's face I remember from Ginger Rogers movies. It was nice how first Melvin got rid of Judy's dumb suitor, first temporarily and later permanently. I enjoyed seeing Jim Backus. I also liked seeing Central Park from 1953; I visited NYC two weeks ago (almost one year after 9/11). At the end, I liked the search and run scene through the park, everyone looking for Melvin, and I was really surprised when he and Judy literally ran into each other (the whole thing was excellent choreography). I also liked when Debbie was being thrown around as the football, but I know that this was the subservient-50's when a female was stereotyped as an object - but a job's a job, ya know? The movie was a delightful romp. Judy's father was funny. Changing his name because he thought his daughter was going to be a big star. I saw Barbara Ruick in the closing credits, I think she was in "Carousel". I hope to see more Donald O'Connor dancing movies. Too bad he has all that fame for "Francis, the Talking Mule." I am a tap dancer. Let's hear it for the hoofers!

I did enjoy this film, especially watching the talent of Donald O'Connor and Debbie Reynolds. When looking at this film, one has to take into account the talent of the screen performers as well as the plot/storyline etc.

Overall I don't know why people are saying these musical numbers in this film aren't as good as 'Singin' in the Rain.' In my opinion, while the melodies aren't quite as memorable, the way the music is constructed(harmonies etc) is far superior to that of it's more famous cousin.

There are plenty of strange moments throughout the movie, however. So strange that they create unexpected humour. For one, Donald's solo dance number while cleaning the studio only made sense after I read about it. When watching it, I couldn't understand what was going on. Furthermore, the football scene with Debbie in it was so bizarre that you had to laugh. I think this unintended humour made things a little better, but knowing it was unintended put a little downer on things.

What the story does well is create an emotional investment in the characters - I felt for Debbie's character as I knew how much she wanted to be on the cover of the magazine. I also felt for Donald's character as he tried to set things right. However that's about the only thing I liked about the plot.

Debbie and Donald are both great here - Donald already well established, and Debbie trying to make her break since Singin in the Rain. It's obvious these two have more chemistry than the Reynolds/Kelly combination, probably due to age differences and things(Debbie would have been around 20 and Donald around 27, whereas Gene was already 40)

While the film is short, the ending seemed extremely rushed to me, and could have benefitted from a few extra minutes of footage. What happened afterwards? A lot of unanswered questions were left. Furthermore, the very end shot of Debbie frantically fondling Donald didn't leave a great taste to end. Something more calm would have made the ending seem less frantic and rushed.

Also, there are plenty of script moments which seem very strange to a modern viewer(this is all part of historical relativism I assume) - such as a random man approaching Debbie and asking her if he could walk her places, which she just calmly responds 'No, thank you.' whereas today, this would seem extremely bizarre. Similarly, the 50's housewife persona is capitalised here - e.g. 'I'll cook just like my mother taught me'(Debbie) contrasting with the more dominant male persona(her father) is very apparent here. There is nothing necessarily wrong with this, it's just a point that I noticed.

Some of the script was extremely unconvincing - a mere 30 minutes in, Donald confesses his love for her in a car, and then says 'if you marry this other boy, I'll be very frank, I'll kill myself.' I have to commend Donald for selling such an unconvincing piece of dialogue barely a third of the way through.

It has been said that both Debbie and Donald did not enjoy the process of making this film, and it's easy to see that the plot, narrative and script were not as well thought out as it could have been. However, the talent of the two main actors show how much of a triple threat they both were.

Overall, this film has some very bizarre moments, with a few plot holes, unconvincing scriptwriting and a rushed conclusion. To save it, the talent of the two main actors plus the great musical numbers and the emotional story help out.

Talk about an energy crisis! None of that here. Reynolds and O'Connor generate enough sheer bounce to light up a city. This is Reynolds at her most likable, a chorus girl with ambitions beyond being a human football. It's also O'Connor at his nimble toed best. They're an ideal pairing. There's not much plot, but when did a musical need much story. Melvin loves Judy, Judy loves Melvin, but first poor Mel must get past cranky Dad and then past rival Harry Flack. Good thing he's a photographer for Look magazine. Okay, if you remember Look and Life, you probably saw the movie in a theatre. The year is 1953, the Korean War is over, Ike's in the White House, and the economy has taken off. It's the 50's of Ozzie and Harriet, and happily, that carefree spirit percolates throughout the movie's candy box colors.

It's also the kind of movie dream factory MGM specialized in, a chance for their younger performers to show their stuff. But catch oldster Jim Backus as O'Connor's boss. His array of comedic expressions are a real hoot. The music may be forgettable, but the dancing is infectious. Thanks to the kids' charm and sparkle, plus fast-moving direction, the movie's an unheralded little gem. Then too, if you like this musical, catch up with The Affairs of Dobie Gillis (1953). It's with Reynolds and Bobby Van, and is just as sparkling as this companion sleeper.