Watch I Love Melvin For Free

Sorry, this movie sucks

Excellent but underrated film

When a movie has you begging for it to end not even half way through it's pure crap. We've all seen this movie and this characters millions of times, nothing new in it. Don't waste your time.

Unshakable, witty and deeply felt, the film will be paying emotional dividends for a long, long time.

The singing and dancing are great but after Singin' In the Rain, the year before, it's just too hard to top that with Debbie Reynolds and Donald O'Connor back together again on the big screen.Allyn Joslyn and Una Merkel make the perfect plain parents to Reynolds, who is aspiring for a show business career, and of course there is always the precocious sister who comes along.The plot is average to somewhat below average. O'Connor as Hoover meets Reynolds as Judy in the film and naturally he becomes smitten with her and uses his photography skills to snap a variety of photos for her to accelerate her career and keep an interest in him.

With a little better screenplay this would have been a musical to rival any turned out by MGM. Quickly re-teaming Donald O'Connor and Debbie Reynolds after Singin' In The Rain and wisely jettisoning both Gene Kelly and Comden and Green the studio came up with a plot that fit where it touched then adorned it with some really great numbers by Josef Myrow and Mack Gordon which are light years fresher, wittier and more sophisticated than the stale Freed-Brown numbers in Singin' In The Rain, which veer more towards sentiment than style. The movie gets off to a flying start with the standout A Lady Loves which kills two birds with one stone by establishing Reynolds as a dreamer aspiring wistfully to a career in movies. Donald O'Connor never really attained the stardom which was the rightful due of his talent and charm and he displays both to full advantage here. If ever anything came under the heading 'forgotten gem' this one surely does.

Delightful follow-up to "Singing in the Rain" (minus Gene Kelly, which is fine with me), "I Love Melvin" is a snappy(76 minutes), tuneful Technicolored treat with one show-stopping musical number after another. A serviceable plot (Donald O'Connor plays a free-lance photographer who becomes so enamored with aspiring singer/dancer Debbie Reynolds that he promises he'll get her the cover of Look Magazine) provides a nifty frame for a series of first-rate, beautifully choreographed musical numbers that make one wonder why this terrific little MGM gem has been overlooked. The music is sensational (thank you, Joseph Myrow), the evocation of the Manhattan setting is a visual delight (MGM actually went on location for a few scenes--watching Ms. Reynolds walk across Central Park South is a time-capsule come to life.) And O'Connor and Ms. Reynolds have probably tbe best displays of their singing & dancing talents in their entire careers (their frenetic "Where Did You Learn to Dance?" is a knockout; O'Connor's solo "I Want to Wander" is a classic; and Debbie's opening dream number, "The Lady Loves," wherein she is attired in slithering pink as she delivers the sultry lyrics, hint at the dreamy sexiness she was allowed to exude in future films.) MGM produced so many classic musicals in the early 1950s that "I Love Melvin" has been unjustly neglected. Too bad, because it's a sparkling, melodious, toe-tapping treat that ranks among MGM's finest and is long-overdue for the accolades it deserves.

It is a commonplace that the 1950s was the Golden Age of the Hollywood musical, especially the MGM model. This not only means a profusion of classics such as 'An American in Paris', 'Singin' in the Rain', 'the Band Wagon' and 'Gigi', but also a string of second-order films of exceptional quality. 'I love Melvin' is one of these. Compared to the first films I mentioned, it is definitely an inferior product - Don Weis has neither the visual flourish or emotional realism of a Minnelli or a Donen; the stars, Donald O'Conner and Debbie Reynolds, pleasant verging on irritating, are not of the first rank, and seem exposed without their most-famous co-star, Gene Kelly, while the supporting cast is generally unmemorable; the songs are mediocre and the choreography routine; the sets are clever and pretty, but do not reveal any great truths about characters' feelings. I mention all this to show the difference between a great MGM musical and a good one. 'Melvin' is a good musical, but a very entertaining film, especially in the era of Kazan and 'Marty'.'Melvin' boasts two knockout numbers (well, three, but the amazing football dance is more clever than exhilirating). The film opens with a beautiful film-within-a-film sequence, as a crew wait for Julie LeRoy to perform her musical number. This is basically a sexless variation on 'Diamonds are a Girl's Best Friend', but the gorgeous bright colours, Debbie's flaming dress against a cool yellow background, and inventive-within-its-limits choreography, are lovely.The second elaborate sequence involves Melvin mooning about an empty photographers' set, also yellow, surreptitiously sticking up pictures of Judy in the hope that she'll be noticed and put on the cover. He goes through a variety of routines and costume changes which reveal the transfigurative effect his love for Julie has on him. The set is beautiful to look at, but vacuous in emotional terms; Weis' direction is too grounded, his camera movements laboriously signalled, rather than the urges of an overspilling heart; O'Conner's personality has become considerably less charming since 'Make 'Em Laugh', but it's all good stuff.These two numbers are crucially connected in that they are both fantasy sequences, dreamed by characters with huge ambitions, but hemmed in by economic circumstances. This treatment of the working class is rare in the Hollywood musical, rare in that, unlike 'West Side Story', class isn't a suffocating trauma, but a very real barrier to prosperity and happiness. Judy's change of name from Schneider to leRoy maybe simply a desire for the exotic, but also suggests a reaction to an anti-Semitism very prominent in the American society of the 1950s. it would be stretching things to compare 'Melvin' to a full-blown critique of the family and conformist AMerica such as 'Bigger than life' or 'Written on the wind', but the film doesn't shy away from tensions, such as the generational gap between a mother who meekly serves her husband, and a daughter determined to earn a career for herself; or an employment situation where workers are expected to take any old rubbish from their employers (plus ca change...). It is significant that Melvin should have no family background - this freedom is surely part of his attraction for Judy. They are connected by a different bond, the symmetry of the plot and mise-en-scene, which is continually playing them off one another, always reuniting them, like lines of a triangle. This structural artifice complicates an apparently simple dichotomy between authenticity/nature and capitalism/consumerism/fakery - Judy and Melvin meet in a park and eventually reunite there; their love is endangered by Melvin creating a fake magazine for her. His job as a photographers' assistant, his taking 'thousands' of pictures of Judy, his pretending to be someone else, create a world where identity is unstable, perhaps a riposte to a society where everybody is expected to be the same. At any rate, that park is pure artifice, the yellow and green of the hedge matched by the dresses of its users. In such a world fantasy (and the whole climax is possibly Judy's concussed delusion) is the only suppository for individuality and imagination.