Man99204 Considering the talent associated with this project, it should have been a much better movie. This is more a series of scenes than a cohesive movie.There are several scenes featuring black performers like Lena Horn, and Hazel Scott. While their performances are amazing - they have absolutely nothing to do with the rest of the movie. IT is as if the movie is interrupted by a music video.Both Red Skelton and Eleanor Powell had very unique and distinctive talents - this script makes little use of their abilities. This is basically a "B Picture' which any one of a dozen different MGM Stars could have done. There are a couple of scenes where Skelton mugs for the camera. There are a couple of scenes where Powell dances - but these are add ons not related to the rest of the movie. The final film is a series of independent scenes with far too little plot to propel the action.This is still worth seeing - especially for the performance of Hazel Scott and Lena Horn. But do not expect this to be like other "Classic MGM Musicals of the period". And, do not expect the plot to make any logical or rational sense.

dickiebin60 Just saw this on TCM, and I enjoyed it very much. Red Skelton was a hoot, and Eleanor Powell - even my 26-year-old son thought her dance numbers were 'impressive.' Our favorite of these dance numbers was the first one at the beginning of the movie, a cowboy production where Eleanor Powell danced with lariat-wielding cowhands, then roped a post several times in a row, showing admirable skill. The rest of the movie contains some drama, intrigue, romance, and even a bit of derring-do. And, of course, more dancing and music, including appearances by Jimmy Dorsey. If you like musical comedies of the thirties and forties, this is one of the best!

tedg I have this notion that the thirties was a great pressure cooker for movies, during which time all sorts of experiments were tried. Out of that period came the genres we know today, plus the great invention of Noir, uniquely American.So I've been watching lots of 30s movies, not because they are good or particularly enjoyable. But because you can see the genotype of today's movies, which is to say I can see the origins of how we all dream and mostly imagine.Now here is an anomaly, a 30s movie made in the 40s. I can only imagine that it was to feed the war-starved theaters. It is a remake and "borrows" musical numbers from a couple films that really were made in the 30s.It is a spliced picture, three movies combined, something that was common in the 30's.One movie is a stage show. Simple and straightforward. Lots of variety here.A second movie is a comedic fold: a movie where all the players are involved in some way in a play (different than the earlier mentioned performances and more like "Gone with the Wind"). Lots of physical humor here. Red Skelton's technique was to perform a comedic motion (like rolling his eyes after getting bonked) in an exaggerated fashion and then abruptly stop before it finished and look at the audience with a big grin. It was humor about humor, a not very sophisticated but an effective fold that would grow into what we have today (and call irony).The third movie has a wartime saboteur. Because the "fold," the notion of the play within the play, is explicit here, the explosion is to blow up the theater (and somehow simultaneously threaten the nation by mechanisms unexplained).Its a mess, these three parts not integrated in any way.Ted's Evaluation -- 1 of 3: You can find something better to do with this part of your life.

jwtinsley No one seems to point out that his film is a remake of an earlier film Buster Keaton made for MGM titled "Spite Marriage", with many of the visual gags pulled directly from that earlier film with almost no changes. So as well as Red Skelton did in this, an earlier genius had done it first. Many of the best sight gags were lifted note-for-note from Keaton. The two films differ greatly in their sub-plots, but the core premise is the same. If you liked this movie, you should seek out the earlier film; a lot of it is genuinely funny. Although not Keaton at his peak (he was hampered by the MGM-imposed studio system), any Keaton is worth seeing.