Thoroughly Modern Millie (1967)

Most undeservingly overhyped movie of all time??

Load of rubbish!!

if their story seems completely bonkers, almost like a feverish work of fiction, you ain't heard nothing yet.

Close shines in drama with strong language, adult themes.

This 1967 Chick Flick is a fairly lively (but frequently silly) Comedy/Romance/Musical that takes a decidedly "madcap" look at the art of "husband hunting", 1920's style.I must say that there were a couple of really well-staged musical numbers presented in this lavish "Ross Hunter" production. But, at a 2.5-hour running time - "Modern Millie's" story (which was set in NYC) did tend to wear a little thin at times.Produced on an extravagant $6 million budget - This film won an Oscar for "Best Original Score" which was composed by Elmer Bernstein.

...except in one respect; Elmer Bernstein's Oscar winning score carries the film, from its title song, to Carol Channing's "I'm A Jazz Baby" number, through the film's slow/irritating/self-consciously "Cute" spots.Director George Roy Hill has to be given credit; he attempted a spoof of early silent movies, with effects like wipes, title cards, and visuals like using pastels for most of the colors, especially Mary Tyler Moore's outfits. He does an extended riff on Harold Lloyd's "Safety Last" (1923), which is funny and effective. Sometimes he is off by a decade or so, though. For example, when the secondary pair of lovers first meet, they duet to "Ah, Sweet Mystery of Life", which is amusing, but thirteen years early (film is set in 1922). Each character spoofs a type.Julie Andrews is the perky heroine. Her parody is right on target, and her singing and dancing are also near perfect. I found Mary Tyler Moore irritatingly helpless, until I recognized her type was the helpless rich girl who never does anything for herself. Then, I was able to appreciate her performance. James Fox was enjoyable in his role; I didn't know he could sing. John Gavin, as Millie's boss, must have been directed to act as wooden as humanly possible; again, I didn't know he could sing.This was one of the last 1960's "Roadshow" musicals to make a profit. It has a wonderful musical score, but an uneven script and too many "cutesy" moments offset that strength. Still, it is more than worth seeing if it comes your way.

It's 1922 in New York. Tribal customs of grooming and dress are colorfully pierced. Julie Andrews' bosom is too large, so her drooping pearl necklace doesn't droop symmetrically. Mary Tyler Moore is her hotel mate in a girls-only establishment. Very proper, you know. Except that the concierge, Beatrice Lilly, is in cahoots with the likes of Philip Ahn, whose business is kidnapping naive young ladies and selling them into a white sex slave trade. Or something.The costumes are varied and rich, and the two principals are gorgeous. The musical arrangements are neatly done too, mostly but not entirely renditions of period tunes like "Charmaine" and "Baby Face". The latter is Andrews' paean to John Gavin, who ought to be ashamed of himself, although he handles his assignment here well enough. What a handsome guy. He even obtained political prominence under Reagan, being appointed ambassador to Mexico. It was one of those rare ambassorships that was justified, since Gavin's mother was from a prominent Mexican family, Gavin spoke fluent Spanish and Portugese and had graduated in Latin American history at Stanford. A success at everything he tried, and Julie Andrews' true love, to boot. I hate his guts.Sorry. I know that was a little off topic, but if you think that was a bit on the random side, you should see this movie. I couldn't tell where it was going. The general idea, of course, is from "Singin' in the Rain." A shift in the cultural paradigm. But then there are hints of other comedies. Andrews glances at the camera and makes a moue when disappointed. First time I saw that fourth-wall device in a modern movie was in "Tom Jones", released three years earlier. (That's not counting Laurel and Hardy.) The comedy is fast, there are a lot of songs, and Julie Andrews is a sonorous soprano. But I found it dull. There are snippets of "The Great Race," which appeared two years earlier. Stuff seems to happen for no reason other than to add some dash to the story. Sometimes it works, sometimes not.Worst of all, though it has a lovely English lady as a singer, there is only a smattering of dance -- and it's not original or exhilarating. If you're going to transpose "Singin' in the Rain" from 1929 to 1922, the least you can do is use a choreographer who knows how to stage a dance. Anybody can sing, but dancing is HARD WORK. Where is Gene Kelly when you need him? Or Bob Fosse? A celebration at a Jewish wedding -- one of those events that comes out of nowhere -- begins with promise but ends with Andrews belting out a song in Yiddish while the celebrants to an ordinary ring dance.A disappointment, but a fast and vibrant one. I imagine a lot of people will have fun watching it. The kids might not get some of the racier gags, but then they're not very racy so the kids won't be missing much.

All the money and all the talent just circles the drain in this mess. Pretty costumes,great actors,zippy airplanes,tall buildings,nice lot shooting,and it all comes down to the fact that you are BEGGING for this to be over about an hour into it. I think we all watch it just to be respectful to Julie and Mary and Carol. This movie just flat sucks. There is NO life to it. \ Julie Andrews is NOT sexy,in any way. Shes too old for the part. MTM is very sexy,but kept under wraps for this one. She is too old,too. I know its a bit of a tongue in cheek piece,but it is a waste,all around. The music is enjoyable and in 1967,nothing on earth was less desired than a twenties themed score. Blame it on the Summer of Love. 1967 was a WILD year. This film is so utterly tame,in every single way that it just fizzed and died when it came out. I laughed my behind off when I read the reviews on Wiki. This thing was inflated and held up. In short,a very pretty,harmless sleeping pill.