Thoroughly Modern Millie (1967)

Best movie of this year hands down!

Very well executed

The film makes a home in your brain and the only cure is to see it again.

This is a coming of age storyline that you've seen in one form or another for decades. It takes a truly unique voice to make yet another one worth watching.

I bought this movie for a dollar. My wife and I looked forward to watching it so we put it last Saturday afternoon. About 40 minutes into the movie we looked at each other and agreed to fast forward to see what else happens. Didn't help. The movie made no sense. For the quality of actors and actresses in this movie none of them were any good. Not their fault - the directors fault. The dumbest scenes were the elevators scenes where they had to dance to get the elevator to move. Come on. Really? Mary Tyler Moore's part was a shocker to me because she normally chooses good movies to star in and she blew it with this one. The dance numbers were no good. I wouldn't recommend this film to anyone to watch. Glad I only spent a buck.

Spoilers ahead:I am giving this film a 10. It is totally delightful. I feel that all of the actors did excellent jobs. I always love song and dance movies, as you well know. Some of my observations: I thought Jimmy with his red roadster would really be the owner of the insurance company. That did not quite happen. He wasn't really into paper clips so much as being an executive of a steel company. He was even the stepson of Muzzy, that madcap character portrayed by that wonderful Carol Channing. Beatrice Lillie did an excellent job. She had perfect timing. I especially liked her old fashioned shoes, as well as her quirky hairstyle. I was wondering who would get even with her near the end, and it was none other than Muzzy with her rope tricks. Julie Andrews and Mary Tyler Moore were excellent, in their costuming as well as their dancing in the elevator. James Fox and John Gavin were wonderful. They did great acting jobs in this film, in my opinion. 10/10Applause. Smashing. Wonderful.

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.

Usually I can tell you whether I like or dislike a film...and why. But this film has me befuddled, so I'm giving it a low grade -- 6.The pros: Well, watching Julie Andrews is always a pleasure. George Roy Hill did something that usually gets very high marks from me -- something different. I really can't think of any other film that is much like this one. It was a joy to see the famous Beatrice Lilly, and so sad that she was already suffering from Alzheimer's when this film was made.The cons: Well, the story seems kinda...which word shall I use -- silly or foolish? Or maybe shallow. How would any one know they were going to watch a comedy about white slavery????? And, for worst actress, the award goes to Mary Tyler Moore...which really surprised me, because she was a bit of a favorite of mine, but seems to do better on the small screen than wide screen. John Gavin seems totally wasted here; why did he even agree to do this film? And Carol Channing...I never understood the attraction...and still don't. And for a musical, where is the notable, memorable song? There isn't one.Bottom line: Silly or foolish, and certainly not worth 138 minutes of celluloid!