Evengyny Thanks for the memories!

NekoHomey Purely Joyful Movie!

Afouotos Although it has its amusing moments, in eneral the plot does not convince.

Juana what a terribly boring film. I'm sorry but this is absolutely not deserving of best picture and will be forgotten quickly. Entertaining and engaging cinema? No. Nothing performances with flat faces and mistaking silence for subtlety.

lasttimeisaw An expensive, large-scale and larger-than-life musical stars an odd pairing of Barbra Streisand and Walter Matthau, it is only Streisand's second film after her surprising Oscar coup in big screen débutante FUNNY GIRL (1968), what's more opportune than an out-and-out musical to exploit Streisand's mellifluous voice and continue her winning streak as a new movie star was born! Also directed by the musical legendary Gene Kelly, it is one of the most lavish and enjoyable vaudeville ever! It is one of the top-grossing movie of 1969, but due to the decline of the cinema attendance, it was unsuccessful to earn back its pricey budget, hereinafter, the genre once was Hollywood's predominant sustenance began to ebb until MOULIN ROUGE! (2001,8/10) and CHICAGO (2002, 8/10) have bucked the trend in the noughties. An opening tracking shot follows galloping hoofs, shining shoes from motley passengers, widow-cum-matchmaker Dolly Levi (Streisand) needs a splendid entrance to give away her name-card in the train station, she is on her way to conquest the half-a-millionaire bachelor Horace Vandergelder (Matthau) in Yonkers, so she assists the elopement of Horace's niece Ermengarde (Ames) with the willowy artist Ambrose (Tune), sabotages Horace's proposal intention with milliner Irene Molloy (McAndrew) by setting her up with Horace's clerk Cornelius (Crawford) beforehand. In the New York one-day excursion, it encompasses a park cruise, a grand parade and a sumptuous banquet with many delightful interludes, culminates in a boisterous roughhouse leaving Horace and Dolly negating their possibility of marriage and whatsoever. Maybe it drags too long (a total running time of 2.5 hours) for all the fanfare of the stunningly orchestrated choreography and catchy music number renditions (Louis Armstrong has a charming cameo as the band leader in the hotel ), the banal and invariable happy-ending arrives hastily no matter how reluctant it seems to be. Leaving aside the pompous man-seeking character settings of Dolly Levi (an overachieving rip- off of MARY POPPINS 1964, 7/10), who is inexplicably a power house figure in the posh New York high society, and the sanctimonious quest of a sign from her late husband to let her go, Streisand is a composed singer radiant with her own flair, garrulously eloquent in her non- singing performances, but the lack of spark between her and Matthau is embarrassing. It is Crawford and McAndrew who vindicate the true romance in their subplot, which dissipates the stinking haughtiness all over the place. In a word, HELLO, DOLLY! is a family-friendly, entertaining picture but curtailed by its own unwieldy flamboyance, but Gene Kelly and Jerry Herman should be hailed for their paramount knack in cooking such a superfluously dazzling banquet which would be much better with some sensible self-moderation.

bear1955 I just watched watch the 2nd part on TCM "now". I have never seen the whole movie in one sitting and I do not care. Why'd they get Fanny Brice to play Dolly? 'She' and 'Horace' are on same screen but might as well be in 2 different movies. The only scene that draws me fully in is the parade. It has enough Hollywood 'magic' to being me to a 'good old days' time in NYC and the U.S. - let's say it's the same period as "Meet Me in St. Louis" is supposed to be in and "Meet Me.." outdoes "Hello Dolly" a hundred times better at a wishful, wistful period re-creation! Streisand is fine enough to me in *that* scene of all in the movie. The rest of the time I don't care. But then, I did not enjoy The Matchmaker with S. Booth very much either. Oh, Ms. Channing, if only.

werefox08 I don't think it was a coincidence that---apart from the great Caberet----this dis-jointed, messy, over the top nonsense signaled the end of the musical. If you want to learn how to overact...watch this. When it was released in 1969 it had mixed reviews. The dancing segments in this go on for far too long (it was directed by Gene Kelly..!!) Apart from Hello Dolly (the song) there are few worthwhile songs. Most of the film is done on a grand scale, and that partly disguises the weakness of the silly story. Barbara Streisand often looks uncomfortable (maybe she knew it was a turkey). Michael Crawfords overacting is ridiculous...his career in Hollywood was short. It is said that this poor movie ushered in the term "feel good movie". I only watched it to-day and "feel good" are not two words that spring to mind about my mental state...perhaps feel sick would be more appropriate.

elshikh4 Remember the 1960s ? Remember when skirts went up and hair come down ? Remember when all the girls were screaming for the Beatles ? Remember when things weren't just great... they were groovy. Well, if you do remember, this movie doesn't ! Back then the word classic was cursed. Some genre movies were smashed, as many many values in and out the screen. So it was obvious why one of the Veteran National Guards, (Gene Kelly), went to make the stage musical (The Matchmaker) into a feature film. I recall that Kelly, at the time, was fighting 20th-Century Fox for hiring a sexploitation director, (Russ Meyer), to make studio pictures. Actually those 2 deeds are one for an old Hollywood's Veteran National Guard.So, what's about this film ? It's big, so big. And that's, here, not great. Some scenes are too big, however not with great story, songs or actors. The story is a play on very old themes in the classic comic theater, but nothing did dazzle about it, and dealing with the characters wasn't creative. Except the title's song and (It Only Takes a Moment), the many songs aren't that excellent.The cast gave me such an awful time. First of all casting (Streisand) as (Dolly) is like casting (James Dean) to do an above 40 year old man in the last part of (The Giant), yet without make-up! That matchmaker is supposed to be a mix of a hag, spinster, and craving for love woman, while (Streisand) was craving for love only! And if we forgot that, how to forget the fact of (Streisand) being 26 year old, loving the 49 year old (Matthau) ? And if we forgot that either, how to forget the fact that there was absolutely no chemistry of any kind between (Streisand) and (Matthau) ?! I read that he didn't like her from day one, however according to his performance he looked pretty much hating what he was doing too. The younger actors weren't any better; I couldn't stand (Michael Crawford) in specific. Believe it or not, the cameo of (Louis Armstrong) not only stole the show, but proved that he was the most truly funny and rather bearable one in that cast !The humor is dry, no comedy were produced. And the dances were shot theatrically, where the bore must conquer. It's the waiters' dance where you can find some vitality and humor in this movie. Therefore with big sets, cadres, orchestra, costumes !, and big number of extras, the movie established a new level of bad, and the indistinct food was served in very huge and insanely expensive plate !Then, more dangerous problem. Its name is :1969. You know well that after 1968 everything had revolutionarily changed. It was the boom's start of anti-studio movies like (Midnight Cowboy) and (Easy Rider); where for instance after the success of the latter, Universal Studios hit upon the idea to let young filmmakers make "semi-independent" films with low budgets, no interfere in the filmmaking process, and giving the directors final cut, all in hopes of generating similar profits. It was a phase of breakthrough for some cinema, and breakdown of another. For many viewers that challenging and daring new wave made the conventional refused since it's conventional. Plus, movies like (Sweet Charity), (Paint Your Wagon), (Oh! What a Lovely War), all produced in 1969, didn't meet any high success. Regardless of being conventional musicals or not; as if being musical itself is what mattered; turning into something conventional enough back then. So what about the too conventional, too old Hollywood, (Hallo Dolly!)? Of course it wasn't an exception. Now you have to understand the reason why they put an exclamation mark after its title !It cost $25 million, to gross $13 million. And with other flops, 20th Century Fox nearly bankrupted, several top studio executives lost their jobs, and the studio produced only one picture for the entire calendar year of 1970. To a considerable extent the 1960s end passed that type of entertainment, over and above being "big" wasn't an answer for great or good, so while Kelly wanted to bang away, or – at worst – leave with a bang, he couldn't succeed in having a bang for the buck ! This is yesterday's train coming the day after. And among the golden age's musicals it is silly and overblown. So it couldn't be "groovy" by any meaning, but embodying the baroque phase of the Hollywood musicals, namely being heavily ornate and nearly soulless, which is natural to happen after the classic phase. Obviously the zenith is amusing, but the post-zenith isn't that amusing. …And (Elizabeth Taylor) was considered for the role of Dolly ?? AAAAHHHHHHHHHHH !!P.S : My first chapter, except its last line, is from the poster of (Stardust – 1974).