cwg2005a I LOVED this movie! It is one of those that is worth viewing every year or so, sort of like "Dr Zhivago" or "Cabaret," just a joy to watch. Having said that, yes, Barbra was a bit young for the role; on the other hand, is there anything negative about listening to her sing for 2 hours? This film did not do well, and I think it was comparisons with Carol Channing and maybe even Ethel Merman (little known: Ruth Gordon, who was so wonderful in "Harold and Maude," and who was married to John Houseman, who won his own Oscar and Emmy for "The Paper Chase," was the early Dolly).Anyway, do not let the financial failure dissuade you: this is a marvelous film, well-acted, competently (if unimaginatively) directed and choreographed (BTW, the latter was really fun to watch, if today the moves seem a bit dated).See it !!

TheMegaCritic2000 . Well, right off the bat, I will admit that I love this movie. I know it almost bankrupted 20th Century Fox and that the critics were lukewarm about it on release in 1969, but they were flat-out wrong. And the perspective afforded by the passage of time has seen this become one of the most-loved of the Hollywood blockbuster musicals.The principals in the cast are all wonderful. Streisand is simply gorgeous and sings beautifully, as does Marianne McAndrew. Matthau is, well, typical Matthau: all wonderful hang-dog expressions of exasperation and a grouchy exterior hiding a warm-hearted soul. Michael Crawford, in an early role, doesn't quite have the voice he developed later in life, but it suits the part of the shy and nervous Hackl. The music is fabulous. It is one of Jerry Herman's very best pieces of work, in my opinion. It's full of great songs and the finale set-piece, when Dolly returns to the Harmonia Gardens, is magnificent, along with Louis Armstrong's great singing.Gene Kelly had Michael Kidd onboard as choreographer and he produced some superb set-pieces. The parade scene is incredible and required hundreds of extras. The story might be a bit thin, but the production values more than make up for it. The sets are remarkable, as are the costumes. The fact it was shot in 65mm Todd/AO means that it is a great visual experience, with tremendous detail visible.This is a truly great musical movie. If you haven't seen it, you really, really, should. You'll been for a treat.

tavm After hearing about this musical for decades, I finally watched this movie version of the Broadway musical Hello, Dolly! just now on Netflix Streaming. What a wonderfully tuneful movie this was with great choreography and perfect camera angles. And why not as the director is Gene Kelly who's such a great hoofer himself. Okay, so maybe Barbra Streisand was indeed a bit young for the title role but her singing and acting more than makes up for it. And Walter Matthau is perfect as the man who eventually...well, watch the movie if you want to know. And seeing Michael Crawford way before his triumphant run in Andrew Lloyd Webber's The Phantom of the Opera was another fine treat here. But the real one was seeing the great Satchmo-Louis Armstrong-belt out the title tune with Ms. Streisand several years after making a recording of that song with the result of him not only being the first to hit No. 1 on the Billboard Hot 100 after The Beatles' 14 weeks there with their first three U.S. releases, but also becoming the oldest-at 63 then-to do so which still stands. Incidentally, the youngest to do so was Little Stevie Wonder at 13 with "Fingertips, Part II" the year before. So on that note, Hello, Dolly! is highly recommended. P.S. Since this is Black History Month, besides Armstrong, Scatman Crothers also appears with Ms. Streisand in the beginning number giving her a line or two.

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).