Awful, IMO - Thoroughly Modern Millie (1967) Discussion

[–] Obbykins 15 years ago

Well, firstly, bit of a misuse of the word abortion there.

Secondly, it's charming. It's not MEANT to be accurate, in any way, shape or form. God, what is wrong with people?

- We could be men with ven!

reply

[–] BwlBoy 15 years ago

Everyone is entitled to their opinion but I must say I disagree with the original poster. This is entertaining and frankly, I find the comment that this is dated laughable. It is set in the 20s. Explain why it is dated!

reply

[–] kisses5050 15 years ago

well aStudy: 38 Percent Of People Not Actually Entitled To Their Opinion
• AUGUST 17, 2005OCTOBER 24, 2007AUGUST 11, 1999CHICAGO—In a surprising refutation of the conventional wisdom on opinion entitlement, a study conducted by the University of Chicago's School for Behavioral Science concluded that more than one-third of the population is neither entitled nor qualified to have opinions.
"On topics from evolution to the environment to gay marriage to immigration reform, we found that many of the opinions expressed were so off-base and ill-informed that they actually hurt society by being voiced," said chief researcher Professor Mark Fultz, who based the findings on hundreds of telephone, office, and dinner-party conversations compiled over a three-year period. "While people have long asserted that it takes all kinds, our research shows that society currently has a drastic oversupply of the kinds who don't have any good or worthwhile thoughts whatsoever. We could actually do just fine without them."
In 2002, Fultz's team shook the academic world by conclusively proving the existence of both bad ideas during brainstorming and dumb questions during question-and-answer sessions
ctually

reply

[–] SweetHotAngel 12 years ago

Well, I disagree with the Professor from the University of Chicago's School for Behavior Science and his study. But then, he's entitled to his opinion as is everyone.

"Is it bright where you are? Have the people changed? Does it make you happy you're so strange?"

reply

[–] plurality-1 10 years ago

This reminds me of the many people, humble and great, who defend their stupid remarks by citing the First Amendment or similar ideas. Yes, you can speak, and yes, you're "entitled" to your opinion (whatever that means to people who use that expression), but it doesn't mean whatever comes out of your piehole was worth saying or hearing. Is this clear? Legal rights of expression don't mean by law your "thoughts" must be treated with respect.

reply

[–] TotheWatersandtheWild 10 years ago

This reminds me of the many people, humble and great, who defend their stupid remarks by citing the First Amendment or similar ideas. Yes, you can speak, and yes, you're "entitled" to your opinion (whatever that means to people who use that expression), but it doesn't mean whatever comes out of your piehole was worth saying or hearing. Is this clear? Legal rights of expression don't mean by law your "thoughts" must be treated with respect.



~
What if when you die, they ask "How was heaven?"

reply

[–] vpilutis 15 years ago

I saw it for the first time in years tonight and its still a joy and lots of fun.

http://worldofvbphoto.blogspot.com/
http://vbphoto.webs.com/models.htm

reply

[–] DougDumbrille 15 years ago

"This is entertaining and frankly, I find the comment that this is dated laughable. It is set in the 20s. Explain why it is dated!"

Uh...because they use racist stereotypes in regards to the asian characters, which by the way were listed in the credits as "Oriental #1" and "Oriental #2"?

It's also dated because it's an overblown, overlong, mess of a movie. It can't figure out if it's a musical (which it no doubt became only after getting Andrews to star in it) or a comedy, or a spoof or satire.

Sequences or even individual scenes which should take up a minute or two of screen time are dragged out to 5-10 minutes. A movie could never get away with that waste today.

Just a mess.

reply

[–] 15 years ago

[deleted]

[–] BwlBoy 15 years ago

"It's also dated because it's an overblown, overlong, mess of a movie."

Quote by danbecks.

Right! So your explanation as to why this film is dated is because you don't like it. Do you realise how stupid that makes you look? Probably not!

reply

[–] butaneggbert 9 years ago

I doubt Obbykins will see this in response to that 2009 post - but in defense of the English language, "abortion" is not misused here.

Don't take my word for it. Oxford Dictionaries:

a·bor·tion
əˈbôrSH(ə)n/
noun: abortion; plural noun: abortions

1. the deliberate termination of a human pregnancy, most often performed during the first 28 weeks of pregnancy.

1.1 the expulsion of a fetus from the uterus by natural causes before it is able to survive independently.
1.2 Biology the arrest of the development of an organ, typically a seed or fruit.

2. an object or undertaking regarded by the speaker as unpleasant or badly made or carried out.

Origin
mid 16th century: from Latin abortio(n-), from aboriri ‘miscarry’ (see abort).

_______________

Nothing to see here, move along.

reply

[–] dan.adams 9 years ago

Don't often get a flick where the actors hamming it up are giving stellar performances.Despite the fact that at times the script seems to be written as the camera rolls,TMM was exceedingly entertaining.Every now and then the viewer's "opinion" is canvassed-jut to let you know Miss Andrews is there,and thinking of you.TMM is definitely a movie for film buffs.I watched the audience I showed it to tonight.Half walked at Intermission,they thought it "unreal"(WOW! just think of the modern day time traveling,transforming rubbish hitting the big screen right now) and corny.Gee,swell John! Pure escapism that takes the audience with it, always succeeds-with me,anyhow.Front and centre John!

reply

[–] suzy8track 15 years ago

I did not get to see this until I was a teen in the early 80s. My sister and I loved it. Watching it again years later I still love it. It's madcap fun!

reply

[–] renorris51 15 years ago

No, no. The first poster was correct. I was disappointed when I first saw this contrived, unfunny, overproduced mess in my teens. I saw it again tonight and shook my head when I wasn't averting my eyes.

Nothing works in this movie. Not at any level. Julie Andrews and Mary Tyler Moore do as much as they can as ingenues, but the only remarkable thing about the movie is the number of Oscar nominations it got. That tells me more about the Hollywood of 1967 than it does about the worth of this movie.

reply

[–] mit800 15 years ago

I loved it.

Julie is wonderful and charming, Bea Lillie is hilariously droll and Channing is madcap fun.

Sure it`s a little overlong but has a great finish and the songs are swell, just swell.

So beat the drum, cause here comes Thoroughly Moooodern Millie noooowwwww. Boop Boop be Doop.

Dorothy stop that, Mr. Ha Ha`s lookin at you!!

reply

[–] dan1221 15 years ago

I, too, agree with the first poster. This thing is a train wreck. Nothing, absolutely nothing in it works.

reply

[–] lani-d 14 years ago

I love this film! Granted, I'm a nut for musicals and all that cheesy stuff, but I think of this not so much as a movie (because it is terrible!), but a showcase for the talent in it and the terrif songs too. I admit that it does completely lose itself towards the end, but the best thing is that it doesn't take itself seriously at all. It's a bit of a spoof.

reply

[–] wimseymaniac 14 years ago

Couldn`t agree more with you- of course the movie is over the top, it´s meant to be! I always laugh myself silly when seeing it- it`s just marvellous!

It is our choices that show what we truly are... far more than our abilities.

reply

[–] dmnemaine 14 years ago

Dated??? It's about the 1920s. It's supposed to be "dated". Period films by their very definition are "dated" purposely.

reply

[–] Tashtago 14 years ago

I agree with original poster. It was awful. And it is DATED. 60's dated. The lobby card idea to punctuate the satire was stolen from Tom Jones another DATED 60's film . In fact the 60's is full of films satirizing the 20's or at least 20's film techniques fast motion chase sequences (see What's New Pussy Cat or an episode of Gilligan's Island ). Just because a movie is set in another era doesn't mean it doesn't betray it's own era. Look at any historical drama although taking place in another time they all look like the era they were made in.

reply

[–] Eightythreeyearoldguy 13 years ago

I enjoyed it at age 34 in 1967. I just rented it from the library and am looking forward to seeing it again.

I'm the kind of guy, when I move - watch my smoke. But I'm gonna need some good clothes though.

reply

[–] rrb 12 years ago

Tash - you and others are right in decrying this ridiculous film. The "comedy" simply isn't funny, as desperately as it tries. And Carol Channing crying "Raspberries!" every time she's meant to be adorably adventurous doesn't even qualify as camp -- it's just embarrassing.

I saw TMM when it came out, with my mother, who thought it was mildly entertaining but silly. This from a middle-aged woman back in 1967. A number of contemporary reviewers had a similar reaction; Pauline Kael absolutely despised it as the kind of trash that treated audiences like idiots. Today TMM is, as has been said, awful and terribly "60's dated", to quote you, Tash. A moronic film appealing only to the brain-dead.

reply

[–] 12 years ago

[deleted]

[–] LucyRocks 13 years ago

Sure, everyone's entitled to their opinion, and it is my humble opinion that you are INSANE. This movie is FABULOUS in every way!!!

reply

[–] pierce_MN 13 years ago

This is a ghastly movie, because it trivializes something that endangered women during the period -- White Slavery. Many of these women were abused, sold into prostitution, became drug addicts and/or were murdered. To use this as the plot for a musical is offensive. I agree, this is an awful movie!

reply

[–] timlin-4 12 years ago

Using a fairy tale as joke is perfectly legitimate. Now, the breast flattening was truly horrifying and not something that should have been fun of

reply

[–] ARIES560 12 years ago

G-DAYUM it's not a frickin documentary! It's just a silly comedy from the 60's for cryin out loud! What's wrong with some mofos???

reply

[–] molly-574-777585 12 years ago

Coming on this board I'm glad to find other people have the some problems as I do. I really wanted to like this film but it ended up leaving a bad taste in my mouth. I thought the white slavery plotline was odd for what was supposed to be a light-hearted musical, not to mention it trivializing a serious crime. The 'oriental' stereotypes were just plain bad. I absolutely hated Carol Channing's character and couldn't stand her voice or her appearance (honestly, she reminded me of Jack Lemmon's female persona in 'Some Like it Hot). Her battlecry of "Raspberries!" was not endearing at all and I did not understand at all why everyone loved her so much.

Was anyone else irritated by the ending when Millie was deemed a "very traditional girl" and essentially gave up all her ambition of being a self-sufficient woman? What then was the point of the movie? Thoroughly Modern Millie isn't really modern and needs to be traditional to get a husband? Great message! Besides that blip at the end, I did like Julie Andrews as Millie and I think she is the only redeeming thing about this film.

reply