a_baron
"Paint Your Wagon" is based on the 1951 Broadway musical of the same name, but for the usual reasons the plot has been altered somewhat. Also, it would not have been possible to portray a ménage à trois on stage in 1951.Having said that, there isn't a great deal to the plot: prospectors during the California Gold Rush erect a new town called No Name City. Before that though, with four hundred men and no women at all...then two women arrive with their husband - singular. What happens next is far from edifying, and it is a little surprising that third wave feminists haven't organised a worldwide boycott of the video.Nevertheless, this is primarily a musical, and although most of the songs are not particularly strong, they are certainly passable, the two exceptional ones being "They Call The Wind Maria" and "Wand'rin' Star", the latter of which was performed by the gravelly voiced Lee Marvin and was a surprise number one hit in the UK.
hearingaidseller
This movie is plain and simple fun. Sure, you have to suspend your disbelief, but so what. I like to escape with movies, and this is 2+ hours of escape. Lee Marvin and Clint Eastwood are not gifted singers. But they are gifted actors and they do a great job in this movie. I love the male chorus songs, as well as the Nitty Gritty Dirt Band. "They Call the Wind Maria" is perfectly placed and perfectly sung. Staging this in the Sierra's was genius. It adds a touch of realism when it comes to the gold rush story. Wet, nasty, sometimes foreboding weather is very realistic. If you have the DVD and the making of the movie is available, it's very interesting.
dimplet
While "Hello, Dolly!" is a movie that some viewers feel compelled to admire, "Paint Your Wagon" is a movie some viewers feel compelled to criticize. I don't feel compelled to do either. What counts is whether you enjoy a movie, not whether you are "supposed to" admire a movie. I did not enjoy "Hello, Dolly!" despite giving it my best try several times. But I have enjoyed watching "Paint Your Wagon," even with several viewings over the years. I enjoy musicals. As a kid in the Sixties I would borrow the LPs of the Broadway cast or movie soundtrack from the library, before there were VHS or DVDs. I enjoyed listening to the great songs. But now we don't have to limit ourselves to just the music excerpts. This provides a clue to the difference between these two musicals. "Hello, Dolly!" had some very good music, of a Broadway sort, so we assumed it was an equally good musical. "Paint Your Wagon" had musical roots going back to the Fifties, and was a musical non-entity."Hello, Dolly!" the movie has lots of good Broadway songs and incredibly lavish sets and dance numbers, which are its raison d'etre. But the movie has a plot that is astonishingly weak, in light of its Broadway success. Watching a fleet of dancing waiters performing absurd acrobatics is not my idea of fun."Paint Your Wagon" has some decent musical numbers, and some almost feeble attempts at dancing, but no one in their right mind would see it just for its music and dancing. So judged on that score, alone, it would rate a flop. But it's got a reasonably interesting story and very good acting, including a fine comic performance by Lee Marvin (!), not to mention some memorable croaking that passes for singing. If you snipped out all the singing and dancing, "Paint Your Wagon" would still be a film worth watching."Hello, Dolly!" on the other hand, has acting that varies from mediocre to miserably atrocious, and a story line you wouldn't pay more than $100 for someone to write. If you cut out the music and dancing, the audience would walk out. The sore point with "Paint Your Wagon" is its budget. Reviewers relish reminding people of its $18 million budget. But "Hello, Dolly!" cost $25 million, and they both came out in the same year (although Dolly was filmed earlier and shelved). Because so much money was wasted on Wagon, we are not supposed to enjoy it. While it is easy to put down the musical side of Wagon, it should be pointed out that Lerner and Lowe, Nelson Riddle and Andre Previn are hardly slouches. And Clint Eastwood acquits himself remarkably well. With Wagon, the producers wisely picked actors who were right for the part, and dealt with the singing later. What I find most curious in comparing the two, is that Dolly seems two or three times as long as Wagon, even though it has faster pacing and is 146 minutes long, to Wagon's 158 minutes. Dolly is rushed, and painful to watch, while Wagon has a relaxed pace and is fun to watch. It is nice to see a movie that is not in a hurry, though Wagon could fit its story line into a shorter movie.Part of the problem with Dolly is that it is a comedy that just is not funny. With Wagon, the humor is built into the awkward situations and odd characters, so it works with repeated viewings. But it is those situations that may provide the real clue to Wagon's hostile reception: it's menage a trois. It was rated "M," or "R" today, just because of its implied three-way sex. It is something viewers hardly notice today, but in 1969, Wagon must have been viewed as sneering at religion and all morality (which is about right). This may be why I like it so much, but it is also undoubtedly why some people despise this movie, even today. Wagon is the original louche musical.For some people, musicals are supposed to embody family values. Wagon ridicules them. It makes a mockery of marriage, while glorifying prostitution, drinking, cigar smoking, violence and thievery. Dolly, on the other hand, couldn't be more old- fashioned and square. You cannot imagine, in your wildest dreams, Matthau and Streisand having sex, and yet Matthau, out of the blue, proposes to her, without even a kiss. Now that's family values. Wagon certainly is not one of the great musicals, but it is still a fun movie worth watching when you have a long evening and a lot of popcorn handy. The bottom line: I find "Paint Your Wagon" entertaining, but "Hello, Dolly!" pretentious. Watching Wagon, or even just recollecting it, brings a smile to my face.
