Rating: 
Summary: One of Disney's best!!!
Review: I'm not usually a big fan of musicals, but I absolutely loved this new version of The Music Man! I really don't see how some people think that the 1962 version is much better -- I have seen both versions recently, and the old one just didn't turn me on like this remake does. It just seems rather antiquated and outdated to me in comparison to the 2003 version. But since I'm a member of the younger generation (the 1962 version came out 13 years before I was born, and I'm 28 now) maybe my age has something to do with my preference as to which version I prefer. But I think that while some people might prefer the 1962 version for sentimental reasons, it really can't hold a candle to the 2003 version. Anyway, I fell for this movie hook, line and sinker. I bought the soundtrack not long after the movie came out on TV, and I listen to the CD quite often. I also want to get a copy of the movie when it comes out on video. The 1962 version never got me excited enough to want to buy the soundtrack or film, but this one has. While most of the dialogue, characters and songs are the same, there are some distinct differences between the two versions. One of the main ones is that most, if not all, of the actors and actresses in the 2003 version are all younger than those in the old version. But I think that that adds to the appeal of the film, especially for one aimed at younger audiences. Also, the main meeting place in town is the Ice Cream Parlor, not the Candy Kitchen, and Marcellus Washburn lives in the hotel, not the livery stable. But these differences make the film no less delightful, unless you're an absolute stickler for the original. Everything about this film is fantastic! The props, sets and costumes are very authentic and charming, especially the ladies' hats and dresses. The musical score is just as good as, if not better, than the original version. The emotions of the characters, especially the developing romance between Marian and Professor Hill, are portrayed much better. In the old version, the depths of their love is not as obvious until almost the end of the film.
The actors and actresses in the film were perfect for their parts. Matthew Broderick did a fantastic job as the smooth-talking, quick-thinking con artist, yet showed a tender side as well. I had no idea he could sing so well until I saw this movie, and I thought he had a wonderful singing voice. Victor Garber was very funny as Mayor Shinn, and Molly Shannon was humorous as Mrs. Shinn. Cameron Monahagn was an adorable little Winthrop, and he had a charm that Ron Howard, who played the same role in 1962, didn't have. Cameron Davis made a much better Zaneeta than the girl who played it in the 1962 version did -- she wasn't ditzy and giggly (something I found rather annoying about the old Zaneeta), yet she was still delightfully girlish. And Clyde Anders (I belive that was his name) was just right for the part of Tommy Djolies. My favorite character was Marian, played by Kristin Chenoweth. Kristin made an awesome Marian -- she has a gorgeous singing voice for that character, and combined with the dazzling score, her pretty face, and her beautiful outfits, she's an unforgettable portrayal of Marian Paroo. I love it when she sings,"My White Knight" and "Lida Rose" with the quartet. My favorite song in the whole movie is when she sings, "Till there was You," with Matthew Broderick. I like the way it's sung in this movie because both Marian and Professor Hill sing together, whereas in the old version only Marian sings this song. I liked the ending of this film much better as well. In both versions, the boys' band, dressed in full uniform, comes marching out of the schoolhouse. But in the 1962 version, the scene rapidly goes from a few kids in uniform to a huge marching band of nameless adults, which seems to have too many players for a tiny berg like River City. But in the 2003 version, you see the boys' band playing on Main Street, marching along with all the other characters from the town, which seems much more fitting and gives a sense of community pride. One of the best things I liked about this movie is that it's CLEAN! This is one movie you can enjoy with your kids without having to worry about fast-forwarding through anything. This film is positive proof that we can make films in the new millineum -- with top-notch stars -- that provide not only decent, but delightful entertainment. I highly recommed this one!
Rating:
Summary: Better than the original
Review: I think the reason so many people don't like this version is because they are against the idea of a remake, rather that remake is good or bad. Personally, I never liked the original film version of "The Music Man". I don't understand why everyone raves about it so much. I thought the film was poorly done. The backgrounds look like cheap sets from a high school play. I think the chemistry between Robert Preston & Shirley Jones could've been a lot better. There was enough focus on them. It never really seemed as if Preston's Hill was in love with Marian. However, I love this new version (proof can be found in the fact that I'm buying this one, but wouldn't even tape the old version off of television). In the new version, the sets are 1,000 times better. It actually looks real - go figure! I thought the chemistry between Broderick & Chenoweth was much better, and the increased attention paid to their relationship made the film much more romantic. The added bonus was that the believability of their love made the whole plot seem more realistic. And this all comes from a person who loves classic films and usually despises remakes. Give this film a chance!
Rating: 
Summary: Good modern version, but it can't compare with the original
Review: It's good. I'll give it that. But it just CANNOT compare with the original movie with Preston and Jones. The movie seems made for them, and as hard as Broderick and Chenoweth tried, it just can't match up to the original. Especially the role of Harold Hill. Robert Preston IS the music man. No matter who gets put in the role, they can't compare to Preston. And Broderick just didn't have the energy and charm to be convincing enough as Harold Hill. I'd be biased to comment on the role of Marion, because Jones is my favorite actress, but I still think that Shirley Jones played the role best. Even though I do have to give Chenoweth credit, her singing voice is great. All in all, a good modern version of the film, but it doesn't do justice to the original.
Rating:
Summary: The original production is still the eternal classic.
Review: It is certain that Matthew Broderick is singing, but it is what might be expected from a member of a community chorus or church choir. It is indeed singing (soft sounds are coming out of the mouth) but it is not certain that Mr. Broderick should be considered as having a "singing voice." (Note that his finest accomplishments can be seen in the recent film, The Election, and in the irrepressible classic John Hughes film, Ferris Bueller. And don't forget War Games.) The dubbed singing is a major distraction or even an irritation in the present production. When the characters move from the right or to the left, the timbre or harmonics of the voice remains the same, and the overall effect is one of artifice. Was the budget so low that the producer could only afford one microphone? The absence of an interesting Buddy Hackett character is an empty space in this production. Buddy Hackett is missed, both in the current production, and in real life. I also missed the line, "Try the Palmer House in Chicago." Why was this caustic line omitted? I was also wondering why they needed to do Broadway style dancing in this film about Iowa. Why not some mountain-style big circle or square dance-style clogging? They do clog in Iowa, don't they? A number of clogging steps, e.g., the Wagon Wheel step and East Tennessee Walk step, as well as big circle formations and square formations rarely find their way into Broadway productions or tap dance productions. Why not tap into the clogging repertoire for a production of The Music Man? Now for some good thoughts. The pick-a-little-talk ensemble of women really sizzled. The young boyfriend character was the most charismatic performer of the present production. And the female lead was an excellent singer, though her resemblance to Pamela Anderson was somewhat distracting.
Rating: 
Summary: don't believe "he's no Robert Preston" !
Review: My whole family (3 generations) watched this musical and loved it. We taped it, and were disappointed the DVD hasn't come out sooner. We thought the so-so reviews for MB were unwarranted; he doesn't have the overwhelming presence for "76 trombones", but the "Marion" and other love songs were BRILLIANT with much more of a nuanced performance than Preston. KC absolutely shines in this musical, and updates Shirley Jones' interpretations beautifully. She is the real gem here, and her duet with the "Lida Rose" barbershop quartet gives me yummy chills every time I hear it. Definitely worth buying, as my six year old watches it at least once a week.
Rating:
Summary: Excellent, simple excellent.
Review: When I sat down to watch this musical on ABC, I didn't know what was in store. But all too quickly, I was pulled into it. From the fun train song to the pool song to Gary, Indiana, Willson pulls off one of his greatest roles since Ferris Bueler. At the same time, his fellow actors show off their superb singing abilities and the whole musical has a great deal off humor in it. Good acting, good choreography, go singing, so why four stars? It's a little too long for my tastes. Towards the end, you'll start hoping it's almost over, but not enough to regret you watched it.
Rating:
Summary: What are you people thinking!!!
Review: You think just because they slightly rewrote a few parts that you can be overly critical of it!? This is amazing, I loved Kristin Chenowith! And Matthew Broderick? I didn't know he could sing! He was fantastic! The people who don't like this film are the people that get mad when a FLOWER is misplaced in a remake. FOr anyone who likes the music man, you'll love this!
Rating:
Summary: One shining star in a whole production
Review: Where to begin. Probably with the biggest problem in this production: the ultimate miscast of Matthew Broderick. This is not a Robert Preston comparison. This is an issue of me being /bored/ through Broderick's solos, and those are a good chunk of the musical. Broderick seemed to be going for subtle, but he ended up with bland. I remember reading an article in my TV guide on the TV production a couple of days before it aired and reading that the director wanted to bring a more personable feel to the musical, make the characters more personal and real. What he succeeded in was taking away much of the interest of many of the characters. Most of the supporting cast are very much cariactures and character roles, and they work like that. When you take away their character in an attempt to make them more real, you make them more normal and, ultimately, more boring, because they don't have anything to stand on to make them interesting. These are characters who are drawn as very broad cariactures because that is what gives them humor and interest. Too many of the characters because too serious or too unhumorous. While I often love Victor Garber, when you take away the classic over-playing of the Mayor, he's no longer an interesting character. The one diamond in the rough is Kristin Chenoweth's brilliant performance as Marian, which far out-strips Shirley Jones' solid, if unremarkable performance in the original movie. Chenoweth gives Marian an amazing emotion, especially in her solos "My White Knight" and "Til There Was You." Plus her dazzling soprano clinches her in as the best Marian I've seen. I don't mean to say the entire movie was a failure, though. Most performances are solid enough, but lackluster. It followed the original stage production a bit more closely than the movie and made certain interesting adjustments that I enjoyed seeing. The real failing is that the director attempted to make something more real that is not meant to seem real. It's a brass-band musical. In scaling down the production, the real charm and humor of the show is lost in a movie of no character, perfect company voices.
Rating:
Summary: Modern meets Old-fashioned in a Musical Masterpiece!
Review: I loved this movie when I ran across it on our PBS station. I looked everywhere to find it before I found out that it hadn't been released yet! The music tunes are very catchy. The plot moves right along almost as though this isn't a musical although it most definately is! It is very clean, something I greatly appreciate in a movie. I can't wait for the release of this movie!
Rating: 
Summary: Hideous
Review: Perhaps if this is one's first exposure to "The Music Man," one may be able to see a glimmer of this great musical's charm. Perhaps. But essentially this production is an orgy of miscasting almost on a par with Glenn Close's hilarious "South Pacific" coupled with direction and choreography that range from bland to inept. When there are so many great Broadway musicals that have been made into bad movies (A Chorus Line, The Wiz) or have not been filmed at all (Ragtime), it is beyond me why this production team insists on making bad film versions of shows that have already been made into fine movies. Apparently they were planning on remaking "Fiddler on the Roof" with the terminally boring Victor Garber, but that was canceled after the broadcast of "The Music Man" deservedly tanked. Please do not buy this DVD. We do not want to encourage them.
|
