User Reviews

No one does it like Robert Preston. That's the main think this movie proved. This was the second of two classic musicals that Disney has tried to remake into TV movies in the past few years. They did the same thing with this as they did with Annie, and the result was the same as well. Both movies seem just a little too... for lack of a better word, unnatural.

Of course, this movie had to compare to an original that has been considered a classic for a long time. It's the story of "professor" Harold Hill, a traveling salesman who's latest trick is to find trouble in a town and then use it to make the townspeople believe they need a boys band to reform their youth. He sells them all the instruments, music, and uniforms they need, then heads out of town before he can teach them a thing. Hill's latest target is River City, Iowa. Everything seems to be going fine, but he just might have met his match in the town librarian, one of the few who won't buy his story.

Yes, the story is classic, but it wasn't quite enough to save this rather unnerving remake. Disney pulled together quite a cast: Matthew Broderick, Kristin Chenoweth, Victor Garber, and Molly Shannon. However, that didn't save this film either, though the performance of one of the leads certainly is a large part of the reason this film has the rating it has. It's hard to say exactly why this film fails to satisfy, but it sadly does just that. First of all, it just doesn't seem to work quite as well as the original. The extended dance sequences seem out of place and weird, even though they are splendidly done. Probably, the largest reason of all that this film just isn't great is because no matter how much you deny it, you are comparing it to the original. It just doesn't compare. However, there is one thing that makes it worth while.

Kristin Chenoweth shines as Marian Paroo, the town librarian. With this film, she proves that she can easily take on a leading film role. Ms. Chenoweth really steals the show with her unmatchable voice and superb acting. I really think she out-did the original woman in the role. It's near the end that you realize that she truly is a lead. Unfortunately, I can't say the same for Matthew Broderick. One has to give him credit for being brave enough to take on such a set-in-mind role, but that is actually his downfall. He just isn't Robert Preston- no one ever will be again. Mr. Preston gave one of the better performances of our time, and Mr. Broderick simply can't beat that. At times, he even borders on what looks like insanity. Poor, Matthew. This won't shine as a fine moment in his career at all. The only other really good performances in the show were Debra Monk and David Aaron Baker as Mrs. Paroo and Hill's friend Marcellus, respectively.

Really, the only problem with this is it's not the original. Unfortunately, there won't be a remake that can ever equal the original. As I said before, no one does it like Robert Preston. This film proves that. 5/10 stars.

Jay Addison

After years of playing bad guys on screen, Robert Preston carved out a brand new career for himself and became a household name when he was cast as fast-talking salesman Harold Hill in the original Broadway production of THE MUSIC MAN back in, I believe, 1955 and had to screen test against Frank Sinatra to recreate the role in the original film version in 1962. Preston became forever associated with this role and its signature song "Trouble" and anyone who steps into Harold Hill's shoes and picks up his baton is going to be ripe for comparison. Disney's 2003 TV remake of the musical gets an "A" for effort. It was remounted with a great deal of care and reproduced Meredith Wilson's original score intact (the opening number on the train "Rock Island" is performed in its entirety and Marian's number from the Broadway show, "My White Knight" was returned to its original place in the score instead the lackluster replacement song for the movie "Being in Love"), the scenery and costumes were exquisite and there was some first rate choreography, but no matter what else is going on with this show, if you don't have an electrifying Harold Hill, the show falls flat and Matthew Broderick was a disappointment in this role. And this is coming from a HUGE Matthew Broderick fan who has never been disappointed with him up to this point. As much as I respect Broderick's talent (I saw him on Broadway in "How to Succeed" and he was fabulous), I thought his performance as Harold Hill was rather one-note and a little bland. What made this musical worth watching, however, was the charismatic and luminous performance by the incredible Kristen Chenowith as Marian Paroo. Most Marians tend to fade next to Harold Hill whenever this show is mounted; however, Chenowith's engaging screen presence and breathtaking soprano made this film worth watching (Her rendition of "Goodnight My Someone" brought a tear to my eye and her "My White Knight" made the hair on the back of neck stand up). Chenowith and Chenowith alone made this worth watching. Broderick was one note, Victor Garber and Molly Shannon were badly miscast as Mayor and Mrs. Shinn and Tommy and Zaneeta were snore-inducing, but Kristin Chenowith's magical turn as Marian Paroo makes this version of THE MUSIC MAN completely watchable.

This movie never made it to network TV in Oz and has just reached pay-TV. Probably a good thing as it would be ruined by commercial breaks.

After the massive disappointments of recent TV versions of Cinderella and South Pacific I thoroughly enjoyed it.

It was pretty legitimate to the stage production and on the whole very well done. Some bits were well thought out and better than the 60s movie. An entertaining musical package from start to finish.

Of course Broderick was no Robert Preston - and hardly anyone would be! Prof Hill's role to Preston is like the King of Siam to Yul Bryner. The female lead was OK but it's also hard to go past Shirley Jones.

More please! The Music Man has restored my faith.

I think some of the previous commenters have been perhaps a bit too harsh on this remake. I myself dearly loved the original "The Music Man" (1962) - it was a very important movie in my childhood. My folks bought the soundtrack LP, and I must have heard every song on that album about ten thousand times. (Same can be said for "Oklahoma", "My Fair Lady", "Mary Poppins", etc.) Later, in my youth, I took up the trumpet, and would later actually play several of the songs from "The Music Man" in various band settings.

So it was with keen reservations that I tuned into this 2003 version of the same movie. I really admire Matthew Broderick, yet I was somehow reluctant to allow "Ferris Bueller" the privilege of portraying Professor Harold Hill. Well, no sooner did he begin singing and dancing some of his required Music Man numbers than I was completely won over by his talent, not to mention the easy grace with which he tackled the role.

Suffice it to say that I stuck it out to the end of the film, wholeheartedly enjoying every minute of it (with one slight reservation: there were too damned many commercial interruptions.... oh, and one more thing, I would have loved to see this in a wide-screen format).

I also loved Kristin Chenowith as Marian Paroo. She looked absolutely fabulous and had a divine singing voice that really melted me to the core.

In summation, I'm glad that Disney produced this effort to put "The Music Man" back on the screen, because I think it is a story that today's viewers (especially young people) could certainly bear watching. That's mainly because I fear that the 1962 version (which may arguably be a better version) would unfortunately be overlooked by today's viewers. I mean, nowadays, who has ever heard of Robert Preston??

Matthew Broderick and Victor Garber are fine actors who were either miscast or just didn't have the fun with the rolls they should have.

Kristin Chenoweth was amazing. She packs so much beauty and talent into her 4'11" frame it is astounding.

Overall, it was an okay production.

I have liked Matthew Broderick in many of the roles he has played. But this role seemed far beyond him. He is mush and milk-toast. Something I hadn't expected of him. Never even approached the "Spell binding cymbal salesman' that Harold Hill is supposed to be. The remainder of the cast is fun and effervescent. Kristin Chenowyth is delightful and Molly Shannon is a hoot. Some of the dancing is a little modern, but fun. The look of the show was solid.

I would rate this a 9 out of 10 if Hill had been played more fully and successfully. I had to fault not only Broderick but the Director for allowing the performance in the first place. The music is well presented. It is a fun show. If you have not seen other Harold Hills you might like Broderick's performance. But I was supremely disappointed.

Even bad casting can't destroy a great play. With the tone deaf Matthew Broderick, and the miscast Kristin Chenoweth as Marion Peroo (Sarah Jessica Parker would have been THE choice) this was not going to approach the perfect 1962 theatrical version. Additionally Victor Garber kills all the comedy with his mumbled "Phraseology!" and why is Molly Shannon in this film? David Aaron Baker is completely wrong as Marcellus Washburn, and pale to Buddy Hackett.

Cameron Adams plays Zanita, and is visually appealing, however her "eee-gads" are under toned.

Under toned is the feel for this entire production. The '62 version was broad with high contrasts. This one is muted. Some of the dance routines are spectacular, though.

Cameron Monaghan is excellent as Winthrop, a tribute to Ron Howard. (Maybe Monagan in 30 years will be directing Apollo 13 - The Remake.) However he doesn't really lisp. THE key scene to the entire film is when Winthrop receives his coronet and excitingly spits over Professor Hill. No spitting in this politically correct version.

This production has also interspersed Black Americans throughout the story. High credits for adding color to an otherwise mono-racial story, but this is Pre-WWI America! Blacks and Whites socializing together? In Ioway? -- ya-uhh? Is this a message for today -- YES, but that wasn't the way it was back then.

It was still fun though, so now buy the 1962-version on tape or DVD and enjoy the real thing!

I have two issues with this movie... well, okay, more than two, but I'm only going to discuss two of them here.

First, my vote/opinion is skewed by the fact that I have a problem with Disney picking up the rights to established and beloved Broadway musicals, most of which already have beloved faithful movie adaptations, and "re-making" or "revisualizing" them. I think that if anything, these shows suffer from the glossy finish Disney applies to them. Someone complimented Disney on making "The Music Man" look more like a movie and less like a stage production. But the thing of it is, "The Music Man" is, was, and always shall be (in most people's hearts and minds) a stage production. The fact that the original movie, starring Robert Preston (in the role that not only made him famous, but the musical famous in return), was done in the style of a stage production is because that's how Meredith Wilson envisioned it. (Admittedly, even the 60's movie from Warner Bros. added some location pieces, but the overall tone was still that of a stage.)

But enough about that. (I, like many other fans, could argue far longer than anyone would care to hear.)

My biggest problem of all, however, is Matthew Broderick.

Now, I like Matthew Broderick, when he's in a role that suits him. This was not one of those roles. I was never at any moment convinced that he could be a charismatic, fly-by-night, slippery con-man. He was too "nice" and soft-spoken for that. While Preston had that fast-talking voice and a commanding presence people couldn't ignore, Broderick had more of a sedative effect that would not work on most people. On top of that, he had little emotion. It seemed as though Broderick had dusted off his Ferris Beuller persona and tried to apply it here, with less than stellar results.

Anyway, if you still don't know what my beef is, I challenge you to go to Borders, or Barnes & Noble, or somewhere that lets you scan music CD's and listen to segments; and compare the original Robert Preston soundtrack recording, followed with the Matthew Broderick version. I think you'll find that while the first one makes you want to see a parade, the second would be good for self-hypnosis.

Not to be confused with the "Think System".

To be honest, I wanted to dislike the 2003 TV version of The Music Man because I love the original screen version so much. The only reason why I watched it was because of Kristen Chenoweth, for who I'm a big fan. Plus, I was extremely disappointed in the way Disney remade Annie. So, I wasn't expecting much.

The first time I watched it, though, I had to admit that it took some getting used to. I kept waiting for Robert Preston's rich voice and kept getting Matthew Broderick's more mellow voice. Once I get used to a certain actor playing a certain part, it's very difficult to let go of that person and let somebody else interpret the role. For example, I still have a difficult time listening to anybody else play Miss Hannigan in Annie other than Carol Burnett, Miss Mona in The Best Little Whorehouse in Texas other than Dolly Parton and Audrey in Little Shop of Horrors other than Ellen Greene.

But, I decided to watch this film a second time and watch it with the knowledge that Broderick was interpreting the role differently than Preston. With that, I ended up loving the film and even cried at the end when Harold Hill admits to Winthrop that, for the first time, he's got his foot stuck in the door and then goes into a reprise of "Till There Was You."

I felt Chenoweth was great as Marion the Librarian and the supporting cast was wonderful. Molly Shannon and Victor Garber (who I thought was horribly miscast as Daddy Warbucks in the Disney version of Annie) were fantastic as Mrs. and Mr. Shinn. The little kid who played Winthrop was almost dead on to a young Ron Howard.

I liked it - it is hard NOT to like The Music Man:

BUT Matthew Broderick is no Robert Preston. He lacks the personna to pull off the Harold Hill scam. And, as far as I know, Meredith Willson had Preston in mind when he wrote the show.

Kristin Chenoweth, however, was a better Marion than Shirley Jones. Kristin has as good a voice as Jones but she has a natural midwest accent that fits River City well, and she LOOKS like a small town librarian.

The music was great - at least those songs which were left in from the Broadway-Chicago-1962 versions (All of which I saw many times) The songs added later were not up to the standard of Meredith Willson's original score.

However, the ending was more in keeping with the original - the '62 sudden switch to the "Band of America" rather than a bunch of kids. And the "Marion" sequence was a bit more enjoyable than the highly polished "62 version.

All in all, a good remake but not up to the original.

If the Music Man has fanilows, I am one. I loved the 1962 movie, never having been to Broadway until 1979. In the mid-70's my two brothers and future sister-in-law were in a summer dramatic presentation at our high school(where Richard Gere and I started out) and I know the script nearly verbatim.

Matthew Broderick is a handsome, talented young man, but he and his co-conspirators have a lot to learn about delivery. So many lines were blown, being recited far too fast, without proper cadence or emphasis.

I found it troubling that the producers tried to put modern political correctness on a scene from the early 1900's. I would bet the farm that, in that day, in a very small town in Iowa, there were no middle- class black people. If there were any non-farming blacks, they would be a guy playing piano in a bordello or saloon or possibly a groom at the livery stable or smithy.

When it was over, I called baby brother and exclaimed, "I'm aghast - simply aghast!" to which he replied, "you mean agog - simply agog." I knew he would be watching it, as well. We agreed on all points. Sorry to pan it; I hate vicious critics.

This fine TV movie did justice to the musical play, which I've enjoyed both on stage (two different versions) and on-screen. The photography, costumes and acting were wonderful Matthew Broderick was different from Robert Preston but did a good job, especially in the last part of the movie. I hope to see more musical classics made as TV movies.

Almost a great movie

Alright, was a big fan of the 1962 version with Robert Preston. And this version was very good too. But Matthew Broderick was definitely NOT the right person to play Hill.

When I was watching the making of the movie they said that Brodericks dream in life was to play Prof. Harold Hill. No wonder it was IN HIS DREAMS!!!.

Bad attempt at a comeback from Ferris Bueller's Day Off for Matthew Brodrick.

He could never EVER give the same illusion of a con man like Preston.

I give this *** out of *****

What a waste of money and time. I was looking forward to what a television production could bring, but uniformly hated this from beginning to end. The main problem, of course, is the casting. Matthew Broderick, who was probably the reason this production was done in the first place, is just horrendous as Harold Hill. I just never believed him in the part of a lecherous con man. His voice is too nasal; it's like he sucked helium before each song. Second runner up is Victor Garber as the mayor - he was just mean, never funny. Generally I like these two performers. Kristen Chenoweth, who I usually don't like, sings beautifully here; too bad she has to deliver dialog with that squeaky voice. The best thing in the movie was Mrs. Paroo (I forget the actress's name). I also didn't believe the interracial cast as representing realistic River City, Iowa society of the period. If you want a real treat, stick with the Robert Preston/Shirley Jones movie.

Well, I've read a lot of comments on this remake of Meredith Wilson's musical. My feeling is that no matter how good this movie may be, people would <i>still</i> find fault with it because it's not the "original," keeping in mind that the actual original would have been the 1957 stage version. Besides Preston, the only actor that I can find who made the transition from stage to screen was Pert Kelton as the Widow Paroo. Oh, how I wish I could have seen Robert Preston on Broadway. But I wasn't born yet.

The 1962 film version has had forty years to amass an audience of die-hard fans. Most of us probably don't make it to New York to see original Broadway productions, or even local dinner theater shows, so the movie version is most likely the only thing that a lot of people will see, whether it's at the local Cineplex, or on video/DVD. I've been fortunate enough to see a local dinner theater production of <i>The Music Man</i>. Like everyone else here, I made comparisons between the actor portraying Harold Hill and Robert Preston, and of course the local actor came up short. How could he <i>not</i>? I mean, after all, I've seen Preston's interpretation <i>countless</i> times thanks to my VCR. But after a while, I stopped making comparing and just had <i>fun</i> watching another interpretation of a great musical. Sure, Robert Preston remains the quintessential Harold Hill for me, but I can keep an open mind and watch someone else in the role. Besides, I can always watch the '62 version if I'm hankering for Preston, if ya don't mind my saying so...

Some people have bashed Broderick for his interpretation of Prof. Hill, citing his youth, subtle performance, singing ability, etc. Here are some things to keep in mind: At the time the movie was made, Robert Preston was only <u>four years older</u> than Matthew Broderick is now. Preston's vocal range was limited, so the songs were written with that in mind. He spoke a <i>lot</i> throughout his songs.

Although Preston originated the role of Professor Harold Hill on Broadway, Hollywood did not want him for the part in the film version, citing that he was too <i>old</i> to play opposite Shirley Jones. It was only after numerous other actors turned down the part, that Preston was allowed to reprise his performance.

Typically, actors on stage pump up their performances, in order to reach everyone in the theater, including people in the back row. Conversely, actors in film and television have to dial it down, because their audiences can easily see and hear what the actors are doing, and subtle is the key to a more believable performance as opposed to an "over the top" style.

Whereas Preston chose to reprise his fast-talking, mischief-making style from the stage, Broderick's con-man is more smooth, easy, and under the radar. Interestingly enough, Preston's version of Prof. Hill always came off as a conniving crook from the first time I laid eyes on him. There is no doubt that he has charisma and appeal but I wonder why anyone would buy <i>anything</i> from him. Broderick's Harold Hill, on the other hand, looks completely innocent and unassuming, which would make him perfect for selling someone swampland as viable real estate. And come on, would any of you <i>really</i> have accepted Broderick more readily if he chose the bombast and snappy patter? Or would you have just said "Preston wannabe?"

There was a lot I liked about the remake. I liked seeing more of the stage version make it to the screen. I liked the nontraditional casting for the citizens of River City (I know, it's highly unlikely that people of color would be interacting with caucasians in Iowa in 1912, but The Music Man was always an <b>idealized</b> version of life in a midwestern town) and for me, Kristin Chenoweth was 50 percent of the reason I wanted to watch this movie. In my opinion, she made a wonderful Marian Paroo.

I've always liked Debra Monk so it was fun to see her here as the Widow Paroo. My only criticism of Cameron Monaghan is that he didn't spit as much as Ronny Howard when he lisped through his lines (and maybe that's not a bad thing because I can't get Daffy Duck out of my mind as I write this) and he is so much the spitting image (pun intended) of Johnnie Whitaker, that I was expecting his surname to <i>be</i> Whitaker until I saw otherwise.

So who did I miss from the original? Well, I did miss Buddy Hackett as Marcellus Washburn, and although the school board members turned barbershop quartet were okay, I did miss the Buffalo Bills. But the guy I really missed was Harry Hickox. Who's Harry Hickox, you might ask? Why, none other than that traveling anvil salesman Charlie Cowell! Now <i>that</i> was a role that called for someone loud, bombastic, and over the top. Unfortunately, Patrick McKenna playing the vengeful fellow salesman just didn't do it for me (I wish he would have dropped his anvil case just once).

All in all, I'd say that this was a fine remake. I hope that it will attract the notice of younger audiences, so they can see that musicals aren't "lame." And maybe it'll get them interested in the film that was made over 40 years ago, starring Robert Preston and Shirley Jones.

But they'll probably prefer the Matthew Broderick version.

There wasn't the spark (or sparkle) between Harold Hill & Marion that Robert Preston & Shirley Jones had in the 1962 version. I wasn't expecting Matthew Broderick to be Robert Preston - and he wasn't. Broderick IS adorable, and does have a pleasant singing voice but Harold Hill is NOT an adorable character. Kristen Chenowith has a lovely voice ... and knows it. She drowned out Broderick more than once, but that had to do with sound engineering as much as anything. I agree with the person who commented that her speaking voice was "grating." Maybe it was part of her characterization, I don't know. ...And the Cinderella/Prince Charming bit in the middle of "Marion, Madam Librarian" -what was THAT all about? Totally unnecessary! "Pick a little, Talk a little" did NOT need the additional verse in the soda shoppe. Puh-LEEZE! Molly Shannon & Victor Garber seemed miscast & therefore, weren't able to show off their particular talents. I could almost see Victor Garber more as Harold Hill. Marcellus was good, but as someone said, it would have been interesting to see Jason Alexander as Marcellus - or even as Mayor Shinn. The barbershop quartet sounded pleasant, but there was no strong bass singer - they were all tenors & baritones. Widow Paroo was terrific, so was Winthrop. The integrated cast would have had a lot more significance if people of color weren't virtually all confined to non-speaking, non-solo roles. The musical numbers that require rhythmic precision - the opening number with the salesmen, "Trouble," "Marion, Madam Librarian" either weren't synchronized correctly, or didn't have the percussiveness in the first place. I tried very hard to appreciate this production on its own merits, but still found the original movie far more satisfying.

"The Music Man" tells of a worldly traveling salesman and scam artist who unwittingly infuses the people of a small Iowa town with hope and dreams while he suffers from the low self esteem which supports his chicanery. A suspicious and cynical librarian justifiably distrust him until she sees the goodness in his work and instills in him a sense of self worth turning him into an honest man while he restores her faith in people. Viola! Love. This story is beautifully told in the huge hit movie of 1962 and, now, in the 2003 redux. This t.v. version has good legs and offers solid musical and dance performances and production value. However, it suffers from poor casting, halfhearted acting, and pales when compared to the original. If you haven't seen "The Music Man", watch the 1962 version first. If you have seen it, you'll likely be disappointed by this rehash. After all, why mess with perfection? (B)

I loved the original, hackneyed and corny as anything; I loved the energy and the way that the song and dances numbers just flowed seamlessly into the story. With this version, it was just people doing a song or a dance. I wouldn't buy a chocolate ice cream off this guy and he was supposed to be convincing a whole town to buy band instruments and uniforms? I know they are all capable and good actors elsewhere - but what happened? It was like someone took the batteries out of them all before they started shooting. Sorry but if it ain't broke, don't fix it - this doesn't work for me at all. Marks for nice hats. Why has no-one done a remake of Sound of Music or Mary Poppins? (well they may have, just no-one has heard of them) Because they are unsurpassable. So was the original Music Man. This was toothless; Robert Preston was a charming villain; this poor man looked bland and terrified. I like Matthew Broderick - or I thought I did - until now. You need to be able to do more than carry a tune or a few steps to remake a classic. Huge disappointment - an outrage in fact.

I saw this before watching the original one so I watched this with a very clear, unbiased head. I thought it was much better then our middle school's version. Matthew Broderick's voice is better then Robert Preston's voice but he isn't as convincing as Harold Hill. Kristen Chenoweth was lovely and very convincing as Marion Paroo. You can walk away believing Marion Paroo was played by herself. She also has a beautiful singing voice. Victor Garber and Molly Shannon are miscasts though. However I found it very entertaining.

Just as any version of "A Christmas Carol" is judged mainly by the performance of "Scrooge", "The Music Man" will necessarily be judged by the performance of "Harold Hill"... and I'm afraid Matthew Broderick's portrayal was lackluster and one-dimensional (maybe even half-dimensional). It gave the appearance of a high school production, where he was satisfied to merely learn his lines and his limited dance routines. I like Broderick. He is a talented man, but he is capable of better than this.

The Mayor (Victor Garber) was portrayed as the "heavy" - menacing and mean. Not one of his malopropisms came off as funny - merely the mistakes of an angry idiot.

I love Barbershop music, and the quartet sounded quite good. However, they lacked a bit in the acting department, and again felt like a high school production.

Though it was not particularly memorable, it was fun to see Patrick McKenna of "The Red Green Show" as the anvil salesman.

Kristin Chenoweth as "Marion Peru" was the highlight of this version for me. She's pretty, she can sing, and there was life in her performance. Watch the scene on the bridge where she convincingly sings a love song to Broderick, who merely stares back at her blankly. Her costumes (except that final hat) were a highlight for my wife as well.

Overall, a disappointment... not really bad, but lacking the joy and life that is inherent in this fine musical.

First, I would like to say that I have been in the play of it and now have seen both screen versions. This one made me sick.

Now for the actors; let's take the star first - Matthew Broderick. I must say, that is one of the most unemotional performances I have ever had the mischance of observing. Where was all the energy in "76 Trombones"? I read previous reviews that cited required subtlety of screen performances as an excuse. Without energy, without enthusiasm, without the wild, inclusive gestures, HH could not have POSSIBLY "hoodwinked" an entire town. Without getting them whipped into a frenzy in "Trouble," why would there be an need for a boy's band? They didn't even show any knickerbockers "buckled below the knees"! Broderick's singing I shan't comment on. I agree, Robert Preston did not have a good singing voice - but his sincerity made it all right despite his limited ability. Besides that, Preston's acting more than made up for his voice. Broderick should have stayed as Inspector Gadget. He plays a good robot, even when he doesn't mean to.

Next, Kristin Chenoweth. Admittedly, she has a very good singing voice. My main complaint is the "modern" sound of her voice. She croons it and these songs were not meant to be crooned. They should be sung straight-forwardly and in an old-fashioned way. The quality of her voice was not pure enough. Besides that, her speaking voice annoyed the heck out of me. If you'll pardon the expression, she reminds me almost of a female Fred Allen, speaking through her nose all the time. I felt more sincerity from Chenoweth than I did from Broderick but not by much. I think she was the most convincing actor in the movie.

Victor Garber as Mayor Shinn was awful. I felt NOTHING from him. His part was VERY funny; he did not play it up nearly as much as he could have, or should have. Debra Monk as Mrs. Paroo needs to take a few lessons in an Irish accent. Had I not known the play/movie (despite the one line "But Professor, we ARE Irish!"), I wouldn't have been able to tell that they were supposed to be Irish! Take it from an Irish woman, Molly Shannon as Mrs. Shinn needs to be more in-your-face. She needs to bawl out "BALZAC!" for heaven's sake!

By far the most annoying things about it are the political correctness and historical inaccuracies. I am not racist. However, there would have NEVER been black people integrated like that in a 1912 town! Mrs. Squires is a black woman married to a white Jacey Squires in the quartet. In the library scene, a white boy and black girl look adoringly at each other. Never would that have been accepted at that time. I have no problem with that but people in a 1912 Iowa town would most certainly have had! Also, did anyone else notice how many stars were on the flag? Uh, I don't think so. Way too many. Also, Mrs. Paroo mentions Flag Day. Again, this is in 1912. If you do a little research, you'll find that Flag Day was instituted in 1916 by Woodrow Wilson.

I would not recommend this movie to my worst enemy.

The Music Man is an amazing film about a miracle worker (Prof. Harold Hill) who changes things in a town in the state of Iowa and falls in love with a citizen of same named Marian. Marian's younger brother, Winthrop doesn't speak even three words a day. Not even to family. As soon as Prof. Hill speaks to Winthrop, Winthrop will start a conversation with anyone. Hill starts a band and asks Winthrop to be in it. He's an awful band director but his band is a musical sensation in the end!! That little brother-Oh! What a doll baby! These songs are a perfect combination. "Madam Librarian", "Good Night, My Someone", "76 Trombones", and "'Till There Was You" were some really great songs. I was one of the first to see this movie in America or...In the world for that matter! I guarantee you'll have a smile on your face after watching "The Music Man". Matthew Broderick is astounding in this movie. He's a handsome hunk of musical pleasure! Let Kristin Chenoweth fill your senses with sassiness and strong, womanly power. She is a powerful pussycat with the strength of a million guys! What can I say? The Music man is the greatest movie ever made! I rate it TOTAL TEN!! What can I say? It Rocks! Good night my someone! 'Hope you enjoy the movie!

I never met a musical I didn't like and this production of "The Music Man" is no exception. Nevertheless, I wonder why the producers bothered. Matthew Broderick is a first class Broadway song and dance man but he is no Robert Preston. Who is? Broderick's portrayal of the immortal Professor Harold Hill is adequate, in fact his singing and dancing are excellent. Unfortunately, though, one cannot help but be reminded of Robert Preston's 1,000 megawatt charisma in the 1962 original. To put it charitably, Broderick is somewhat lacking in the charisma department. Kristen Chenoweth is outstanding. She looks wonderful and sings like an angel. It was a shame, though, that Chenoweth had almost no chance to display her formidable comedy talents. She is a funny lady, but her character here, Marian Peru the Librarian, has little opportunity, alas, to be funny. Finally, I though that Victor Garber and Molly Shannon, as Mayor and Mrs. Shinn, were in far over their heads. Whenever Garber delivered one of the Mayors Malapropisms, I saw in my mind's eye the far funnier and more appealing Paul Ford from the 1962 movie. Similarly, Shannon could not make saying the word "Balzac" funny in the way Hermione Gingold did in the original. That said, the production numbers were excellent and the piece was consistently entertaining. Despite some weaknesses in comparison to the original, this version of "The Music Man" is a worthy effort. 7 out of 10.

I liked that the story was not totally changed as some remakes have been. It was good but not great. It seemed more like a high school or community production than a professionally made movie. I think Victor Garber is a very good actor but he was miscast as Mayor Shinn. I also thought Kristen Chenowith not right for the role of Marian Paroo. What happened to her mothers Iris accent?

I am not racist however facts are facts. The movie is set in early 1900's Iowa. Black and white people did not interact the way they do in the movie. Racism was alive and well at that time. Blacks were not treated as equal with whites.

It was enjoyable but I would not go out of my way or pay money to see it again. The original was much better so I bought a copy.