The Music Man

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??

Well, The Music Man is one of my all time favorite musicals. There were aspects about this one that I preferred to the original and some that I didn't. I have been in the stage version before and I noticed that they made this movie more similar to the stage version than just like the original movie. For example, they put in the reprise of pick-a-little, talk-a-little, etc...

First of all, the casting. I thought that if I hadn't seen the original movie version of this musical I would have enjoyed Matthew Broderick in this role a lot more. I thought he was good, but he didn't hold a candle to Robert Preston's performance as Harold Hill. He wasn't as convincing as Harold Hill as I hoped he would be. Overall, I wasn't impressed with him.

Kristin Chenoweth is definitely someone in this musical that I was impressed with. I really didn't think I would like her in this role, but I think I actually liked her better than Shirley Jones. I knew how well she fit the role of Sally in the new Broadway version of "You're A Good Man, Charlie Brown" and after that, I was having trouble picturing her as Marian Paroo. I still found her speaking vioce a little annoying and Sally-ish, but I thought she made it work. I think what I liked most about her performance was the change I saw in the character of Marian throughout the movie. I saw the transition from the up-tight librarian to a woman who is a lot looser and not as shrewish. I never saw that in the version with Shirley Jones. I really saw Marian fall for Harold Hill in this version, I don't think Shirley Jones played that up as well as she could have.

A couple complaints I have about this version are the fact that I found the girl playing Zaneeta Shinn pretty annoying and...well...not very good. Her "Ye Gods" was...well...just kind of...blah. I found the dance number of Shapoopi to be pretty weak, also. I thought that Harold and Winthrop's thing was cute and I thought that the Shinns' thing was cute, but where was all the fun dancing?

I don't really know how I felt about Molly Shannon playing Eulalie. I thought Hermione Gringold was perfect in that role in the original movie, but I really had no problem with Molly Shannon in this role. I didn't think she was better or worse, just different. Victor Garber could have been better, though. The role of the mayor is an entertaining role and he didn't really play up the mayor's stupidity as much as he could have. Same for the guy who played Marcellus. He could have put more into it. Buddy Hackett made this role unique and fun. This guy just made it...okay. Not bad, but not very good either.

Overall, I enjoyed the movie more than I thought I would. Mainly because of Kristin Chenoweth. I didn't think this movie was great, but it wasn't bad. It was...fine.

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.

The 1962 motion picture version of THE MUSIC MAN was great. A perfect version of a fantastic musical. There was no reason to remake it, but remake it they did. The whole film was a total waste of time. Matthew Broderick was terrible. His reading of the part was so bland and boring. I didn't believe for a minute that Broderick's Harold Hill could con anyone. Only Kristin Chenoweth as Marion came off as the best performance in this production. I compare this stinker to the other horrible remake that Disney did with SOUTH PACIFIC. If Disney is going to remake films, remake the bad ones like MAME or THE WIZ. The only time Disney improved on a film was with ANNIE.

Reaction to this production has been very emotional and on the musicals board I have had to endure the most incredible bashing because I actually liked it.

Some people have been critical of my opinion because I had the temerity to assume they were comparing it to the classic movie version, which I adore. They weren't thinking of that at all. Yeah, right.

This was a great production of this great musical. I have no reservations. I'm sorry if the Harold Hill was not the creepy crawly we are used to in Robert Preston or that Marion was not the sweet fickle thing we knew in Shirley Jones. It is of the nature of musicals and of stage plays that were not written as screenplays in general to be open to various interpretations in various producations. I've seen a dinner theatre version of West Side Story that was better than the movie.

I just don't get the criticism, most of which is based on our image of Broderick, who will turn 40 next month. He lacks neither the talent nor the presence nor the experience to pull this off, and boy did he pull it off!

At the risk of making a ludicrous juxtaposition, a musical as great as Music Man is like Shakespeare. It has to be defeated by wilfull misinterpretation rather than lifted into triumph by faithfulness to what it is all about, because just doing it right is all that is needed. The Disney production was not a misinterpretation, and it does it right.